Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

This riff on a classic Southern pie is comfort in a bite—and the leftovers taste great for breakfast

It’s not often that a book full of recipes can pack an emotional wallop, but this is no ordinary book. It’s a memoir. It’s a conversation. It’s a meditation on race, and friendship. It’s got a pie I’ve made twice this week.

In “Black, White, and The Grey: The Story of an Unexpected Friendship and a Beloved Restaurant,” executive chef and partner Mashama Bailey and managing partner John O. Morisano tell the tale of the former Greyhound Bus terminal — “complete with a space that had housed a segregated lunch counter” — that has become so much more to its Savannah community and patrons than an acclaimed restaurant.

As the book shifts between its two narrators, perspectives differ and painful memories come to the surface. There are no tidy conclusions to be made about overwhelming systemic injustice and overpowering grief, including, as the epilogue reveals, a pandemic that has turned the food service world upside down. But there’s nevertheless a profound hopefulness that runs throughout — and a joyous sense of what is possible when we break bread together.

“We went into business together and we had a general understanding of what the other wasn’t going to do, but we didn’t really have a fleshed out understanding of how the other perceived the world,” Bailey says. “What this book really did for me was open up my eyes to how Johno saw the world. And that opens up lines of communication and curiosity and just getting to know him more on a human level, on an equal level.”

While it’s difficult to stay connected while we’re socially distant, Morisano sees glimmers of promise.

“I actually think the pandemic has created a lot of opportunity to have deeper conversation,” he says. “All those Zoom bingos and sourdough bread making were for a reason — and it resulted in something. There will be a lot of that camaraderie that comes out of it and the relationships that have gotten deeper, like mine and Mashama’s relationship is deeper.”

As I pored over this beautiful, thoughtful book, I wanted to make nearly everything in it (and we will be returning for another recipe in a few weeks). But the dish that contained the highest volume of words that make me drool is Salted Honey Chess Pie. Created by The Grey’s pastry chef Natasha Gaskill, the recipe reads like a master class in applause-generating baking.

Unfortunately, I am loathe to make pie crust, and I am loathe to blind bake — especially something that the book’s own authors describe as a “pain-in-the-ass-to-make.” So I just didn’t do it. Instead, I skipped straight to the filling part of the story, baking the custard effortlessly crust-free. What emerged from my oven was a meltingly spectacular riff on a Southern classic, a dessert somehow simultaneously fancy and homey. Probably because of all that butter.

The pie also makes a very good breakfast — if you’re a pie-for-breakfast person. Even better, gathering and mixing the ingredients took all of 10 minutes. It even gave me time for a little lily-gilding by way of some supermarket pie crust cookies.

If you’re not wed to the pie concept, Bailey also suggests the following: “You can also do it in a square dish so you don’t even have to cut out the crust. You can cut the crust into squares, break it off and then you can make your servings. Put the crust on the bottom, put the custard on top, add whipped cream. Then you have this deconstructed thing, but the integrity is the same.”

Want an even lower effort experience? You can order the original direct from The Grey.

***

Recipe: Salted Honey Chess Pie

Adapted from “Black, White, and the Grey: The Story of an Unexpected Friendship and a Beloved Restaurant”

Serves 8 (or 6 if you’re more generous)

Ingredients:

  • 1⁄2 cup unsalted butter
  • 1⁄2 cup cream
  • 1/3 cup honey (I’m partial to buckwheat.)
  • 3 eggs
  • 3⁄4 cup white sugar
  • 2 tablespoons cornmeal
  • 1⁄2 teaspoon kosher salt (or 1/4 teaspoon of table salt)
  • 2 teaspoons apple cider vinegar
  • 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
  • Flaky sea salt
  • Optional: supermarket pie crust

Tip: No cream? You can substitute half-and-half or even whole milk. The pie won’t be as decadent, but it will still be quite delicious.

Instructions:

  1. Preheat oven to 325°.
  2. Combine butter, cream and honey in a small saucepan. Heat until butter is melted. (If you’re as obsessed with brown butter as I, heat the butter first to a toasty amber color, then add the cream and honey off heat.)
  3. If you have a blender, add the eggs and whip at medium speed. Add sugar, cornmeal and kosher salt and blend.
  4. Slowly pour in the cream mixture, and blend until everything is well combined.
  5. Slowly add the vinegar and vanilla. (You can also easily do this part with a stand or hand mixer, or simply a whisk or fork. Just make sure that everything is thoroughly mixed.)
  6. Pour mixture in a 9-inch pie tin, and bake for 35 to 40 minutes, or until the filling is just slightly jiggly in the center.
  7. Cool completely, and serve topped with a sprinkle of flaky salt and whipped cream (if you feel like it).

