Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

How MTV’s “Jersey Shore” fetishized the Guido, a subversive ethnic stereotype that America disdained

In the same year “Teen Mom” premiered, MTV embarked on another “more real” reality show tentatively titled “Bridge and Tunnel.” Camille Dodero (2011), who profiled the never-aired series for the Village Voice, called “Bridge and Tunnel” “the anti-‘Hills,’ a blue-collar rebuttal to the grossly loaded California clan that begat plastic-surgery monster Heidi Montag.” While “The Hills” and “The City” presented the easy success of wealthy, white Americans living in Los Angeles and New York City, respectively, “Bridge and Tunnel” was created to focus on working-class kids striving toward a better life in the ethnically circumscribed neighborhoods of Staten Island, New York. In other words, the series wanted the class status of the cast emphasized. During the preproduction process, MTV suggested putting “Bridge and Tunnel’s” cast into a house, “Real World”–style (i.e., providing cast members with a hot tub and a steady stream of alcohol), and renaming the series “Staten Island” (thus keeping in the MTV tradition of naming reality identity shows after the location in which they are set). But the independent production company behind “Bridge and Tunnel,” Ish Entertainment, refused, arguing that its show was about “kids with stories, not kids whose only stories [a] re the show.” Ish Entertainment felt strongly that taking cast members out of context, that is, out of their neighborhood, would jeopardize the authenticity of their stories. 

As with so many of MTV’s reality identity series, including “The Real World” and “Teen Mom,” there is a tension between control and authenticity, stereotypes and nuanced portrayals. Soon after this dispute, “Bridge and Tunnel” was permanently shelved, and, in its place, MTV aired a new reality series featuring cast members, Italian Americans in their 20s, remarkably similar to those of “Bridge and Tunnel.” Only, instead of filming these young Italian Americans in their own neighborhoods and homes (as Ish Entertainment Entertainment wanted to do with “Bridge and Tunnel”), MTV placed its cast members in a beach house along the New Jersey shoreline. But perhaps the biggest difference between “Bridge and Tunnel” and the series that would come to be known as “Jersey Shore” was the latter’s foregrounding and fetishization of a derogatory term for a certain type of Italian American: the Guido. Indeed, the very first promotional trailer for “Jersey Shore” promised to showcase the lifestyles of the “hottest, tannest, craziest Guidos,” that is, Italian American youth who enjoy grooming, showing off, and partying. 

The Guido label provides coherence and a solid ethnic character to a set of otherwise unmarked stylistic choices, including the acquisition of expensive clothing, footwear, jewelry, and cars. Embedded in this chosen identity is a predilection for display that goes beyond conspicuous consumption. Dancing and mingling at nightclubs, which forms the crux of Guido subculture depicted on “Jersey Shore,” is about visibility and performance, seeing and being seen. A Washington Post article on Guidos highlights the to-be-looked-at-ness of this identity: “The guido ethos is showy, it bumps shoulders and yells. It is a hey-baby culture, in which the men are macho and the women wear spandex. When cruising in cars — a popular pastime — guidos like loud dance music and loud-looking girls. When they walk, they thrust their shoulders back and take over sidewalks.” Guidos are “unruly” because they identify as Italian American, flaunt the “wrong” image of Italian Americans, and then demand that this transgressive image be witnessed and admired. In dressing to be noticed, not to assimilate, Guidos reject the white, Protestant work ethic. Their focus on consumption over the acquisition of cultural capital subverts the classic immigrant trajectory in American society. Concerns within the Italian American community over Guido identities are therefore rooted in its ties to youth culture and in its perceived lack of cultural capital. 

The Guido subculture’s lack of cultural capital is most evident in the perceived opposition between “hip” Manhattan clubgoers and those who live in New Jersey, Staten Island, or New York’s outer boroughs: the much-maligned “bridge and tunnel” (B & T) crowd. The animosity for the B & T crowd, that irrelevant “monstrous urban limbo” of Bronx-Brooklyn-Queens, extends beyond the city native’s typical distaste for tourists, and instead it highlights both a class- and ethnicity-based bias. For example, in March 2011, street artists Jeff Greenspan and Hunter Fine began setting B & T traps (including hair gel, cheap cologne, and self-tanning spray) outside of hip New York City clubs like Mason & Dixon. These art installations, while intended to be whimsical and humorous, nevertheless relegate a working-class, Italian American identity to an outsider status. Guidos are something to trap and quarantine in order to preserve the hipness of the nearby club. Although Italian Americans are an entrenched part of New York City’s multiethnic identities, the Guido is subjected to culturally sanctioned xenophobia.

Whereas on “The Hills” and “Teen Mom” the women are defined by their job aspirations or their poor decisions, the cast members of “Jersey Shore” are defined, first and foremost, by their Guido identities. Adopting the Guido identity has provided “Jersey Shore’s” cast members with fame, money, and lucrative business opportunities. Several “Jersey Shore” personalities have published books, started clothing lines, and agreed to endorse products that range from weight-loss supplements and bronzer to muscle-enhancing vodka. Interestingly, their financial success and fame are built on a Guido identity, despite the fact that it is nevertheless associated with unrefined tastes. For example, in 2010, one of Chanel’s competitors sent “Jersey Shore” star Snooki a free Chanel handbag in the mail. The competitors sent the expensive bag to Snooki in the hopes that it would discourage her from donning one of their products in public. Observer columnist Simon Doonan (2010) calls this “preemptive product placement,” or “unbranding”: “As much as one might adore Miss Snickerdoodle, her ability to is questionable. The bottom line? Nobody in fashion wants to co-brand with Snooki.” As discussed in Chapter 3, not all reality tv celebrity functions in the same way. While Lauren Conrad was able to convert her MTV fame into a clothing line at Kohl’s department stores (among many other commercial deals), Farrah Abraham’s brand of MTV fame, pornography, got her kicked out of Lisa Vanderpump’s party. By performing in a pornographic film, Farrah squandered the opportunity to rehabilitate her At-Risk image. Farrah’s violations of taste are clear, but what did The Situation and Snooki do to earn their toxic celebrity identities? The answer, of course, is their status as Guidos. To wit, in 2011 the Abercrombie & Fitch clothing line reportedly offered to pay another “Jersey Shore” star, The Situation, to stop wearing their clothing, stating, “We understand that the show is for entertainment purposes, but believe this association is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans.” Guidos, at least according to Abercrombie & Fitch, are not aspirational. As much as The Situation, Snooki, and the rest of the “Jersey Shore” cast embrace being Guidos and celebrate their ancestry, this identity is always-already coded as something nonaspirational. Brands that depend on cultural capital for their existence, like Abercrombie & Fitch or Lisa Vanderpump, must dissociate themselves from these tainted identities. This is just one of the ways in which gender, class, and racial norms structure the way MTV reality stars are marketed and treated. 

Co-creators of “The Real World” Jonathan Murray and Mary- Ellis Bunim initially structured the landmark reality series as “liberal utopias free of racism” as a way to bring together different ethnicities and cultures with the hopes that they would learn from each other over the course of a season. By contrast, a series like “Jersey Shore” aims to simply isolate a single homogeneous identity and amplify it, creating another page for MTV’s identity workbook. It is also important to note that “Jersey Shore” isolates this ethnic identity, not to honor it but to mock it. “Jersey Shore” therefore sits somewhere in the middle of the shame/aspiration spectrum occupied previously by the contrast between “Teen Mom’s” cast and “The Hills'” cast. “Jersey Shore’s cast of Guidos has not violated or transgressed any moral codes (like the women of “Teen Mom”).

If anything, the Guidos of Jersey Shore “live up” to the stereotypes circulating about Italian American identities, and, consequently, they do not need to perform their absolution onscreen, like Amber or Farrah, in order to profit from their celebrity identities, “low class” though they may be. However, as working-class bodies codified as “nonwhite,” the cast of “Jersey Shore” is still subject to shaming and ridicule, as evidenced by Abercrombie & Fitch’s desire to distance its brand from the casts’ adoration of the clothing and Chanel tricking Snooki into carrying a competitor’s handbag.

The more the cast members inflate their ethnic identity, making it clear and unambiguous to viewers, the more successful they are on “Jersey Shore” as well as in ancillary markets (but only when selling products that emphasize partying or grooming for a party). As discussed in the introduction to this book, identity confession is a necessary prerequisite for these MTV reality series to make sense. From their first moments of screen time, the “Jersey Shore” cast embraces being a Guido, whether by explicitly using the term or by engaging in the behaviors the series implicitly aligns with Guidoness, such as grooming, tanning, exercising, or eating Italian food. Catchphrases and codified behaviors help MTV cast members to self-brand and make the messy signifiers of real-life ethnicity more legible onscreen. Perhaps the most salient signifier of the Guido subculture is the daily grooming ritual, known as “Gym. Tan. Laundry,” or “GTL.” In Season 1, Episode 6, The Situation explains the ritual: “If I didn’t do my GTL or take care of myself, I don’t know what I’d look like. If you don’t go to the gym, you don’t look good. If you don’t tan, you’re pale. If you don’t do laundry, you ain’t got no clothes.”

The Situation’s description of his ritual is paired with a montage of his GTL routine: lifting weights at the gym, getting into a tanning bed at the salon, and picking up freshly laundered clothes from the laundromat. The amount of time, energy, and money required to perform these tasks is considerable, and the fact that they need to be performed before any socializing can take place highlights the price The Situation and his roommates pay to look “fresh to death.” The Situation is familiar with the conventions of reality television and understands that extreme personalities and catchphrases play well with audiences, yet his insistence on GTL as a ritual, by its very utterance on camera, has become a compulsory ritual for The Situation (and eventually for his roommates). By proclaiming GTL as his daily ritual on TV, The Situation has placed himself in a situation (no pun intended) where he must abide by these (self-imposed) grooming habits to maintain his Guido identity. 

GTL is a salient example of how the series creates and codifies, rather than simply reports or documents, identity. This becomes clear in Season 4 of “Jersey Shore,” when MTV sent the cast to live in Italy for just over a month. The ostensible reason behind the European trip was to give the cast members a chance to experience their homeland, the country of their Italian ancestors. In reality, the trip provides various opportunities for MTV’s production crew to point out how different the cast members are from their country of origin and their ancestors. The cast members spend much of their time in Italy attempting to replicate their lifestyles from America, and thus the Season 5 premiere focuses on the cast’s joy over returning to the United States. What did the “Jersey Shore” men miss most about America while in Italy? Their GTL ritual. When they are away in Italy, the men are unable to partake in this ritual with the frequency and quality to which they are accustomed in the States, forcing The Situation to declare an emergency: “We’re losing weight and we’re getting pale!” After a tanning session, a good workout, and a fresh cut from the barber shop, cast member Ronnie Ortiz-Magaro explains, “I feel like I’m in heaven because I get to GTL again.” Although the crew was only gone for 40 days, and Italy boasts some of the world’s most beautiful beaches (perfect for tanning pale American skin), the crew cannot be truly “fresh to death” unless they are in America. While their identities as Guidos are tied to a presumed Italian ancestry, it is, ironically, only America that can shore up the borders of their Guido identities. 

“Jersey Shore” provided MTV audiences with an opportunity to laugh at onscreen identities rather than long for their wealth and way of life (as in “The Hills”). The strategy worked; “Jersey Shore” became MTV’s highest-rated series in both cable and broadcast television in the summer of 2010. The series was extremely profitable for MTV, running for six seasons and leading to (less successful) spin-offs like “Snooki & J Woww,” “The Pauly D Project,” and “The Show with Vinny.” By 2012, “Jersey Shore” stood as MTV’s highest-rated show of all time, pulling in more viewers in the coveted 12- to 34-four-year-old demographic than “American Idol,” the former ratings juggernaut. Recall that when MTV first thought about offering its post-Recession audience less aspirational and more realistic youth identities, it turned to the Italian American youth of Staten Island depicted in “Bridge and Tunnel.” But the never-aired series’ interest in class struggles and “kids with stories” was replaced by “Jersey Shore,” a show about “kids whose kids whose only stories [a]re the show.” The former would have offered context and nuance for the ethnic identities onscreen, whereas the latter trafficked in broad ethnic stereotypes.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s desperate COVID relief bill stunt just blew up in his face

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) this week forced a reading of the entire COVID-19 relief package on the Senate floor, which took up more than ten hours and didn’t conclude until early on Friday morning.

However, CNN’s Lauren Fox reported on Friday that Johnson’s stunt backfired spectacularly, as it resulted in giving Republicans a far shorter period of debate for the bill.

“They finished in the middle of the night and in the end, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from the state of Maryland, rose to ask for some consent to restart this debate beginning at 9 a.m. today in the U.S. Senate,” she said.

The key, Fox explained, was that Van Hollen asked for three hours to debate the bill instead of the expected 20 hours of time.

Johnson was not in the Senate at the time of Hollen’s proposal and could not object to it — and so it was adopted.

“In the end, instead of having 20 hours of debate, because there wasn’t a Republican there to object at the end of this process, they are now just going to have three hours of debate,” she said. “Then they will start at noon with this vote-a-rama.”

Watch the video below.

Megyn Kelly slammed for critiquing Oprah’s interview style: “Peak conservative stupidity”

Oprah’s bombshell CBS interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle has dominated streaming and social media since it aired Sunday evening. In the 2-hour special, viewers heard the couple describe their experiences with systemic abuse and familial negligence as a result of the British society’s racism and the royal institution’s obsession with public opinion.