Bonus round: Roll out a chilled supermarket pie crust on a sheet of parchment paper. Sprinkle liberally with coarse sugar (if you have it) or white sugar (if you don’t). Stamp out rounds with a cookie cutter or a glass. Bake in the oven with your pie filling on a cookie sheet lined with parchment for approximately 15 minutes. Top your pie slices with sugared pie crust rounds.

More Quick & Dirty: Have you read the first three columns?

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

“I am the biggest kid of all”: Soleil Moon Frye on the return of “Punky Brewster” & being a survivor

It’s funny how often, in our nostalgia for childhood, we forget how complicated and intense childhood really is. It doesn’t minimize the sweetness, silliness, or innocence of it; it just adds another dimension to it. Take, for example, Ms. Punky Brewster. The character was in many ways the prototypical ’80s sitcom kid, all wisecracks and brightly colored clothes and misadventures. She was also a homeless, abandoned child who had to find love and support with her new, found family, and the series “Punky Brewster” never shied away that balancing act.

Now, in the latest TV classic to get a reboot, Punky is back with a family of her own, in the new Peacock series, “Punky Brewster.” While the show reunites her with her former costar Cherie Johnson and features plenty of shoutouts to the original, it also updates Punky’s life to reflect the challenges of modern day parenthood. One thing that hasn’t changed — she still knows how to rock mismatched sneakers.

The actor, director, advocate and lunchbox icon Soliel Moon Frye appeared on “Salon Talks” recently about tapping back in to her Punky power, her new, executive produced by Leonardo DiCaprio Hulu documentary, and what being a child star taught her about working with kids now. You can watch the “Salon Talks” interview here or read it below.

This conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Bring us up to date and tell us what has been happening with Punky since the last time we saw her, when she was just a little girl.

Well, I love that it feels like a continuation. Punky, she’s newly single. She was married to this incredible guy, played by Freddie Prinze Jr. There’s still all this love there, but they’re now divorced and they’re raising their kids together. It’s about the messiness of it all, and the perfectly imperfect. And she meets this little girl, Izzy, who really reminds her so much of herself.

Through this experience, she starts to really rediscover her Punky power. I love that it’s really about how we can come of age at different stages in our life. I can relate to that so much. I always said, I didn’t know where Punky ended and I began, because we were truly the same in so many ways. I can say that that is true today as well. So, it was really important for us to keep the authenticity of their original. Where would Punky be now? Who would she be? Where had she traveled? What adventures she gone on? It’s just been a true joy to bring back.

I’m sure over the years people have asked you, “Would Punky come back?” But also, “Where would she be now? What she would be like as a young woman in the ’90s, and as a parent in the 2000s?” Did you think about that over the years? Is she who you thought she would be?

Yeah. I literally have wanted to bring Punky back for so long. The way the stars have aligned to make it happen now is just so mystical and amazing and wonderful. I think we probably had very similar experiences. I think she went on tour and was documenting musicians and doing her photography and probably living some punk rock lifestyle, going around New York and Chicago. I have all these ideas of where she went.

And of course, then she met Travis [Prinze Jr.], and he’s in a band. I think she really traveled the world and probably documented a lot. I know there are parts of the world that are so important to me. I love Haiti. I love spending time there, doing work with the incredible organization that I work with, CORE, and now across the world. I think there’s just so many similarities. I always think about where she’s been and the journey she’s been on, and then the journey that I’ve been on.

Punky is a survivor. This show addresses that this is a girl who’s been through difficult times, who has had trauma in her life. It feels like a really important message for this show to be telling, not just the kids watching it, but the people who grew up with you.

I think back to the original and the things that we dealt with and the ways in which we healed through laughter, but never shied away from topics that were important and going on during the time. To be able to continue with that same sense of heart means so much to me. To your point about the survivor within us, I think so much of even Soleil, that inner spark, I used to always associate with youth. I thought, when I moved to New York, the world was at my fingertips.

I’m so blessed to have my four incredible children. I love them so much. And I found myself a few years ago wondering, “Who am I, Soleil, in addition to my children?” It was really this process of rediscovery. Often we get so absorbed in our lives that sometimes we forget that little girl within or that little boy within. The show has actually been this very cathartic experience of my rediscovery of self, and what it is to be a survivor.

And to show that you can go through difficult things in your early years and still be a warm, generous and playful person. That the bad things that happened in your life don’t have to define you or be your identity feels really important.

Absolutely. Punky was abandoned by her father and left in a shopping center by her mother and had gone through so much, and yet was this spunky, full of life survivor. I think about the journey that I’ve been on. I’ve had so much love and joy and bliss, and I’ve also experienced heartache and pain. Yet I wouldn’t change a thing, because every one of those experiences brought me to be the person that I am today — the pain included. I can only speak for myself, but for myself and my journey, I wouldn’t change one part.

When we think about older shows coming back as revivals, there is this deep sense of comfort and nostalgia. This is getting us in touch with our childhood, and it feels very cozy. And yet, watching this, I remembered that Punky dealt with serious stuff. This was a show that devoted an episode to the Challenger disaster.

And so much of our real-life experiences we went through. I’ve always wanted to be an astronaut. I still want to be an astronaut. We had watched the Challenger together and of course were devastated, like the entire world was. And I still wanted to be an astronaut. So, there was an episode that was dealing with both what we were going through in our personal lives and what was going on in the world. 

It was so important, and it was so fundamental to the experience. Amazing people throughout the years have come up and shared their stories of not having a home or going up through their foster system or not coming from a traditional family, and the way in which Punky connected to them and was their family. There’s the family that we’re born into and there’s the family that we choose. I love that we were able to do that. I really hope that we have honored that in this continuation of Punky, because it’s so important to me.

There are storylines that are very serious, and yet they’re done with a real delicacy. Without giving anything about this season away, some of the most surprising turns have been just the acceptance and ordinariness of things that can be really hard to face.

And to be able to talk about things around the table, as a family, or with friends or whoever you can turn to. There are so many things going on in our lives that often get brushed under the rug, or are sometimes difficult to talk about. I hope that in some way, it shed some light for people to be able to have an open line of communication with their families or their chosen families, or their friends, or to reach out to someone and express what it is that they’re going through.

Soleil, I have to ask you, because you’re now coming into this role where you are the adult on a set full of kids.

And yet I am the biggest kid of all.

We are having a cultural moment of reckoning with how we have treated our child stars, how they have turned out and what we have done better. Now, as that grown-up on the set, how much of your childhood experience — for good or bad — do you bring now to your interactions with these kids? What did you learn? Did you think, “I want to do that,” or, “I don’t want to do that”?

To the point of what you were talking about, about growing up in Los Angeles, I hope you watch also the documentary that I did. It dives into so many of those elements. As far as the kids are concerned, I was so fortunate that I had such an incredible family and a single mom raising me, who always encouraged me to go to summer camp, always encouraged me to be a kid. I’d come home, I was rollerskating. On set, they also created an environment where we could still really be kids and where that was such a part of the weavings of our experience.

For us, our experience was that in which was created around us. We were on our pogo sticks and we were on our scooters and we were playing. Our experience really felt like playing make-believe. I can only speak to what my experience was through that, which was that we had really kind people around us that made sure that we felt safe and protected and loved. Certainly, I can speak for myself on that. I always felt that.

Working with these incredible kids, for me, it was so important to see them also having fun. It was wonderful to see them being kids, to see Quinn [Copeland] playing with her dolls and then stepping on stage and being this incredible actress. And the boys playing ball outside, being kids. I’m such a big kid at heart. 

I really hope that I was able to bring some of that, because I think of the kindness of George Gaines, who I feel is still completely watching over me. He had such a respect. He never spoke down to me. He was constantly treating me as an equal, which was so incredible at that age. It stands out so much.

Or someone like Andy Gibb, who I was so in love with and so crushed out on. He was so kind and gentle and loving. Those moments really shine and they leave an imprint. I can still smell his cologne when I think about Andy Gibb, which is a testament to the fact that he was so kind and loving. So, I really hope that I can bring kindness and love and nurturing. I have so much gratitude to the parents of those kids to share them with me, because that is such a big deal to share your children with another, in which I’m playing their mom. I think it’s a real testament to the parents as well.

Your co-star Freddie Prinze Jr. is another person who grew up in Hollywood, who has been part of our lives for many years. It feels like that dynamic really plays into your interactions with each other, your chemistry with each other, in this shared foundation and the way that you interact with the kids in the cast.

It’s really been such an honor. When we shot the pilot, it was pre-COVID. We were able to have a live audience and it was amazing. It was like, you could hear a pin drop in the live audience, and it felt like lightning in a bottle. I felt really mystical and just so beautiful. Because these are not just characters, these are us. Cherie and I constantly are on the phone. We’re constantly FaceTiming. There’s a real, genuine friendship. And I think it shows because we really genuinely love each other so much.

Those things come across on the screen when they’re coming from a natural place. Then when we were shooting during COVID, that scene in the car, we couldn’t all be in the car together. Each one of us was in the car by ourselves and we were each talking to tape. It just goes to show the chemistry that we had off camera to be able to do a scene like that.

You mentioned this earlier; tell me about the other big thing that you have coming out now.

 “Kid 90” is premiering on Hulu on March 12th, and really it’s a true coming-of-age story. I had documented my entire life growing up in the ’90s, in Los Angeles and then in New York. I had kept diaries from the time I was five years old. I had a tape recorder from the time I was 12 years old. Then I locked it all away at about 20 and didn’t open it for 20 years. Had just locked it all away in a vault. And ultimately went on this incredible, life-changing journey.