There were too many moments to even recount in detail: Markle discussing the fact that it was actually Kate Middleton who made her cry, rumors of members of the royal family deliberating on what color baby Archie’s skin would be, and in a stunning moment of vulnerability, Markel revealing the depths of her struggle with her mental health throughout. With a pained look on her face, Markle shared that it got to the point that she just “did not want to live anymore.” But what might naturally prompt an empathetic reaction in most has curiously caused others to begin frothing at the mouth. Not only because Markle is a woman of color with the audacity to challenge a structure as antiquated as the British Monarchy, but also because she was aided in telling her story by another Black woman, daytime TV icon Oprah Winfrey. 

The typical reactionary right-wing pundits like Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro have already made sweeping movements to discredit Markle’s experiences. But in a disappointing yet unsurprising rant ahead of International Women’s day, former Fox News pundit and fired NBC daytime host Megyn Kelly took to Twitter to join Piers Morgan in his critique of Markle, essentially conflating the privilege of royal life with immunity from mistreatment of those in power.

In a conversation on “Good Morning Britain,” Kelly and Morgan goaded each other into the delusion that they would somehow know more about the circumstances surrounding Meghan and Harry’s exit from the royal family than Meghan and Harry themselves. Kelly at one point insisted it’s “not about race” because the British public used to adore Markle, ignoring a well-documented history of racist and sexist portrayals of her in the media.

It is unsurprising that Kelly would lack the tact or nuance to understand that issues surrounding race are more complex than what she can perceive in her limited scope of experiences. She has built a career off inciting prejudiced judgments against others and casting doubt upon the lived experiences of Black people. Some highlights of this include, suggesting a 14-year-old child body-slammed by a police officer was “no saint,” insinuating that Sandra Bland had some responsibility in her arrest and subsequent death for not complying with police orders, and mocked distrust in law enforcement in Black communities as a “thug mentality rather than accepting the validity of a weariness that comes from decades of systemic oppression.  

Oprah, on the other hand, is one of the most respected and lauded broadcast personalities of the 20th century. As the trailblazing host of the “Oprah Winfrey Show,” she helmed the highest-rated daytime talk show ever. If social media and various articles are an indication of how the public received her as an interviewer, the overwhelming consensus is that she did it in the way that only someone of her skill and humanity could.

Perhaps this is what infuriates people like Megyn Kelly so much, as some on Twitter were quick to point out: 

Observing the cadence, understanding and gentle persistence Winfrey displayed while she asked bombshell question after bombshell question, Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan declared that Winfrey is the “greatest celebrity interviewer of all time.”

As we can easily recall, part of the downfall of Kelly’s poorly rated NBC show was because of her bizarre insistence that dressing up in Blackface for a Halloween costume was really not all that bad, and didn’t need to have a big deal made about it.

CDC finally issues guidelines on what is safe to do once vaccinated

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued new guidelines on Monday that, for the first time ever, offer reassurances to vaccinated Americans that they can begin the process of resuming normal life.

The rules are meant for Americans who have been fully vaccinated, and do not apply to people in healthcare settings. “Fully vaccinated” means that those Americans have waited at least two weeks since either receiving two doses of the mRNA vaccines manufactured by Pfizer or Moderna or one dose of Johnson & Johnson’s conventional vaccine. By that time, public health officials believe that one’s body is fully immunized against SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19.

The new guidelines are not entirely permissive, but they do gradually roll back restrictions to which millions of Americans have grown accustomed. The CDC says fully vaccinated Americans can socialize with other fully vaccinated Americans while indoors, without needing to wear a mask or socially distance. They are also informed that they can visit unvaccinated people from single households while indoors, and without wearing a mask or social distancing, as long as the unvaccinated individuals are at low risk of contracting severe COVID-19. (People at high risk are those with underlying serious health conditions, like cancer or heart disease, or who are over the age of 65.) Finally, the guidelines state that fully vaccinated Americans do not need to be tested or quarantined “following a known exposure if asymptomatic.”

“As more Americans are vaccinated, a growing body of evidence now tells us that there are some activities fully vaccinated people can do,” CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky explained during a White House briefing on Monday.

Yet Walensky emphasized that America is not done with the pandemic yet.

“I want to stress that we continue to have high levels of virus around the country, and more readily transmissible variants have now been confirmed in nearly every state,” Walensky said. “While we work to quickly vaccinate people more and more each day, we have to see this through.”

The CDC’s new guidelines stand in stark contrast to the more drastic reversals being implemented in many Republican-run states like Texas and Mississippi, where leaders are entirely eliminating mask mandates and business restrictions — a move that alarms public health experts.

“From both a public health and economic/societal perspective, the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions is not an all or none affair, especially as an increasingly larger proportion of the US population is now being vaccinated,” Dr. Russell Medford, Chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, told Salon by email. “As the CDC just announced today regarding new guidelines that ease personal restrictions for those fully-vaccinated against COVID, our nation’s goal to eliminate COVID-19 can be achieved in concert with responsible and gradual easing of state restrictions that reflect a reduction in risk of resurgence of the pandemic. “

Ben Shapiro suggests Meghan Markle is lying about racist backlash: “No one says anything like that”

Right-wing radio host Ben Shapiro scoffed at Meghan Markle’s claims that people in the royal family expressed concerns over her unborn son’s skin color.

“I don’t think it happened,” the pundit said during a Monday taping of his Daily Wire show. “The reason I don’t think that happened is because no one says anything like that.

Shapiro’s disbelief comes in response to a bombshell CBS interview on Sunday between Oprah Winfrey, Duchess Markle, and her husband, Prince Harry, during which the Prince and the Duchess explained their motivations for breaking with the royal family. Markle recounted many instances of racism she endured during her time within Buckingham Palace. The Dutchess described concerns and conversations within the royal family about the complexion of her unborn son’s skin. Winfrey had asked whether Markle could share the exact questions of people who expressed these concerns, but Markle declined. 

“[The concerns] were relayed to me from Harry,” she told Winfrey. “Those were conversations that family had with him. That would be very damaging to them.”

During his show, Shapiro objected to Winfrey’s interviewing style. “Now, this would be an excellent time for Oprah, being the interview,” he said, “to ask, ok, ‘Can you name a name?'”

Shapiro’s disregard of the emotional complexity fits squarely into his defining catchphrase: “Facts over fiction.”

“‘How dark is your son’s skin going to be?'” he continued, “Beyond like, the racism of it, the actual stupidity, like the human stupidity of asking that question.” 

Shapiro’s detestation of racism also runs in direct contrast to his own rhetoric regarding race in the past. In 2011, Shapiro tweeted, “If you wear your pants below your butt, don’t bend the brim of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life.m of your cap, and have an EBT card, 0% chance you will ever be a success in life.”

More than denying Markle’s lived experience, Shapiro took strong issue with the fact that the Prince was out speaking against his own family. “Imagine being Prince Philip,” Shapiro tweeted, “fighting Nazis, helping preside over the UK during the Cold War and the economic struggles of the 1970s, and now watching your spoiled grandson basically call the institution to which you have silently devoted your life a vile repository of bigotry.”

Shapiro capped off his flurry of outrage by accusing the Duchess of weaponizing wokeness. He tweeted, “We told you not to screw with us, George III. And now we’ve unleashed our most dangerous resource: B-rate TV actresses wielding wokeness.”

Watch below, via Media Matters:

“Slalom” director on pushing limits & the abuse of a skier by her coach: “This film is about bodies”

Writer/director Charlène Favier makes an impressive feature film debut with “Slalom,” screening at Rendez-Vous with French Cinema, March 7-12 (and available more widely on April 9). In this sports drama, 15-year-old skier Lyz Lopez (Noée Abita) trains rigorously with coach Fred (Jérémie Renier of “Summer Hours“) to win a series of competitions. 

As Lyz acclimates to the program, she is told, “Fred crushes you, you listen, and you get better.” The coach’s methods are tough — he is demanding — and Renier makes Fred imperious both before and after he crosses the line. He is comforting when Lyz gets her period one day, but on another night, after Lyz wins a big competition, he sexually abuses her. And when Lyz’s failing school grades become a concern, she moves in with Fred and his business and romantic partner, Lilou (Marie Denarnaud). The coach/skier’s added closeness only make their sexual dynamic even more fraught. 

“Slalom” is absorbing as Lyz faces additional pressures and balances the sport she loves and her burgeoning sexuality. Favier coaxes a strong performance out of Abita, who communicates (and masks) the pain she feels as she struggles to come of age, while Renier is both seductive and sinister. 

The actor and filmmaker both chatted with Salon, with the assistance of interpreter Lilia Pino Blouin, about their intense new drama.  

What can you say about avoiding clichés in making a sports and teen coming of age film?

Charlène Favier: I purposely turned the clichés upside down. Normally, the teenager figures out what they want to do in life after many problems. Here, it is the opposite. I wanted to show something that we never talk about in the sport world, the backstage of this competitive environment. 

Did you look at other sports films, or was there a film you modeled this after?

Favier: I watched many films while I was writing the script, including Damien Chazelle’s “Whiplash,” but I was not inspired by film; I was inspired by my own story. This film was really personal. I had to write this story. My producer and my scriptwriter friends told me, “Do you realize you are writing a story about sexual abuse?” It was quite therapeutic. Sometimes you feel you have to tell something, but it takes time to analyze and understand what I was thinking. It was not a film I made because I’m a movie lover, it was a film I made to talk to heal myself. It’s a different process.

Can you talk about the film’s depiction of teenage female sexuality, which extends to Lyz’s friends?

Favier: The sexuality is really interesting. It’s in all my short films, as well, because it tells something important about the behavior between the people and the erotic tension that you can have — even when it’s not on purpose. You have to deal with these feelings. It’s something we don’t talk about enough. Sexuality is an interesting dialogue between the body as well — not just about sex, but feeling, emotion — many different topics. I like to explore sexuality and see how the body reacts. The contradictions of what you want to do — and then doing the opposite. Your brain and body act differently. The sexual impulse is a mysterious war.

In “Slalom,” I explore the limits and boundaries that are not clear between a trainer and a young athlete, but it’s also true that throughout the film, all the boundaries of sexuality are weird. I explore that erotic tension between Lyz and Fred, but also between Lyz and her friend Justine (Maïra Schmitt), because Justine is attracted to Lyz and she doesn’t know what she’s feeling. Max (Axel Aurient) is attracted to Lyz, and I think she’s attracted to him as well, but she’s in love with Fred who has a grip on her. She can’t live a normal love story with a guy her age. 

Lyz and Fred feed each other’s ego. I saw it as “Lolita” has Stockholm Syndrome. How did you find the humanity in Fred? 

Jérémie Renier: He’s not a monster; that’s not how we saw it. I tried to understand him and his actions. The film makes him complex, going beyond the dichotomy between the monster and the victim. All the work we did was to understand how the characters got to that point, and my job was to understand what Charlène had in her head and to build that relationship. He projects himself in Lyz’s success, which he didn’t achieve in his own life. That projection is based on her performance, and at a certain point he switches and loses control. He’s not a serial abuser. He doesn’t have that in him. 

Favier: I wanted to explore all of Fred’s contradictions. At the outset, he is a good guy, who believes in what he is doing with his club and he wants to be a good trainer. And then he meets Lyz and starts living vicariously through her victories. This takes him back to his unhealthy [past]. I wanted him to show how he’s fighting, and he does feel deeply guilty, and realizes, with tears in his eyes, “What have I done?” In this case, he is a man, but it could have been a woman. A lot of men seeing the film, can see themselves, and after some screenings, some trainers have told me, “I identified with him; that could have been me.” 

What do you think was the motivation for Fred kissing Lyz in the car, initiating physical sexual contact, and later escalating his inappropriate behavior?

Renier: That is something we reflected upon for a long time. I was really troubled when I read the [sex] scene and needed time on how to approach it, and find my bearing, and how to play it. In that particular scene, he switches and [is inappropriate], and we needed to see what Lyz was feeling and what my character was going through. He was taken over by an animal feeling, and he does what he does, and after that, he understands what he has done, and he gains consciousness and awareness. 

Favier: I had this scene in the car in my head from the beginning. Some producers said I had to avoid this sequence, but it was important to me. It’s not the first kiss of an abuser; he is in love with her. He modeled her and molded her. His feeling is, “I have a champion in my hands. I made her. It’s magical and incredible.” That she’s 15 and he’s 39, 40, just disappears. It’s about limits and stretching those limits. In sports, that happens a lot. People spend all that time together. It is slippery in terms of love. But he believes he’s in love. The film then switches tone and a line is crossed. He can no longer control himself. His masculinity is unbridled, and he cannot stop. I have a close-up of her dirty hands, and I focus on those child-like hands. At that point, he does feel a sense of guilt. He tells himself he’s gone too far. We enter into a whole new dimension. Even the colors and vibe change and we go from it being a fairy tale to a waking nightmare. You see a psychological component to [this abuse], which Fred is not fully aware of. In the sports world, the training is based on destabilizing, and what the other person will be able to put up with, and what they can tolerate. Liz is questioning her relationship with pain. It’s about losing one’s bearing and pushing one’s limit. 

Do you think Fred feels invincible or self-destructive?

Renier: As a coach, he has a strong character, and he wants to set a pace for his team and impose a vision. I tried to find the humanity in his actions. I lived with coaches in the ski world for a few weeks and I familiarized myself with the way they spoke and moved. That nourished this character. I wanted to figure out where he came from. Coaches are often former athletes who didn’t succeed so they do harbor frustration that they tend to take out on the kids. 

What about Lyz’s self-destructive tendencies? Surely, the pressure she feels contributes to her actions? 

Favier: You have two factors. The first is the teenage period when you don’t know what’s bad or what’s good, and you test your limits. This hurts, or this is not hurting me, I can do more. When you are a teenager you are looking at your limits in every field. Teenagers self-harm to see what it is like and to see how far they can test their limits. Fred also plays with her in a psychological way, telling her, “You are the one,” or “You are s**t.” He’s changing his behavior and being very contradictory. She is lost and doing everything to please Fred. She is ready to self-harm so he can be happy with her. She no longer knows what constitutes harm and what doesn’t.

Can you talk about filming bodies — both the sexuality and the athleticism?

Favier: The film is about bodies. There is very little dialogue; the bodies themselves talk, and they come closer to each other, or they reject each other, or they tighten up. It’s all about erotic tension of the body, and the physical effort is connected to testing one’s limits. She exerts herself no longer for herself but to meet his desire and do what he wants her to. He takes that away from her, and we no longer know what she wants to do, or what she does because of what he expects from her. I was always so close to Noée, and the camera follows Lyz’s gaze. The film is through her point of view. It is through her that we discover his body, and the camera truly follows her feelings and emotions closely.

Renier: Talking about the body, it speaks to me a lot as an actor, because it is a tool I use a lot. It’s a component of my job. I use my body, I modify my body, and I put it at the disposal of a character and a filmmaker. We spoke about that quite a lot. The world of sport hinges on the body, and it’s natural for people to get naked and touch each other. People deal with their bodies [differently] in the athletic world. But the way the film was shot, there was nothing negative about it. They were bodies meant to do extremely successful things and they are stretched to the limit. That’s what athletes do, and actors do pretty much the same thing. 

How are you as skiers? I notice that Jérémie never was on the slopes.

Renier: Of course! I’m the best skier in the world! [Laughs] I ski and snowboard.  

Favier: Noée had never skied before. We shot a short film a few years back, and at the end of the shooting of the short, I asked her if she skied, and she told me she did. Two months before shooting “Slalom,” she told me she lied. We used body doubles for her, but she had to learn all the physical behavior of skiing. I pushed her to go with me and a specialist to learn. She had to watch ski videos and did some cross-country skiing to feel the glide.

I am a skier. I grew up in Val d’Isere, a ski resort. My mother is a ski instructor. Skiing is really important in my life, as are all of the winter sports. I’m also a surfer. I find that slope sports are really visual. There is an intrinsic tension which becomes dramatic instantly, because the body is gliding down the slopes. It is also connected to self-destruction, which is natural in teenage years, when you don’t have fear. And the environment of the mountains in Val d’Isere is very cinematic.

“Slalom” is released as part of the Rendez-Vous with French Cinema, March 7-12 and available more widely on April 9.

Lindsey Graham admits Trump could “destroy” GOP after he sends the RNC a cease-and-desist letter

In a Sunday interview with Axios, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., described former President Trump’s hold over the Republican Party as something of a hostage situation. 

The former President, Graham said, “could make the Republican Party something that nobody else I know could make it. He could make it bigger. He could make it stronger. He could make it more diverse. And he also could destroy it.”

The Senator continued to describe the former President along the lines of the duality of man. Trump, he said, has both a “dark side” and some “magic” in him. “What I’m trying to do is just harness the magic.”

Prior to Trump’s nomination in 2016, Sen. Graham had been a staunch critic of the former President, arguing that he was not mentally fit for the role. After Trump was nominated, however, Graham quickly fell into Trump’s good graces, becoming one of his most ardent allies. 

Although Graham did not support Trump’s impeachment, the senator admitted that Trump “needs to understand that his actions were the problem” leading up the Capitol insurrection. 

“Donald Trump was my friend before the riot,” Graham said. “And I’m trying to keep a relationship with him after the riot. I still consider him a friend. What happened was a dark day in American history, and we’re going to move forward.”

He continued, “So here’s what you need to know about me: I’m going to continue — I want us to continue the policies that I think will make America strong. I believe that the best way for the Republican Party to do that is with Trump, not without Trump.”

The senator’s comments come amid a great reckoning amongst conservatives about Trump’s influence in the future of the Republican Party.

Several Republicans, such as Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Sen. Mitt Romney. R-Utah, have expressed an interest in charting a new course without Trump. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has criticized Trump in the past several weeks, but said that he would ultimately support the former President’s potential bid in 2024.

Trump has been selective about his endorsements in the upcoming Senate elections. Weeks ago, Trump backed the primary opponent of Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio, who was one of the ten Senators who voted to impeach him. The former President also endorsed Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Senator Tim Scott, R-S.C. the only black Republican in the Senate.

Trump has also shown signs of breaking with certain Republican organizations cashing in on his political capital. On Saturday, NBC News reported that the former President’s lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters to three Republican organizations –– the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Senate Committee –– demanding that they discontinue the usage of Trump’s name and likeness.

During Trump’s CPAC speech two weeks ago, the former President listed off the names of Congressional Republicans who voted to impeach him, urging his followers to “get rid of them all.” He said that the only way to support “our efforts” is to elect Trump-supporting Republicans.

Republican governors are rolling back COVID-19 restrictions — and health experts are horrified

West University, a small city in Texas’ Greater Houston metropolitan area, is grappling with the state’s impending removal of COVID-19 mask mandates and business restrictions. Even though the policies are set to be implemented on Wednesday, many business owners in the state are unsure how to respond to it.

“I don’t believe the onus should be on small business, especially in the hospitality industry,” Al Jara, owner of a West University watering hole called Marquis II, told Houston ABC affiliate KTRK when describing his frustration over figuring out how to best satisfy his customers. “Over the last year, we’ve been hurt the most, and requiring us now to take a side on the mask isn’t right in my opinion.”

Texas is not alone in rolling back COVID-19 restrictions designed to protect public health. Last week Republican governors in West Virginia, Mississippi and Alabama joined Texas’ Gov. Greg Abbott in announcing varying degrees of loosening or phasing out pandemic regulations that had been put into place over the past year. Some states, like Alaska and Georgia, never implemented mask mandates in the first place. Others, like Florida, decided to reopen their businesses months ago (September in the case of Florida).

In Texas specifically, Abbott has vowed to open the state “100 percent” by ending a mask mandate implemented in July and telling businesses they can reopen. Mississippi has already ended its statewide mask mandates and state-imposed pandemic restrictions. In West Virginia, the governor announced that restaurants and bars will be able to operate at 100 percent seating capacity, but he drew the line at revoking the mask mandate.

It seems political leaders in the South are particularly fed up with pandemic-related public health restrictions. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey actually announced that she was extending the statewide mask mandate until April 19, but it is currently expected to expire at that time. Arkansas announced an end to most of its indoor capacity restrictions last month and said that, if the state falls below certain thresholds in hospitalizations and test positivity, it will end its mask mandate on March 31. 

Public health experts have been unequivocally horrified at the moves, and say prematurely removing mask mandates and fully reopening businesses is a very bad idea.

“The decision to reduce mask wearing and reopen business anywhere in the US in extremely unwise and in fact dangerous,” Dr. William Haseltine, a biologist and chair of Access Health International, told Salon by email. “Twice we reopened prematurely and have suffered grievously in terms of numbers of dead and of those who are suffering from long term Covid-related disease.”

Haseltine was not alone in expressing this concern.

“From a public health perspective it makes zero sense to abandon pandemic precautions at this time!” Dr. Alfred Sommer, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, wrote to Salon. “Only a small percentage of our population has been vaccinated as yet — we won’t have herd immunity that would materially reduce our collective risk until 70+ percent have been immunized. Nothing has changed that should embolden relaxing our guard at this point.”

How do we protect science from the next Trump?

After four long years of a presidential administration that was openly hostile to science — that sought to undermine federal agencies’ ability to protect the public from everything from pollution to a pandemic — the U.S. government is once again listening to scientists. Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers reintroduced the Scientific Integrity Act, which would help guard federal science against political interference. This legislation, together with President Biden’s January 27 memorandum addressing scientific integrity, could represent the strongest protections for federal scientists we have ever seen.

One could easily get the impression that, almost overnight, science has been restored to its rightful place and the work is done. 

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but distrust of science does not appear to be fading. And very real, if subtle, climate denial has already reared its head in the newly seated Congress. Future presidential administrations and future Congresses, backed by the financial power of polluting industries, could easily push the pendulum back in the anti-science direction.

Such dramatic policy swings exact significant costs on the environment and economy, both at home and abroad. How can we ensure that, when power shifts again, the U.S. government remains fundamentally grounded in empirical reality and committed to pursuing policies that are informed by the best available science?

In the near term, it will be important to establish strong congressional oversight, reverse anti-science rules from the Trump era, and ensure that the civil service remains a well-qualified and nonpartisan work force. But those steps can be relatively easily undone if political winds shift. The Scientific Integrity Act, if it becomes law, will have more staying power. But even legislation can be repealed or left unenforced.

To truly guard against anti-science ideologies, our federal agencies must fundamentally strengthen the culture of scientific integrity among their ranks. Career staff must get consistent and thorough training about scientific integrity policies, including clear guidance on what constitutes a violation and what scientists should do if they believe they are aware of a violation. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that that four of the nine agencies it examined — the Federal Aviation Administration, NASA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Office of Fossil Energy — offer no such training to their employees and affiliates, and the latter two agencies have not taken any actions at all to promote their scientific integrity policies with their staff. If scientific integrity training becomes a habit, it will empower both current and future federal scientists to speak up when they see politics interfering with science.

Several federal scientific agencies must also take steps to strengthen their scientific integrity policies. The current policies at some important scientific agencies, such as the Department of the Interior, NASA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, either do not unambiguously deem political interference a breach of scientific integrity or do not apply that standard to everyone covered by the policy. My organization, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, has developed guides to the scientific integrity policies of key federal agencies, as well as model language for agencies looking to strengthen their policies.

Building a lasting culture of scientific integrity will also require better enforcement of scientific integrity policies. Too often, agencies have found excuses to avoid confronting violations of the policies they already have. After National Park Service officials tried and failed to censor reports by then-NPS climate scientist Maria Caffrey, the officials went unpunished on the grounds that the censorship attempt was unsuccessful. (The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund provided pro bono legal support to Caffrey.) When Scott Pruitt, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, publicly asserted, contrary to scientific consensus, that there is “tremendous disagreement” about carbon dioxide’s influence on climate, and that we don’t yet know if “it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” a scientific integrity committee cleared him of wrongdoing on the dubious theory that he was simply expressing an opinion. When an independent panel found that the acting chief of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had violated the agency’s scientific integrity policy by succumbing to political pressure to support then-President Trump’s bizarre assertion that Hurricane Dorian would hit Alabama, no one was disciplined.

To ensure decisions are independent and discipline is administered appropriately, agencies must see to it that their policies address scientific integrity violations even by officials in the highest rungs of power. More broadly, agencies must commit to demonstrating to their scientists that scientific integrity is a priority. A 2020 survey by the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General found that hundreds of EPA employees were aware of scientific integrity violations but did not report them. Many of the employees said they chose not to report because they believed it wouldn’t matter. Agencies must show new generations of scientists that reports of political interference and other violations of scientific integrity will be taken seriously.

Collectively, these steps would foster a culture of scientific integrity among career civil servant scientists that could outlast any one administration, and they would help the federal government as a whole remain grounded in policy based on the best available science. We don’t know what countervailing forces may come into political power in the future. But the time to prepare for them is now.

* * *

Augusta Wilson (@AugustaCFWilson) is an attorney with the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.

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

Coronavirus deranges the immune system in complex and deadly ways

There’s a reason soldiers go through basic training before heading into combat: Without careful instruction, green recruits armed with powerful weapons could be as dangerous to one another as to the enemy.

The immune system works much the same way. Immune cells, which protect the body from infections, need to be “educated” to recognize bad guys — and to hold their fire around civilians.

In some covid patients, this education may be cut short. Scientists say unprepared immune cells appear to be responding to the coronavirus with a devastating release of chemicals, inflicting damage that may endure long after the threat has been eliminated.

“If you have a brand-new virus and the virus is winning, the immune system may go into an ‘all hands on deck’ response,” said Dr. Nina Luning Prak, co-author of a January study on covid and the immune system. “Things that are normally kept in close check are relaxed. The body may say, ‘Who cares? Give me all you’ve got.'”

While all viruses find ways to evade the body’s defenses, a growing field of research suggests that the coronavirus unhinges the immune system more profoundly than previously realized.

Some covid survivors have developed serious autoimmune diseases, which occur when an overactive immune system attacks the patient, rather than the virus. Doctors in Italy first noticed a pattern in March 2020, when several covid patients developed Guillain-Barré syndrome, in which the immune systems attacks nerves throughout the body, causing muscle weakness or paralysis. As the pandemic has surged around the world, doctors have diagnosed patients with rare, immune-related bleeding disorders. Other patients have developed the opposite problem, suffering blood clots that can lead to stroke.

All these conditions can be triggered by “autoantibodies” — rogue antibodies that target the patient’s own proteins and cells.

In a report published in October, researchers even labeled the coronavirus “the autoimmune virus.”

“Covid is deranging the immune system,” said John Wherry, director of the Penn Medicine Immune Health Institute and another co-author of the January study. “Some patients, from their very first visit, seem to have an immune system in hyperdrive.”

Although doctors are researching ways to overcome immune disorders in covid patients, new treatments will take time to develop. Scientists are still trying to understand why some immune cells become hyperactive — and why some refuse to stand down when the battle is over.

Key immune players called “helper T cells” typically help antibodies mature. If the body is invaded by a pathogen, however, these T cells can switch jobs to hunt down viruses, acting more like “killer T cells,” which destroy infected cells. When an infection is over, helper T cells usually go back to their old jobs.

In some people with severe covid, however, helper T cells don’t stand down when the infection is over, said James Heath, a professor and president of Seattle’s Institute for Systems Biology.

About 10% to 15% of hospitalized covid patients Heath studied had high levels of these cells even after clearing the infection. By comparison, Heath found lingering helper T cells in fewer than 5% of covid patients with less serious infections.

In affected patients, helper T cells were still looking for the enemy long after it had been eliminated. Heath is now studying whether these overzealous T cells might inflict damage that leads to chronic illness or symptoms of autoimmune disease.

“These T cells are still there months later and they’re aggressive,” Heath said. “They’re on the hunt.”

Friendly Fire

Covid appears to confuse multiple parts of the immune system.

In some patients, covid triggers autoantibodies that target the immune system itself, leaving patients without a key defense against the coronavirus.

In October, a study published in Science led by Rockefeller University’s Jean-Laurent Casanova showed that about 10% of covid patients become severely ill because they have antibodies against an immune system protein called interferon.

Disabling interferon is like knocking down a castle’s gate. Without these essential proteins, invading viruses can overwhelm the body and multiply wildly.

New research shows that the coronavirus may activate preexisting autoantibodies, as well as prompt the body to make new ones.

In the January study, half of the hospitalized covid patients had autoantibodies, compared with fewer than 15% of healthy people. While some of the autoantibodies were present before patients were infected with SARS-CoV-2, others developed over the course of the illness.

Other research has produced similar findings. In a study out in December, researchers found that hospitalized covid patients harbored a diverse array of autoantibodies.

While some patients studied had antibodies against virus-fighting interferons, others had antibodies that targeted the brain, thyroid, blood vessels, central nervous system, platelets, kidneys, heart and liver, said Dr. Aaron Ring, assistant professor of immunology at Yale School of Medicine and lead author of the December study, published online without peer review. Some patients had antibodies associated with lupus, a chronic autoimmune disorder that can cause pain and inflammation in any part of the body.

In his study, Ring and his colleagues found autoantibodies against proteins that help coordinate the immune system response. “These are the air traffic controllers,” Ring said. If these proteins are disrupted, “your immune system doesn’t work properly.”

Covid patients rife with autoantibodies tended to have the severest disease, said Ring, who said he was surprised at the level of autoantibodies in some patients. “They were comparable or even worse than lupus,” Ring said.

Although the studies are intriguing, they don’t prove that autoantibodies made people sicker, said Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist affiliated with Georgetown’s Center for Global Health Science and Security. It’s possible that the autoantibodies are simply markers of serious disease.

“It’s not clear that this is linked to disease severity,” Rasmussen said.

The studies’ authors acknowledge they have many unanswered questions.

“We don’t yet know what these autoantibodies do and we don’t know if [patients] will go on to develop autoimmune disease,” said Dr. PJ Utz, a professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford University School of Medicine and a co-author of Luning Prak’s paper.

But recent discoveries about autoantibodies have excited the scientific community, who now wonder if rogue antibodies could explain patients’ differing responses to many other viruses. Scientists also want to know precisely how the coronavirus turns the body against itself — and how long autoantibodies remain in the blood.

‘An Unfortunate Legacy’

Scientists working round-the-clock are already beginning to unravel these mysteries.

A study published online in January, for example, found rogue antibodies in patients’ blood up to seven months after infection.

Ring said researchers would like to know if lingering autoantibodies contribute to the symptoms of “long covid,” which afflicts one-third of covid survivors up to nine months after infection, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

“Long haulers” suffer from a wide range of symptoms, including debilitating fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, chest pain and joint pain, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Other patients experience depression, muscle pain, headaches, intermittent fevers, heart palpitations and problems with concentration and memory, known as brain fog.

Less commonly, some patients develop an inflammation of the heart muscle, abnormalities in their lung function, kidney issues, rashes, hair loss, smell and taste problems, sleep issues and anxiety.

The National Institutes of Health has announced a four-year initiative to better understand long covid, using $1.15 billion allocated by Congress.

Ring said he’d like to study patients over time to see if specific symptoms might be explained by lingering autoantibodies.

“We need to look at the same patients a half-year later and see which antibodies they do or don’t have,” he said. If autoantibodies are to blame for long covid, they could “represent an unfortunate legacy after the virus is gone.”

Widening the Investigation

Scientists say the coronavirus could undermine the immune system in several ways.

For example, it’s possible that immune cells become confused because some viral proteins resemble proteins found on human cells, Luning Prak said. It’s also possible that the coronavirus lurks in the body at very low levels even after patients recover from their initial infection.

“We’re still at the very beginning stages of this,” said Luning Prak, director of Penn Medicine’s Human Immunology Core Facility.

Dr. Shiv Pillai, a Harvard Medical School professor, notes that autoantibodies aren’t uncommon. Many healthy people walk around with dormant autoantibodies that never cause harm.

For reasons scientists don’t completely understand, viral infections appear able to tip the scales, triggering autoantibodies to attack, said Dr. Judith James, vice president of clinical affairs at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation and a co-author of Luning Prak’s study.

For example, the Epstein-Barr virus, best known for causing mononucleosis, has been linked to lupus and other autoimmune diseases. The bacteria that cause strep throat can lead to rheumatic fever, an inflammatory disease that can cause permanent heart damage. Doctors also know that influenza can trigger an autoimmune blood-clotting disorder, called thrombocytopenia.

Researchers are now investigating whether autoantibodies are involved in other illnesses — a possibility scientists rarely considered in the past.

Doctors have long wondered, for example, why a small number of people — mostly older adults — develop serious, even life-threatening reactions to the yellow fever vaccine. Three or four out of every 1 million people who receive this vaccine — made with a live, weakened virus — develop yellow fever because their immune systems don’t respond as expected, and the weakened virus multiplies and causes disease.

In a new paper in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, Rockefeller University’s Casanova has found that autoantibodies to interferon are once again to blame.

Casanova led a team that found three of the eight patients studied who experienced a dangerous vaccine reaction had autoantibodies that disabled interferon. Two other patients in the study had genes that disabled interferon.

“If you have these autoantibodies and you are vaccinated against yellow fever, you may end up in the ICU,” Casanova said.

Casanova’s lab is now investigating whether autoantibodies cause critical illness from influenza or herpes simplex virus, which can cause a rare brain inflammation called encephalitis.

Calming the Autoimmune Storm

Researchers are looking for ways to treat patients who have interferon deficiencies — a group at risk for severe covid complications.

In a small study published in February in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine, doctors tested an injectable type of interferon — called peginterferon-lambda — in patients with early covid infections.

People randomly assigned to receive an interferon injection were four times more likely to have cleared their infections within seven days than the placebo group. The treatment, which used a type of interferon not targeted by the autoantibodies Casanova discovered, had the most dramatic benefits in patients with the highest viral loads.

Lowering the amount of virus in a patient may help them avoid becoming seriously ill, said Dr. Jordan Feld, lead author of the 60-person study and research director at the Toronto Centre for Liver Disease in Canada. In his study, four of the placebo patients went to the emergency room because of breathing issues, compared with only one who received interferon.

“If we can bring the viral levels down quickly, they might be less infectious,” Feld said.

Feld, a liver specialist, notes that doctors have long studied this type of interferon to treat other viral infections, such as hepatitis. This type of interferon causes fewer side effects than other varieties. In the trial, those treated with interferon had similar side effects to those who received a placebo.

Doctors could potentially treat patients with a single injection with a small needle — like those used to administer insulin — in outpatient clinics, Feld said. That would make treatment much easier to administer than other therapies for covid, which require patients to receive lengthy infusions in specialized settings.

Many questions remain. Dr. Nathan Peiffer-Smadja, a researcher at the Imperial College London, said it’s unclear whether this type of interferon does improve symptoms.

Similar studies have failed to show any benefit to treating patients with interferon, and Feld acknowledged that his results need to be confirmed in a larger study. Ideally, Feld said, he would like to test interferon in older patients to see whether it can reduce hospitalizations.

“We’d like to look at long haulers, to see if clearing the virus quickly could lead to less immune dysregulation,” Feld said. “People have said to me, ‘Do we really need new treatments now that vaccines are rolling out?’ Unfortunately, we do.”

The 8 biggest bombshells from Oprah’s Meghan & Harry interview, from racist royals to tabloid bias

In CBS’ highly anticipated special on Sunday night, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, spoke to Oprah Winfrey, opening up about their decision to leave the British royal family and the fractured relationships they left in their wake. 

It was an explosive interview — enough so that it cost CBS a license fee of between $7 million and $9 million to air, per The Wall Street Journal — in which Harry described how meeting Meghan made him realize that he was trapped within the system of the royal family. This was only exacerbated by concerns over Meghan’s mental health, the blatant racism to which she and their son, Archie, were subject, and ruthless tabloid scrutiny.  

The couple realized together they wanted something different, and have since relocated to California, where they are focusing on a number of media projects, including a documentary co-produced by Winfrey about mental wellness and illness, and bringing attention to systemic racism. 

“I’m just really relieved and happy to be sitting here with my wife by my side,” Harry said. “Because I can’t even begin to imagine what it must have been like for [Diana] going through this process by herself all those years ago. Because it has been unbelievably tough for the two of us, but at least we have each other.”

Here are the biggest takeaways from the interview: 

Meghan had “very clear and real” thoughts of suicide during her pregnancy with Archie and was denied help

Perhaps the biggest revelation during the couple’s interview with Oprah was that Meghan said life as a royal threatened her mental health and left her feeling deeply isolated; this culminated while she was pregnant with her son, Archie, in 2019. She described persistent suicidal thoughts.

“I was ashamed to have to admit it to Harry,” Meghan said. “I knew that if I didn’t say it, I would do it. I just didn’t want to be alive anymore.”

Meghan said she asked a senior royal (among them, Prince William, Duchess Kate, Prince Charles, Duchess Camilla, Prince Edward, Countess Sophie, Princess Anne and Queen Elizabeth) about seeking inpatient care, but was rebuffed because “it wouldn’t be good for the institution.” 

At that point, Meghan said, she was left without options. She had surrendered her passport and driver’s license upon joining the family. “I couldn’t, you know, call an Uber to the palace,” she said.

Harry has also spoken about his own struggles with mental health. In a 2017 interview with The Telegraph, he said that he came “very close to total breakdown on numerous occasions, when all sorts of grief and lies and misconceptions are coming to you from every angle,” and that this led to years of panic attacks. 

As a result, he said he knew he and Meghan needed to get out for both the health of his family, and indicated that he thought of his mother, the late Princess Diana, during the process. 

“My biggest concern was history repeating itself,” he added. “And what I was seeing was history repeating itself, but far more dangerous[ly] because you add race in, you add social media in.”

At least one royal family member expressed “concerns” over “how dark [their son Archie’s] skin might be” when Meghan was pregnant with him

While Meghan was pregnant with their son Archie, she said, there were “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born,” since Meghan is biracial. There has been much speculation over who would have instigated or participated in those conversations, but in a Monday interview with CBS This Morning, Winfrey said she ruled out two people during an unaired conversation with Harry. 

“He did not share the identity with me, but he wanted to make sure I knew — and if I had an opportunity to share it — that it was not his grandmother nor grandfather [Queen Elizabeth or Prince Philip] that were part of those conversations,” she said. 

Additionally, Meghan said she and Harry actually did want a prince title for Archie so he could have access to security, but the royal family did not follow the usual conventions and denied the title.

The depth of the U.K. tabloids’ power and bias revealed

“There is this invisible contract behind closed doors, behind the institution and U.K. tabloids,” Harry told Oprah. He then indicated that certain members of the British royal family would wine and dine certain reporters to get better press. 

“There is a level of control by fear that has existed for generations,” he said. 

Meghan said that certain tabloids would have holiday parties at the palace. 

“There is a construct that’s at play there and because of the beginning of our relationship, they were so attacking and inciting so much racism, really, it changed the risk level because it wasn’t just catty gossip,” she said. “It was bringing out a part of people that was racist in how it was charged – and that changed the threat, that changed the level of death threats, that changed everything.”

The couple did not spend much time refuting specific tabloid stories, though they used one as an illustration of how the press would turn stories around on Meghan. Oprah had asked about reports that Meghan had made Kate, Prince William’s wife, cry during an argument about dresses for the flower girls. 

According to Meghan, the opposite was true; Kate had actually made her cry, but the palace wouldn’t allow anyone to speak publicly to set the record straight. However, Meghan said, Kate later apologized and sent flowers. 

Filmmaker Tyler Perry played a role in the couple’s move to the United States 

Right before the novel coronavirus was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization in March, a British tabloid published the exact location where Harry and Meghan were living outside of Vancouver. The couple, who were in the middle of “stepping back” from their roles as senior royals, were without a royal security detail and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who had been aiding in their protection, had announced they were going to scale back the assistance they were offering. 

“Suddenly it dawned on me, ‘Hang on, the borders could be closed,'” Harry told Oprah. “The world knows where we are. It’s not safe, it’s not secure. We probably need to get out of here.” 

That’s when help came from an unexpected source: actor, director and producer Tyler Perry. 

For three months Meghan, Harry and Archie stayed at one of Perry’s houses in Southern California with a full security detail. According to Markle, the couple didn’t “have a plan,” but Perry’s kindness “gave us breathing room to try to figure out what we were going to do.” 

They didn’t elaborate on the story any further, but some have speculated on social media that Perry may have opted to help the couple since they were, in part, fleeing the racist harassment of the British tabloids and a royal family that wouldn’t stand up for them. 

“They were willing to lie to protect other members of the family,” Meghan told Oprah, without specifying to whom she was referring. “But they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband.” 

Prince Charles has stopped taking Harry’s calls 

British tabloids had run multiple stories alleging that Harry had “blindsided” his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, with his and Meghan’s decision to step away from their roles as senior members of the royal family. Harry denied this in his conversation with Oprah, saying that he had too much respect for her. 

“I had three conversations with my grandmother, and two conversations with my father before he stopped taking my calls,” Harry said. “And then he said, ‘Can you put this all in writing?'”

Harry believes his father won’t speak to him anymore because he had taken his life into his own hands and was acting outside royal tradition. 

“This is not a surprise to anybody,” he said. “It’s really sad that it’s got to this point, but I’ve got to do something for my own mental health, my wife’s and for Archie’s as well.”

He continued: “I feel really let down. Because [my father’s] been through something similar, he knows what pain feels like, and Archie’s his grandson.”

Meghan and Harry had a secret backyard wedding before the televised Royal Wedding 

According to Meghan, when she walked down the aisle during her and Harry’s internationally aired royal wedding on May 19, 2018, the couple had already been married for days. 

“Three days before our wedding, we got married,” Meghan said. “We called the archbishop and we said, look, ‘This thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us.” 

Harry punctuated the revelation by singing the phrase, “Just the three of us” to the tune of “Just the Two of Us.” According to Meghan, the vows they have framed in their bedroom are from that private ceremony. 

The couple is expecting a girl

In one of the lighter moments of the interview, Meghan and Harry revealed that they were expecting a baby girl sometime this summer and that this would likely be their last child. 

“To have any one or any two, but to have a boy and then a girl — what more could you ask for?” Harry told Oprah. “But now we’ve got our family. We’ve got the four of us, we’ve got our two dogs. Done.”

Meghan and Harry had originally announced their second pregnancy on Feb. 14. “We can confirm that Archie is going to be a big brother,” the couple said in a statement. “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are overjoyed to be expecting their second child.”

They’re living off the inheritance left to him by Princess Diana

Harry told Oprah that he and Meghan were financially “cut off” from the royal family early last year, and have since relied on the inheritance left to him by his mother. 

As The Telegraph reported, Prince William and Harry were both left around $8 million by their mother, which was invested and accrued interest. On his 30th birthday, Harry ultimately inherited $30 million. 

“I’ve got what my mum left me, and without that, we would not have been able to do this,” Harry said. 

Harry said that he thinks his mother may have anticipated this turn of events.”I think she saw it coming,” he said. “I certainly felt her presence throughout this whole process.”

Tom Cotton, Senate Republicans try to capitalize on stimulus checks going to prisoners

A trio of Senate Republicans have attempted to capitalize on a provision within the coronavirus relief bill making its way through Congress that provides $1,400 stimulus checks to the roughly 1.4 million people incarcerated in prisons and jails nationwide as evidence that the Democratic-sponsored package is bloated and full of wasteful spending.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has led the charge on this supposed issue, although he voted for previous relief legislation that included the exact same provision. Like nearly everything else in and around the massive $1.9 trillion relief bill, this issue is being embraced as a symbolic culture-war battle on which to challenge the Biden administration and Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill.

“Look how crazy some of the Democrat ideas are. They had a chance on Saturday morning to stop checks from going to prisoners, from going to the Boston Marathon bomber, for instance,” Cotton said on “Fox & Friends” Monday morning. “It just goes to show how radical their ideas are.”

Cotton supported both previous stimulus packages, which also supplied incarcerated people with checks. His media blitz deriding the provision began as Biden’s relief measure began to advance in Congress. Neither he nor any other Republican raised the issue under the Trump administration, which supported the previous aid bills.

In response to an inquiry from Salon, Cotton’s office responded that in the wake of the first stimulus passed last spring, known as the Cares Act, the IRS initially excluded prisoners from receiving payments, but was ultimately forced to reverse that directive after a judge ruled in October that incarcerated could not be the sole reason to deny someone the $1,200 payments. During Senate debate on the second relief bill last fall under then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Cotton lacked the ability to offer amendments, according to his spokesperson, and was forced to make an up-or-down vote on the entire legislative package.

“Whatever the unintended consequences of past legislation, Democrats had a clear-cut chance this time around to join Republicans in stopping notorious criminals from getting checks,” Cotton press secretary James Arnold said. “Prisoners getting checks is no longer an oversight by bill drafters, Republican or Democrat. It’s a purposeful choice by the left.”

Cotton has used high-profile criminals, such as Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof, to advance his messaging, arguing that these are the sorts of people Democrats seek to protect. His proposed amendment over the weekend to prevent direct payments for inmates was shot down along party lines just before the Senate vote to pass the overall bill, which is expected to pass the House and be signed into law by President Biden later this week.

Democrats decided to continue including incarcerated people in the list of eligible recipients in order to ensure that families of those behind bars would not be punished economically for the actions of a family member. Proponents of nixing prisoners from the package argue it would save taxpayers nearly $2 billion.  

Cotton is not the only Republican senator who has latched onto the issue and sought to bring it to the forefront of the debate over how to combat the pandemic’s devastating social and economic impact. GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Ted Cruz of Texas joined Cotton’s effort to amend the mammoth package during the “vote-a-rama,” or marathon voting session, this past weekend. Cassidy also supported the prior two stimulus measures that included checks to prisoners, while Cruz only voted for the first of the two, known as the CARES Act.

“Prisoners do not pay taxes. Taxpayers pay for their every need. Inmates cannot stimulate the economy,” Cassidy said in a statement over the weekend. “This is a perfect example of non-targeted, inappropriate and total waste of spending. It’s ridiculous that this is in the bill.”

Cassidy offered an identical amendment in February during a separate marathon voting session, aimed at barring checks from going to anyone who was currently incarcerated.

Cruz labeled it “irresponsible” to send direct payments to anyone behind bars.

“The mismanaged priorities in this bill are detrimental to America and I was proud to join my colleagues in trying to close this egregious loophole,” Cruz said in a statement.

None of the lawmakers’ offices responded to a request for comment concerning their members’ past support of stimulus packages that included the same provision. 

“Bipartisanship is not determined by a single zip code in Washington, D.C. It’s about where the American people sit and stand, and the vast majority of the American people support the American Rescue Plan, including Republicans,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters last week. “I think, really, the question is, why are Republicans in Congress who aren’t supporting this package outliers in where the American public is?”

Biden’s stimulus bill gives progressives a big win. Now they must celebrate it

During the Senate debate over the coronavirus relief bill and in the hours after it finally passed, I was angry.

I was angry at Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., for reducing the size of unemployment checks from $400 to $300 and moving up their expiration date for no other apparent reason than his egotistical need to flex his power. I was angry at the eight Senate Democrats who voted down a $15 minimum wage, and especially angry at Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., for doing a jaunty little hip dip while she did it. I engaged in text chains and Gchats with friends, expressing our anguish and outrage about all of this. The anger from progressives may seem outsized, as it certainly drew a lot of accusations on social media that the left reflexively hates everything the Democrats do, no matter what. And no doubt, there are a large number of grifters in the media — and their gullible followers — who brand themselves “leftists” but mostly just exist to undermine Democrats at every turn. But most people who were upset by these setbacks on unemployment and the minimum wage aren’t kneejerk Democrat-haters. They are deeply worried about the future of the party, correctly believing that a failure to pass important bills on voting rights, worker’s rights, and other big-ticket issues will open the door up to big Republican wins in 2022 and 2024 — and that Republicans will use those wins to rig elections to ensure permanent minority rule.

The fight over the coronavirus bill, and the immense power demonstrated by a small number of conservative Democrats, leaves progressives worried that Democrats aren’t going to be able to get it together in order to do what needs to be done to save their own party. But, as someone who shares those worries, I can safely say that, for the first time in a long time, there’s also good reason for progressives to feel hope about not just the progressive agenda but about the future of the Democratic party.

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

While the window to save the party and save democracy is still perilously short — and senators like Manchin and Sinema still seem blind to the real dangers here — the chances that Democrats can pull the country out of the tailspin have quietly moved from “nearly impossible” to “likelier than you get a vaccination appointment on your first try.”

To explain the concerns progressives have, it helps to understand that a lot of folks started to see the debate over the coronavirus relief bill as a proxy for the larger fights ahead, many of which are going to be centered on the need to overturn the filibuster. It is not hyperbolic to say that saving democracy depends on ending the filibuster as we know it. Without that, Democrats can’t pass either popular bills or bills, like the For the People Act, that are critical to protecting voting rights. So watching Manchin and Sinema continue to undermine progress causes progressives to worry that these two are simply never going to get to the point where they admit that stepping on the ability of Democrats to pass popular legislation is a stupid idea. However, taking a step back, it becomes clear that actually, there’s a great deal for progressives to be excited about in the passing of the American Rescue Plan.

As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Saturday, “If anyone thought it was going to be just a smooth path without any bumps in the road, they don’t know how big and important this legislation is and how diverse our caucus is.” And yet progressives got most of what they wanted. New York Magazine’s Eric Levitz had a great Twitter thread about this: 

Heralding the historically progressive nature of the legislation is critical because, as Levitz suggested, relentless Eeyorism from progressives about Democrats will drive down voter turnout — and therefore make it even harder for Democrats to get elected to pass more progressive legislation in the future. Celebrating wins is even more important than criticizing failures if the goal is encouraging Democrats to fight harder for progress. (Which, needless to say, should be the goal.) 

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

Just as importantly, the bill’s strength is proof of the power of progressive organizing.

As political scientist Scott Lemieux noted at the blog Lawyers, Guns and Money, “this is far beyond what my most optimistic projections of what the first (or any) major bill to hit a President Joe Biden’s desk would look like.” When Biden first proposed a $1.9 trillion bill, the assumption in most of the punditry was he was going big with the expectation that compromise would chip it away to a smaller number. The changes allowed turned out to be far more minor than expected, which is something like a miracle. That Biden, who spent most of his career as a cautious centrist, shepherded such a bill is beyond what anyone would have predicted a year ago. 

Just as importantly, not a single Republican voted for the bill. This is proof that the fantasy of bipartisanship, which was motivating Sinema and Manchin’s love of the filibuster, is DOA.

As Dan Pfeiffer wrote in his newsletter last week, “Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan is shockingly popular” and “Republicans are deciding to take no ownership of that success” that will be evident in “the collective euphoria we will all feel when we can gather together again.” In other words, if this bill couldn’t chip off a Republican vote or two, no bill can. And so, as Heather “Digby” Parton writes at Salon Monday morning, both Manchin and Sinema are already softening their pro-fiilbuster stances, indicating that they are open to “reform” that allows them to say they “saved” the filibuster while removing most, if not all, Republican uses of it. What seemed impossible a week ago — that actual bills to save democracy, protect the environment, etc. would get a floor debate in the Senate — now is coming into view. And that’s huge!

Not that that’s any reason for progressives to turn down the heat. It may not seem like it, but time is rapidly running out.

Realistically, most pieces of substantive legislation probably have to pass this year if they have any chance since members of Congress are going to be distracted by their campaigns in 2022. The fight over the filibuster and passing needed reforms must happen sooner rather than later, or it will never happen at all. There’s still a great deal of reason to worry that Democrats aren’t going to unify and do what needs to be done in the short amount of time they have. But for the first time this year, there’s hope. And that should be enough to convince everyone to keep the pressure on for the real change this country sorely needs. 

Biden’s draining the swamp: White House fires Trump appointee who refused to resign

The Biden White House has announced the termination of a Trump-appointee who made headlines when she defiantly refused to resign when the Biden administration took office.

According to Bloomberg Law, on Friday, March 5, an inside source revealed President Joe Biden’s administration moved to fire Sharon Gustafson—the Trump-appointed lawyer who served as general counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The termination comes shortly after Gustafson made headlines when she released her letter in response to Biden’s request for her resignation. In the letter, Gustafson reiterated that she was appointed to serve a four-year term as she respectfully declined to resign.

“I have confidently given this advice to countless embattled clients over the last 25 years: hold your head high, do your best work, and do not resign under pressure,” she added. “In solidarity with them, I will follow that advice.”

Gustafson also sounded off with accusations alleging the Biden administration had undermined her previous work as she noted that her work by removing it from the EEOC website. “I can only assume that my resignation would be followed by similar suppression of our work promoting religious freedom,” Gustafson wrote.

In response to the Biden administration’s request, other Trump-appointees have expressed their disdain. In fact, Andrea R. Lucas, the EEOC’s Trump-appointed commissioner tweeted her concerns saying, it was “an injection of partisanship where it had been absent[.]”

When Gustafson was nominated, there were heightened concerns about the possibility of her advocating to overturn EEOC guidance implemented by former President Barack Obama’s administration.

During an interview with The Washington Post, David Lopez, former EEOC general counsel who served under the Obama administration, also expressed concern about Gustafson’s appointment.

“One of the issues she made as her hallmark, was the issue of discrimination against religious minorities, the law requiring religious accommodation of beliefs,” Lopez said. “Some lawyers from the conservative Christian right view this right as a conflict with requiring nondiscrimination against LGBTQ people.”

In the letter, Gustafson also raised concerns about the ethical aspects of her termination but Lopez admitted that he does not see any issue with the resignation request. “At the end of the day you serve at the pleasure of the president,” Lopez said. “I think the norm that was violated was that she decided to stay. I’ve never heard of that happening before.”

Held back out of fear of Trump, female generals finally get promoted to four-star commands by Biden

The Department of Defense announced over the weekend the nomination of two female generals for four-star command positions just months after Pentagon officials delayed their nominations for fear that Trump might reject the two women and replace them outright before leaving office. 

The Pentagon announced on Saturday that Air Force Gen. Jacqueline Van Ovost will be promoted to Transportation Command, which oversees the U.S. military’s transportation network. Van Ovost is the only active-duty, four-star female general officer in the country. She currently serves as the Air Mobility Command and has 4,200 hours of experience flying 30 different aircrafts.

President Biden also nominated Army Lt. Gen. Laura Richardson for a promotion from the commanding general of the U.S. Army North in Joint Base San Antonio to the head of Southern Command, which oversees American military operations in Latin America. Richardson was the first female officer in military history to serve as the commanding general of the U.S. Army North.

According to The New York Times, the two women’s promotions had been delayed by former defense secretary Mark Esper and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley due to fears that Donald Trump might reject and replace Van Ovost and Richardson’s nominations based on their gender.

“They were chosen because they were the best officers for the jobs, and I didn’t want their promotions derailed because someone in the Trump White House saw that I recommended them or thought DOD was playing politics,” Esper said in an interview with the Times last month. “This was not the case. They were the best qualified. We were doing the right thing.”

Esper reportedly waited until after the election in November to suggest the promotions, concluding that the Biden administration would likely be more amenable to the two women’s nominations. The delay created a bit of a stir amongst military experts and officials online, some of whom expressed concern over Esper and Milley quietly dodging the challenge of standing up to Trump.

“Upholding good order and discipline within the military does not mean dodging difficult debates with the commander in chief,” argued Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, whose own promotion was infamously deterred by Trump after he testified at the former president’s first impeachment trial. 

However, defenders of Esper and Milley argued that the delay was necessary for the women’s promotions, especially when the relationship between Pentagon officials and the former president had been historically fraught. Last year, several military officials suggested that military bases named after Confederate Generals be renamed. Trump had flouted their suggestions and tweeted, “My Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.” Esper added fuel to the fire last summer when he declared that active-duty members of the military should not be sent in to subdue Black Lives Matter protests. The statement was an open act of defiance against Trump’s wishes. 

For his part, Lloyd J. Austin III, Biden’s defense secretary, declined last to reveal any details about Esper and Milley’s effort to delay the nominations. “I would just say that I’ve seen the records of both of these women,” he said of Richardson and Van Ovost last month. “They are outstanding.”

How to remove chocolate stains (because we all have them, right?)

Chocolate is the greatest gift to mankind — full stop. You can have it on your birthday via a rich chocolate cake with a luscious ganache, as a beverage when you feel like cozying up with a cup of hot chocolate, or even at the dinner table as a beer-infused sauce for your rib eye. It’s true that incorporating chocolate into your meals is easy, but how to remove chocolate stains from your clothes (when you throw table manners out the window at the mere sight of it — we’ve all been there), is another story.

Now, different people approach stains in different ways; that’s why we’ve got two tried-and-true methods below to nix that delicious eyesore according to your preferences: with pantry staples or super-powered laundry products. Either way, we’re sure you’ll be pleased and heading back for seconds of the fondue that brought you here in no time.

The (kinda) au naturel approach

1. Head to the kitchen

First, breathe. Yes, you got a deep, dark chocolatey shmear across your favorite chambray shirt, but don’t reach immediately for the bleach. Instead, look to your fruit bowl or pantry for one of two staples you probably already have: a lemon or white vinegar. Both of these acid-based liquids are natural fighters of tannins, the organic compound making your chocolate treat a total headache.

“Tannins are natural vegetable dyes most often found in plants, like cocoa, and barks,” says Gwen Whiting, a co-founder of The Laundress. “With the right products, they can be simple to remove.”

To pre-treat your confection conundrum, first, squeeze the juice of a lemon or pour enough vinegar over the stain to properly soak it.

2. Gently help it along

It could be helpful at this point to take an old toothbrush and very gently tap the liquid into the stain in a blotting motion. If you don’t trust yourself not to go hard with the scrubbing, it’s also totally fine to skip this step altogether.

3. Stand and soak

After letting it sit for about five minutes, fully submerge your garment in water to remove that acid-based stain assistant so it doesn’t damage your clothes. Then, flip the material over so you’re looking at the reverse side of the stain and pour your laundry detergent on it. This will further help break down the stain and prevent it from lingering ever so slightly.

4. Wash and repeat

Now you’re ready to throw your clothes into the wash and impatiently wait the hour or so before the rinse cycle finishes up and you can revel in your handiwork. If, however, you still see some leftover stain after it comes out of the wash, toss your shirt back in and give it another go — just be sure not to move on to the dryer until the stain is totally gone.

“Heat can set the stain, so be sure that it’s removed completely before putting it in the dryer,” Whiting says.

* * *

Products to the rescue

1. Pretreat

If you’re more a detergents-to-the-rescue fan, the first step to tackling that cocoa catastrophe is to lightly go at it with your favorite pre-wash product (think: a Tide To Go pen, a Shout Wipe or The Laundress Stain Solution), especially if you’re away from home, at your child’s classmate’s birthday party, and unable to strip down and launder your clothes that very moment.

If there aren’t any proper stain solutions available at this party, (and what kind of party is this?!) it’s best to wear that chocolate cupcake frosting like a badge of honor until you’re home.

“Don’t use any random soaps (or rub it in with) paper towels or napkins,” Whiting’s co-founder, Lindsey Boyd, says. “If you’re out and get a stain, wait until you’re home and have the appropriate stain removal treatments. Not using the right solutions will just make the stain worse.”

2. Work in an oxidized powder

That tub of OxiClean or The Laundress’ All-Purpose Bleach Alternative on your washroom shelf is a huge help in your battle against this stain.

“For an extra stain-fighting boost,” Boyd recommends pouring the powder over your dampened, pre-treated clothing and adding a little water as you go to create a chocolate-busting paste of sorts. Like in the second step above, you’re welcome to take a toothbrush and super gently help the product along here.

3. Soak accordingly

After letting your powder concoction sit for 10 minutes, fully submerge the stain in a tub of water: Boyd advises that cotton and synthetics can handle hot temperatures, but silk, wool and other delicates need a cooler stream. Make sure the chocolatey part of your clothes is properly soaked and take a 30-minute stroll.

4. Let enzymes do the work

Now, you’re ready for the big, enzyme-fueled finale.

“A detergent powered with enzymes will help to tackle and dissolve the stain,” Boyd says, which might sound very specific (and expensive and wasteful) to own an enzyme-based detergent just to tackle this stain, but you might be surprised to learn that most of our favorites fall into this category, like Arm & Hammer, Tide, OxiClean, The Laundress’ Signature Detergent and Seventh Generation, just to name a few. Pour your detergent of choice into the wash and let those powerful enzymes go to work.

Your stain should be totally vanquished by now, but if it’s not (and you’re gonna go at it again), don’t forget to skip the dryer until it’s gone.

Until next time, Nutella pudding.

Related reading:

Republicans are radicalizing Senate Democrats on the filibuster

President Joe Biden and the Democratic Congress scored a huge victory this weekend with the passage of the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill in the U.S. Senate. It is a major accomplishment that, if signed into law, gives the average family of four more than $7,600 right away, makes Obamacare more affordable for more people, provides $27 billion in rental assistance and much-needed help to cities and states, and finally establishes a child allowance of $3000-$3600, which will hopefully become permanent over time. Upon the package’s passage, none other than Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, gave this statement:

I’m still a little bit shocked that they actually made it happen considering how fraught these negotiations have always been in the past. Yes, there was the disappointment of losing the $15 an hour minimum wage provision and there was a last-minute delay of 10 hours as the Democrats had to soothe the sore feelings of Joe Manchin, D-WV, when he found out they failed to run a minor change by him. But when you look back on previous big pieces of Democratic legislation, such as President Clinton’s 1993 tax bill or President Obama’s 2009 health care bill, this one, with such a gigantic price tag, was passed relatively easily. And as with both of those earlier bills, no Republicans voted for it.

This is not a new phenomenon, which makes this New York Times headline laughable:

Bipartisanship has been dead for nearly 30 years, at least when it comes to Democratic initiatives. Yet Republican legislation rarely suffers the same fate.

Back in 2001, when the Senate was at 50-50, as it is now, 12 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. Perhaps some of you might remember the names John Breaux of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota? There were currently familiar names, like Dianne Feinstein from California and Bob Torricelli from New Jersey, as well. Five Democrats just skipped the vote altogether and two voted present. In the House, 28 Democrats supported the bill, from states that included New York, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington, while another 29 House Democrats didn’t vote.

The vote was before 9/11 so it wasn’t driven by the compulsory “national unity” bipartisanship that ruled Washington for several years after the attacks. It was just the way these things always played out. Republicans would hang tough and all but one or two wouldn’t even pretend to negotiate in good faith on a Democratic proposal unless the government was shut down or a national security emergency was at hand. The Democrats, on the other hand, would always have a “gang” of some sort that would accept some shallow compromise in the name of bipartisanship, often led by a showboating diva who looked in the mirror and saw a president. It’s hard to know if Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are going to play that role in this Congress despite all the drama over the past few days.

Sinema had her moment when she ostentatiously gave a John McCain thumbs down tribute to the $15 an hour minimum wage plan, but it didn’t really sing since seven other Democrats voted with her. And Manchin pouted for a bit and demanded a token concession but he didn’t pull a full Joe Lieberman (the former Connecticut senator who single-handedly killed the Public Option in Obamacare) and fully gut an extension of federal unemployment benefits, a vital piece of the bill. But it’s pretty clear that the dynamics we saw last week in the Senate show how we can expect the rest of the agenda to play out if the Democrats manage to end or reform the filibuster.

And there is a bit of good news on that front.

It appears that 48 Democratic senators are now on board with some kind of reform. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, at one time a dependable “moderate,” explained to MSNBC on Sunday that’s he’s been radicalized on the issue:

Look, major changes to the filibuster for someone like me would not have been on the agenda even a few years ago. But I’m tired of it. The Senate does not work it used to. This idea of the Senate of old just doesn’t make any sense anymore. We’ve got an unyielding, partisan, ideological foe in the Republican party and they won’t allow major legislation to come forward.

While both Manchin and Sinema have said they will not vote to eliminate the filibuster altogether, according to Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Sinema indicated in a letter to a constituent that she may be open to reviving the talking filibuster because today’s “virtual” version makes it just too easy. And this weekend Manchin seemed to indicate the same:

He repeated a version of this on every show he was on which indicates that he is looking at one of the “mend it don’t end it” arguments that will allow the recalcitrant senators to say they are actually preserving the filibuster for the future even as they make it at least possible to pass legislation over an obstructionist Republican party.

According to this piece by Ian Millhiser at Vox, which lays out a number of proposals for filibuster reform, this return to the “talking filibuster” was proposed in 2012 by Sen. Jeff Merkley to ensure that “senators who feel that additional debate is necessary would need to make sure that at least one senator is on the floor presenting his or her arguments.” If no senator is present who wants to continue, the presiding officer of the Senate would rule that the debate was over and would schedule a simple majority vote for cloture. There are a number of other tweaks to this idea that could be enacted as well.

If you think that the Republicans would simply take to the floor to read the entire Dr. Seuss oeuvre, as they seem to be doing on a regular basis these days, you might be right. But the process that we just went through with the Covid relief bill was actually a bit of a dry run on this concept. Reconciliation allows for what they call a “vote-o-rama” allowing endless amendments to the bill, similar to the filibuster. As you can see, it didn’t take long for Republicans to lose interest. The bill passed in a couple of days. The “vote-o-rama” was a dud because they are always duds. Republicans love to pull the stunt but they never follow through. And frankly, I don’t think they will follow through with talking filibusters either.

In fact, we may be coming to an end of this era of obstruction to a time when they literally do nothing when they are in the minority. Why? I think they are sure they have the Supreme Court in their pocket for the next generation so now they can spend all their time ranting about Mr. Potatohead and just let their Supreme Court majority do their dirty work for them. Why even bother to filibuster at all? 

What’s the actual difference between vegan and vegetarian?

As is the case with many millennials, I’ve spent most of my adult life dabbling in following a plant-based diet. It started in college for financial reasons, when I preferred to spend the majority of my grocery budget on produce (and, admittedly, wine) rather than on more expensive meat and fish. Once I learned more about how animal agriculture negatively impacts the environment, I continued to phase meat out of my diet — partially at times, entirely at others. I’m also a lifelong lactose-intolerant who has been deeply invested in the development of non-dairy cheese and ice cream since the early aughts. And I’m not the only one who’s invested.

Plant-based diets are on the rise. It seems there’s a new non-dairy “milk” on the shelves every week, and lab-grown or meatless proteins like Beyond Meat and Impossible Burgers are popping up on menus everywhere from fast-food chains to high-end restaurants. “Meatless Monday” has become as ubiquitous as “Taco Tuesday”. There has never been more variety and accessibility when it comes to plant-based food; it’s exciting, but can also be daunting. In the last decade, various media have continued to uncover the environmental and ethical impact of eating animals. We know that we should be eating less meat — and many already are — but when it comes to differentiating between vegetarian, vegan, and plant-based, there can be a lot of nuance. So, let’s break it down.

Vegetarian vs. Vegan (and everything in between)

Vegetarianism generally abides by the following guidelines: Individuals choose not to consume meat, poultry, fish, or seafood—essentially anything that costs an animal its life. However, vegetarians still generally consume eggs, dairy, and other animal byproducts. Within vegetarianism, there are further subdivisions. Those who eat both eggs and dairy are lacto-ovo-vegetarians; those that choose eggs as their only animal-derived protein are ovo-vegetarians; and those whose only animal-derived protein source are dairy products are known as lacto-vegetarians. What about those that don’t eat either dairy or eggs? Those people are technically vegans—although they only sometimes identify as such.

Veganism generally includes any individuals who choose to consume neither animal protein, nor products derived from animals. And that extends beyond the obvious meat, dairy, eggs (and honey!): Veganism typically extends beyond a diet to a lifestyle. Many vegans also choose not to purchase or wear materials derived from animals, like fur, leather, fur, wool, and even silk. They may also choose to purchase cosmetics and household products (like soaps and cleaning products) that are made without animal byproducts and have not been tested on animals. Veganism was born out of an ethical movement, so although many vegans choose the lifestyle for other reasons, animal welfare tends to be paramount to the vegan lifestyle. However, there are many individuals who follow a vegan diet and not a vegan lifestyle, as well as vegetarians who don’t wear animal-derived materials and a whole spectrum of personal choices in between.

A third term, “plant-based” or “plant-rich,” typically refers to diets that are proportionally higher in fruits, vegetables, and legumes than animal-derived foods. Someone who follows a plant-based diet will typically consume mostly or entirely plant-based foods — but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re completely vegetarian or vegan. They may limit or avoid animal products altogether, but also may not be entirely vegan, either in diet or lifestyle. Ultimately, it’s more of a catch-all term for those who prioritize eating plants over animals, but do not wish to limit their diets to one category.

With all these labels laid out, the choice can quickly become overwhelming. At the end of the day, choosing how and what you eat, and further, what you call that diet or lifestyle, is a deeply personal choice. For me, I strive to eat intuitively rather than abide by strict rules or labels. I eat what I want, when I want it, with an underlying effort to be conscientious of both the planet and all the life it contains — human and animal. When I consume animal products, I try to do so thoughtfully, working to understand the labels at the grocery store. “Free-range,” “pasture-raised,” “grass-fed” can all mean different things depending on the setting and certification. I try to shop locally as much as I can, for animal and plant products. For me, talking to the vendor at the farmer’s market or finding a local CSA-produce box is often more illuminating than trying to track down the sources behind grocery store offerings. Plus, you get to support people in your community, or nearby communities, who are doing the hard work to put food on your plates. All of our food comes from somewhere, and it’s important to acknowledge and respect both the human and animal components of this industry.

* * *

Let’s eat

When it comes to cooking, I find the most variation between diets comes not during dinner, but at dessert. Since most traditional baking is bolstered by butter, eggs, milk, or some combination thereof, vegan baking can be trickier to adapt. This article by reigning Food52 vegan expert Gena Hamshaw covers the ins and outs of vegan baking, and when to turn to vegan one-to-one substitutes. With vegan baking, I find my success rate is higher with recipes written for a vegan diet, compared to adjusting conventional recipes myself (the same thing goes, by the way, for gluten-free baking).

With that all said, it’s easier — and more delicious — to follow a plant-based diet than ever before. Here’s a collection of some of my favorite vegetarian and vegan recipes that are truly so delicious, you won’t miss the meat (or dairy, or eggs). And forget your stereotypes: Though I love them, here’s nary a lentil or piece of tofu in sight.

Vegetarian

Joshua McFadden’s Bitter Greens Salad with Melted Cheese

There’s a trope that all vegetarians eat are salads and pasta, to which I say, and the problem with that is . . . ? Here’s a salad recipe to convert even the staunchest salad-hater. Bitter radicchio gets a shower of cheese and a quick blast under the broiler, and emerges blistered, gooey, salty, and delicious.

Crunchy-Shell Cauliflower Tacos

Food editor Emma Laperruque adapts the nostalgic, crunchy-shell ground beef taco for the modern diet (and schedule). This lightning-quick recipe smartly swaps riced cauliflower for ground beef, then seasons and serves it with the same toppings. The final result is barely distinguishable from its meaty counterpart, and guaranteed to fool even the pickiest eaters.

Khachapuri (Georgian Cheese and Egg Bread)

This dish is not only unbelievably decadent, it’s also the embodiment of everything vegetarians eat that vegans do not. A simple, buttery dough encapsulates a tangy, cheesy center that gets topped with a few eggs before baking. When it comes out of the oven, rip off pieces of warm bread from the crust and use them to sop up the luxuriously creamy filling and still-runny eggs.

Vegan

Superiority Burger’s BBQ Baked Gigante Beans with Polenta and Coleslaw

This recipe comes from one of my favorite vegetarian and vegan restaurants in New York, Superiority Burger. Chef and owner Brooks Headley is a magician when it comes to making hearty, exciting food without animal products. What this comforting riff on a classic BBQ plate lacks in smoked meat, it makes up with in flavor, texture, and spice.

Vegan Pasta al Limone(ish)

A vegan version of a non-vegan dish (from Food52 Editorial Lead Brinda Ayer) that actually works. It hits all the same notes as Pasta al Limone, buttery, creamy, cheesy, and of course, zesty. All of this is thanks to two heavy-hitters of vegan cooking: soaked and blended cashews and nutritional yeast.

Ovenly’s Secretly Vegan Salted Chocolate Chip Cookies

As the title suggests, these cookies are a vegan’s secret weapon to convincing anyone that veganism can be just as tasty as omnivorism. They’re a perfect chocolate chip cookie: chewy and crisp-edged, with deep caramel notes and fat flakes of salt on top. If you’re vegan, just be sure to check your chocolate chips are dairy-free (many dark chocolate chips will be.)

Chris Wallace grills Joe Manchin: “Are you enjoying your position of power maybe a little too much?”

Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday called out Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., for enjoying his “position of power a little too much.”

During an interview on Fox News, Wallace noted that Manchin had become a key vote when it comes to preventing Democratic nominations and legislation from moving forward in the Senate.

“Do you like being the most powerful member of Congress, the swing vote in a 50/50 senate? Do you like that, sir?” Wallace asked.

“No, I do not and I did not lobby for this, did not seek it out,” Manchin insisted.

Wallace pointed out that Manchin has been pivotal in killing Democratic initiatives, including the $15 per hour minimum wage, reforming the filibuster and increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

“You are on four Sunday shows today . . . Are you enjoying your position of power maybe a little too much?” Wallace wondered.

“I sure hope not,” Manchin insisted. “Oh, my goodness. That would be horrible. That’s not — no. I want to make sure people understand. I am in that common-sense middle. That’s who I am.”

Manchin went on to say that he would work to prevent significant filibuster reform.

“I’d make it harder to get rid of the filibuster,” he explained. “I’m supporting the filibuster. I’m going to continue to support the filibuster. I think it defines who we are as a Senate. I’ll make it harder to get rid of it, but it should be painful if you want to use it.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube: 

Rev. William J. Barber II: Democrats who dumped the $15 wage must be held accountable

Over the week it took the U.S. Senate to deliberate on President Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Recovery Plan — and to vote down raising the Federal minimum wage from its $7.25 poverty level to $15 an hour — close to 13,000 Americans died from COVID. 

No one knows how many of those 13,000 deaths were of low-wage essential workers or of their family members infected because that worker brought the highly contagious virus home with them. What we do know is that the number of COVID deaths are disproportionately high among people of color, who make up a major percentage of the workforce that doesn’t have the luxury of working remotely. 

We know that 530,000 of us have died, but as with the U.S. Postal Service, employers are reluctant to publicly disclose their body count for fear of incurring liability. Close to 30 million have been infected, with as many as one third of those survivors experiencing lingering symptoms of varying severity that could lead to permanent disability.

It’s estimated that between 27 million and 32 million Americans would have benefited from the raise to the federal minimum wage, which sets a floor for most, but certainly not all, workers nickel-and-dimed in a gig economy, where basic benefits like workers compensation, disability or even unemployment insurance are far from guaranteed while billionaires reap ever-growing profits. 

Early on in the pandemic, House and Senate Democrats talked about hazard pay for essential workers. That never materialized even as Republican governors in states like Texas and Florida refused to impose the most basic public health precautions, such as wearing masks which certainly put essential workers in their states at greater risk of getting infected and dying.

Not only did hazard pay never materialize, but the $15 minimum wage was voted down by every Republican senator and eight Democrats: Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Jon Tester of Montana and the “moderate” ringleader, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, along with Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. 

After the Senate vote on March 6, President Biden took a victory lap with a short speech from the White House which extolled the virtues of his plan and assured reporters that the bill that emerged from the Senate, without the $15 wage provision was “essentially about the same.”

“Over 85 percent of American households will get direct payments of $1,400 per person,” Biden said. “For a typical middle-class family of four — husband and wife working, making $100,000 a year total, with three kids — they’ll get $5,600 — I mean, with two kids — will get $5,600, and it’ll be on the way soon.”

Yet that pandemic relief, no matter how generous, is just not the same thing as the lifetime boost in weekly earnings that would have uplifted tens of millions of workers, an issue on which Biden and Kamala Harris enthusiastically campaigned last year. Throughout the campaign, and particularly in states like Georgia, Democrats aligned themselves with the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II’s Moral Monday movement and the current iteration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor People’s Campaign. 

Perhaps Biden didn’t perceive the jettisoning of the $15 minimum wage as a loss because he had already given up on it before the Senate took up ARP.

“I respect and love President Biden and I preached at his inaugural ceremony, but it was wrong a few weeks ago for him to say he didn’t think [the minimum wage] was going to make it into the bill,” said Dr. Barber during a phone interview.

“He’s the president just like Franklin Delano Roosevelt was, who used his bully pulpit and said in the middle of the Great Depression that any business that did not want to pay a living wage did not deserve to be a business in America. Well, poor and low-wealth people have been in a depression because we know that right now, as you and I are speaking, there are 62 million poor and low wealth workers in this country.”

Barber likened the Senate to a “House of Lords” disconnected from the daily experiences of the tens of millions of poor and low wealth Americans. “It took Black people 400 years to get to $7.25 — we can’t wait another 400 years,” he said. “What they are doing should embolden us and intensify the agitation. If we challenged Trump for using power in the wrong way, then we have to challenge our own ‘friends,’ the people we voted for. We did not vote for ‘normalcy.’ We did not vote for the same.

“We voted for folks because they said, ‘Elect me and I am going to deal with systemic racism and I am going to pass a living wage of $15 an hour,’ which is a compromise in and of itself. We have to hold people to what they said.”

According to Barber, 55 percent of poor and low-wealth voters cast their ballot for the Biden/Harris ticket. “We found that poor and low-wealth people make up a third of the electorate. That’s 65 million voters, and 35 million voted this time — 6 million more than in 2016 … So that’s the only place you can expand the electorate.” 

As Barber sees it, the abandonment of the $15 minimum by centrist Democrats doesn’t just reinforce systemic economic racism, it’s political science malpractice. 

In August 2020 the Poor People’s Campaign and Columbia University researchers released a report entitled “Unleashing the Power of Poor and Low Wealth Voters,” which found that in 15 states, including several in the South, getting just 22 percent of poor and low-wealth voters who have not voted before to cast a ballot could be determinative in which party prevailed. 

If Democrats fail to deliver on the $15 minimum wage as they promised, Barber warns, they could suffer the same fate in next year’s midterm elections that Democrats did in 2016, when a marked decline in African American voter turnout sank Hillary Clinton’s campaign and handed Trump the Oval Office. 

Meanwhile the news media narrative heralds the imminent return to normal as the day in, day out death toll has become like the background noise at the top and bottom of the hour that includes the weather and stock quotes.

For Rev. Barber, that return to a pre-COVID “normal” that so many crave is a “sign of a kind of spiraling spiritual death” and a willful blindness to the 250,000 poor and low-wealth people that were dying every year due to inadequate or nonexistent health care, even before the pandemic. “We had seven people die from vaping and we had the White House and Congress convening hearings,” he said, “while with 750 people dying from poverty and low wealth every day [pre-COVID] you still couldn’t get a politician to talk about poverty consistently. Now that death rate has accelerated.”

Democrats consistently pay lip service to the systemic racism that’s been laid bare by the pandemic, which includes the increasing precarity of so much of the essential workforce, well before COVID came calling. The speed with which they dropped the provision for a $15 an hour minimum wage shows how disconnected they remain with the tens of millions of poor and low-wealth workers that both parties have ignored for generations — and how beholden they are to big corporations. 

So far, our nation is four for four in failing to address the living economic legacy of slavery, a through-line from Jim Crow right on through the poverty wages paid to this very day for essential services in the face-to-face work world where millions of people of color work. This 21st-century Grapes of Wrath-class of worker, of course, includes millions of poor whites as well, particularly in the South and rural Midwest, along with immigrants of all races in all 50 states.

There was the reversal of Reconstruction after the Civil War, when the North let the South rise again through draconian segregation, lynching and total voter suppression. Then FDR allowed Southern Democrats to maintain their economically oppressive apartheid by exempting agricultural workers and domestic workers from the landmark 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act and the minimum wage, which lifted so many out of poverty but left so many behind.

In our time there was the Bush and Obama response to the Wall Street heist of the American economy, which bailed out vulture capitalists at the expense of millions of homeowners who lost their homes on Main Street and MLK Boulevard, leading to a loss of household wealth for African Americans of generational consequence. 

And now we have the $1.9 trillion American Recovery Plan, which spends vast amounts of borrowed money to be paid off by taxpayers — and ensures that corporations can continue amassing huge profits while denying tens of millions a living wage. 

“Low wages hurt all workers and are particularly harmful to Black workers and other workers of color, especially women of color who make up a disproportionate share of workers who are severely underpaid,” reports an Economic Policy Institute fact sheet on the minimum wage. “This is the result of structural racism and sexism, with an economic system rooted in chattel slavery in which workers of color — and especially women of color — have been and continue to be shunted into the most underpaid jobs.”

A bipartisan coalition in the U.S. Senate just voted to keep it that way.

Fox News host pushes back on Marsha Blackburn’s blue state bailout lie: “Your state gets $6 billion”

Fox News host Eric Shawn on Sunday challenged Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., after she claimed that the COVID-19 relief bill was delayed because Democrats “wanted people to suffer.”

“The Democrats did not want timely relief prior to the election,” Blackburn told Shawn in an interview on Fox News. “They wanted people to suffer and Nancy Pelosi told us why. She said because they felt like it would help them win the election.”

Shawn interrupted, “Do you think it really is fair to say Democrats wanted people to suffer? I mean, they don’t want people to suffer.”

“They delayed relief when people were saying we desperately need relief,” Blackburn argued. “They delayed money to small businesses when small businesses were saying we need another round of PPP. That was a choice they made.”

Blackburn went on to insist that only 9% of the latest relief bill is related to COVID-19, a claim that Politifact has rated as “half true.”

“So whether you want to say it was fair or not fair, it is an action they took,” the Tennessee Republican continued. “And it is an admission that they have made. So I think it was just really unfortunate that it was their choice.”

Even though Blackburn voted against the latest COVID-19 relief bill, she argued that people “desperately need help.”

“But do you really need to bail out the blue states that have mismanaged their funds and have mismanaged their pensions?” she quipped.

“But you also know,” Shawn interjected, “your state gets $6 billion, Florida gets $16 billion, Texas gets $27 billion. So red states get a lot of money, too.”

“It is immoral to continue to pile debt on our children and grandchildren,” Blackburn opined. “It is selfish not to sit down and work this out so that we are not adding to the debt. There are all sorts of good things that you can do with money but we have to remember, the federal government only has money that the taxpayer sends to them.”

“Socialism is fine until you run out of other people’s money,” she added. “And this continuing to say you’re going to pick winners and losers with federal government money, which is taxpayer money, is completely inappropriate, and yes, it does need to stop.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

As Biden unveils order on voting access, Dems urged to fight GOP voter suppression

Voting rights advocates issued fresh calls Sunday to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and For the People Act as President Joe Biden signed an executive order to promote access to the polls.

The calls and order coincided with the 56th anniversary of an event that become known as “Bloody Sunday” and is a seminal moment in the civil rights movement. On March 7, 1965, Alabama state troopers and police tear-gassed and brutally beat hundreds of nonviolent civil rights protesters who’d set off from Selma to Montgomery as they attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. One of the march leaders was  Rep. John Lewis, who died last year.

In the executive order, Biden points to “significant obstacles” to the polls including “discriminatory policies” impacting Black voters, as well as “[l]imited access to language assistance” and the denial of “legally required accommodations” for people with disabilities.

“It is our duty to ensure that registering to vote and the act of voting be made simple and easy for all those eligible to do so,” said Biden.

As CNN summarized:

Sunday’s order directs the heads of all federal agencies to submit proposals for their respective agencies to promote voter registration and participation within 200 days, while assisting states in voter registration under the National Voter Registration Act. In addition, the order instructs the General Services Administration to modernize the federal government’s Vote.gov portal.

The president announced the order in his virtual remarks to the “Martin & Coretta Scott King Unity Breakfast.” He referenced the 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the “unprecedented insurrection in our Capitol and a brutal attack on our democracy on January,” as well as the more than 250 bills in state legislatures — nearly all proposed and supported by Republicans — attacking voting rights.

Biden also referenced H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which the House passed last week. The sweeping legislation includes the establishment of a national automatic voter registration system, an expansion of early and absentee voting, and a ban on large voter-roll purges.

He called it “landmark piece of legislation” he hoped he would be able to sign into law.

Biden also called for passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, H.R. 4, which, as the Brennan Center explains, would “combat racial discrimination in voting by restoring and strengthening the protections of the VRA.”

Wade Henderson, interim president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, welcomed Biden’s order.

“In a fitting tribute to the first Bloody Sunday anniversary when civil rights icon Congressman John Lewis is no longer with us, President Biden has taken important steps to ensure people can participate in the political process. We applaud this action to promote access to the ballot box and will continue to push for those in power to protect the right to vote,” Henderson said in a statement.

“Government, at all levels, should tear down barriers to the ballot,” he continued, “not build them as we are seeing in far too many places.”

According to author and voting rights expert Ari Berman, it’s a “1965 moment for Democrats.”

“They can eliminate [the] filibuster to pass H.R. 1 and John Lewis Voting Rights Act to stop GOP voter suppression,” he tweeted. “Or they can allow GOP to undermine democracy for [the] next decade.”

The “stakes couldn’t be higher,” Berman said.

John Oliver criticizes Fox News for covering fake “canceling” of Dr. Seuss over domestic terrorism

The last word on the Fox News Dr. Seuss nonsense came from John Oliver, who called out the right-wing for their fake conspiracy that the beloved children’s book author was canceled. As Oliver explained, he wasn’t, his estate decided not to publish six of his books anymore, which Oliver explained as an example of the free markets at work.

Oliver explained that the real reason that Fox News wanted to get people up in arms about Dr. Seuss was to avoid talking about domestic terrorism in the U.S.

During the fake scandal, FBI Director Christopher Wray was testifying before Congress, a story carried live by every major news network except Fox.

“We at the FBI don’t tend to think of violent extremism in terms of right, left, that’s not a spectrum that we look at,” said Wray. “What I would say is that it is clear . . . a large and growing number of the people that we have arrested so far in the connection with the 6th are what we would call militia violent extremists like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers . . . and some already who emerged that I would have been in the racially motivated extremist bucket.”

According to conservatives, the attack was prompted by “fake Trump protesters,” a conspiracy theory that gained traction off of a false story published by The Washington Times. It was a myth that Wray dispelled, but Fox News viewers never found out about it because they were too busy making up another conspiracy that Democrats somehow canceled Dr. Seuss.

“We have not seen evidence of that,” Wray told the senators this week.

“Yeah, of course, you haven’t because it’s not f*cking true,” said Oliver. “Despite everything, it’s still amazing that he has to debunk a conspiracy theory that is so obviously false. It’d be like to swear under oath that three lemurs in a trench coat didn’t commit the Oklahoma City bombing. Of course, they didn’t, and anyone who suggested that they did clearly has some signif6yicantly bigger problems.”

“Now that testimony was pretty newsworthy,” continued Oliver. “But while some networks took the hearings live, Fox, not surprisingly, barely covered it. In fact, across conservative platforms, you’d hardly know that hearing happened because they were too busy with this.”

He went on to show a montage of conservative hosts losing their minds over Dr. Seuss. He went on to dispel the conspiracy theory and have the last word on the right-wings desperate attempts to make something “cancel culture” that hasn’t actually been canceled.

Why white supremacists and QAnon fans are obsessed with the Byzantine Empire

From Charlottesville to the Capitol, medieval imagery has been repeatedly on show at far-right rallies and riots in recent years.

Displays of Crusader shields and tattoos derived from Norse and Celtic symbols are of little surprise to medieval historians like me who have long documented the appropriation of the Middle Ages by today’s far right.

But amid all the expected Viking imagery and nods to the Crusaders has been another dormant “medievalism” that has yet to be fully acknowledged in reporting on both the far right and conspiracy theorist movements: the Byzantine Empire.

Byzantium — or more properly, the medieval Roman Empire — controlled much of the Mediterranean at the height of its territorial rule in the mid-sixth century. Centered in modern-day Istanbul from A.D. 330 to 1453, its capital of Constantinople was a thriving intellectual, political and military power. One of its crowning achievements, the church of Hagia Sophia, is a testament to the empire’s architectural and artistic prowess.

But in the Western world, the Byzantine Empire has been largely overlooked and forgotten. High school students in the United States are likely to know little about the empire. And nowadays, the word “byzantine” has simply come to mean complicated, secret and bureaucratic. This lowering of its status isn’t entirely a new process. As far back as 1776, English historian Edward Gibbon was disparagingly referring to the empire’s inhabitants as “the servile and effeminate Greeks of Byzantium.”

A “New Byzantium”

Despite this modern disdain for Byzantium in the West, it has recently served as an inspiration to various factions of the far right.

In September 2017, Jason Kessler, an American neo-Nazi who helped organize the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, inaugurated a new supremacist group called “The New Byzantium” project.

Described by Kessler as “a premier organization for pro-white advocacy in the 21st century,” the New Byzantium is based on the white supremacist leader’s misrepresentation of history.

His premise is that when Rome fell, the Byzantine Empire went on to preserve a white-European civilization. This isn’t true. In reality the empire was made up of diverse peoples who walked the streets of its capital, coming from as far away as Nubia, Ethiopia, Syria and North Africa. Contemporaneous sources noted — at times with disdain — the racial and ethnic diversity of both Constantinople and the empire’s emperors.

But Kessler’s “New Byzantium” is intended to preserve white dominance after what he calls “the inevitable collapse of the American Empire.” The organization has been operating under the radar since 2017 with little online footprint.

The original “deep state”

Kessler isn’t alone in appropriating the empire. Through my research, I have monitored references of Byzantium in online forums. Mentions of Byzantium are scattered across message boards frequented by both white supremacists and QAnon enthusiasts — who spout conspiracy theories about a deep-state cabal of Satan-worshipping, blood-drinking pedophiles running the world.

Across 8kun and other online platforms I have reviewed, the Byzantine Empire is discussed as either continuing the legacy of Rome after it was, in their understanding, “destroyed by the Jews” or being the only true empire, with Rome being merely a historical myth created to degrade Byzantium’s power and importance.

This latter story emerges in a QAnon thread on “Baking” — that is, the connecting and weaving together of drops (messages) by the enigmatic Q. One post states: “It all makes sense when you learn that the books of the bible are plagiarized copies of the chronology of Byzantium, and so is the mythical Roman Empire, that never existed in Italy but was in fact centered in Constantinople.”

Other QAnon commentators across message boards and Twitter speak of the “exiled throne of Byzantium,” noting, “the Empire never went away, it just went occult.” They exclaim “Long live Byzantium” and call for a “return to Byzantium” to save people from the satanists.

Oddly, while some hold up the Byzantine Empire as the vanguard of white supremacy, a smaller group of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists sees it as “the original Deep State.”

In some renditions, Byzantium is, by way of some hazy illuminati connections, the origins of the “deep state” — the myth of an underground cabal of elites who run the world in secret. It has persisted in secrecy since Constantinople’s fall, either trading in eunuchs on the clandestine market or preserving whiteness and Christianity, depending on the thread’s negative or positive outlook on the empire.

Reconquest of Hagia Sophia

For many on the far right, talk of Byzantium is cloaked in Islamophobia — both online and in tragic real-life events.

A white supremacist who killed more than 50 worshippers at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019 railed against the Turks and the conquest of Constantinople in a 74-page manifesto.

“We are coming for Constantinople, and we will destroy every mosque and minaret in the city. The Hagia Sophia will be free of minarets and Constantinople will be rightfully Christian owned once more,” the shooter wrote. Throughout QAnon message boards, the reconquest of Hagia Sophia is emblematic of the destruction of Islam and the restoration of a mythic white Byzantium. One post stated: “When we free Constantinople and the Hagia Sophia, maybe we can talk.”

“Third Rome”

This “reconquest” of Constantinople had even been tied in some online posts to the presidency of Donald Trump, with images circulated online seemingly prophesying that it would happen under his tenure. In one image, Trump is seen congratulating Russian President Vladimir Putin “on the retaking of Constantinople” and shaking hands in front of what is presumably meant to be the Hagia Sophia, though it is actually the Sultan Ahmed Mosque, also known as the Blue Mosque.

Putin himself is not averse to drawing on the symbolism of Byzantium. The Russian state has long tried to position itself as the rightful successor to the Byzantine Empire, with Moscow as the “Third Rome.” This forms part of a religious and political doctrine tied to Russian territorial expansion that can be traced back as far as the late 15th century.

The far-right appropriation of Byzantium in the U.S. appears to be influenced by this Russian interpretation. Indeed, Russian proponents of the “Third Rome” doctrine have been cited as influences by prominent figures on the American right.

No matter the provenance of the recent interest in Byzantium from America’s white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, one thing is clear: It is based on a very warped idea of the Byzantine Empire that has emerged out of the empire’s fraught place in our histories, caught between ancient and medieval, spirituality and bureaucracy.