I tried to make the documentary about everybody but me. As I peeled back the onion more and more and more, and really dug into the teenage journalist, it became this very personal coming-of-age story that I hope, when people watch, they can see through the lens of their own lives. It’s changed me forever. I opened Pandora’s box and discovered this self-awareness and sense of self-love that has been inspiring.

Soleil, blow your horn for a little bit. Tell me who is in this movie, because it’s impressive. 

There’s so much amazing found footage. Some of my dear friends that I got to sit and go back and interview, like Brian Green, David Arquette, Stephen Dorff, Mark-Paul Gosselaar, and Balthazar Getty, my girlfriend Heather McComb and my lifelong best friend since I was two, Tori, which was such a joy.

Also, I had lost some of my closest friends at a really young age. I think, on a subconscious level, I wasn’t really ready to go back and watch the tapes. I just didn’t realize it because there was so much pain to process through the course of it, because some of my friends hadn’t made it out. It’s really an incredible self-exploration into memory and the blueprint of my life. This teenage me left this chronological blueprint for me to rediscover who I once was and to bring me back home to the artist that I really am.

You are an ’80s fashion icon for a generation. You are also ’90s fashion icon. If you could bring anything back from that era, what would it be?

All of it. I’m serious. I am so obsessed with the ’80s and as I’ve rediscovered my Punky power, I am all about the rock and roll t-shirts and the jackets. And I always have my crystals because I’m very much into looking within and the journey of self-discovery and awakenings and my faith.

So, it’s a combination of rock and roll and ’90s. I’ve got my Doc Martens and I’ve got my punk rock looks. And then of course my ’80s love. And I think you see all of it on Punky’s incredible Mona May, who is such an icon and creator. I mean, she did “Clueless,” and “Romy and Michelle,” just created so many incredible looks. I’ve had the honor and privilege to work beside her, and that’s been just a true joy.

Can I just add one more thing? For anyone who wants to learn about an organization that is so close to my heart, CORE, please check it out. And we have now done over 300,000 vaccinations and over 4.8 million tests for COVID-19 across the country. I am so honored and humbled to be a part of it. I would really encourage everyone to check out the work that we’re doing.

CORE Response was founded by the incredible Ann Lee and Sean Penn, and they have been true warriors with our incredible team. To see the frontline workers, to see the team doing this, next to my children, it is truly the work that I’m most proud to be a little part of. I’m just so grateful and humbled, and I know your amazing community is so incredible. I hope that they’ll check it out.

The new “Punky Brewster” is now streaming on Peacock, and “Kid 90” premieres Friday, March 12 on Hulu.


Marjorie Taylor Greene complains extra security at Capitol is “the real voter suppression”

On Wednesday, the House is set to vote on H.R. 1, the so-called “For the People Act,” a Democratic-backed reform bill that promises to overhaul voting rights, election security, Congressional ethics, and more. Democrats have hailed the bill as a landmark piece of civil rights legislation that would rectify the dearth of accountability and transparency within the electoral process, while Republicans have protested it as an “unraveling of our Democracy.”

Already-infamous freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., was particularly outspoken about what she thought was at stake.

Greene argued in a floor speech on Tuesday that “the real voter suppression” does not take place at the polls, but rather, in the halls of Congress, where she thought members are “treated very disrespectfully” by having to accord with coronavirus restrictions and pass through metal detectors.

“Standing in line to vote is not voter suppression,” she added, “It’s just part of the voting process, just like people stand in line to buy groceries.” 

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., also raged about metal detectors on Twitter.

“Going to the House Floor to vote these days…,” she wrote, with a gif of “The Office” character Dwight Schrute stripping down to his underwear. 

Other House Republicans echoed the spirit of Greene and Boebert’s sentiment but focused on specific aspects of the bill itself. 

Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., challenged H.R. 1 on the basis of the First Amendment, arguing that the bill’s curtailment of dark money in campaign finance is an “egregious” violation of freedom of speech. Davis wrote that it would “disadvantage all groups who wish to advocate on behalf of any legislative issue, specifically requiring them to disclose the names of donors who donate above a certain threshold.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., decried the bill as an unabashed Democratic power-grab.

The “Democrats’ election bill is not designed to protect your vote,” he said, “It’s designed to put a thumb on the scale in every election in America so that Democrats can turn a temporary majority into permanent control.” However, the bill largely aims to do just the opposite; it aims to expand voting for much of the American public by allowing felons to vote, for instance, and automatically designating colleges as voter registration agencies.

Several Republicans have warned that H.R. 1 will “federalize election,” and therefore compel taxpayers to bankroll related expenditures. Rep. August Pfluger, R-Tex., tweeted on Monday, “Taxpayers should absolutely not be paying for Congressional campaign ads. Just one of many outrageous provisions in #HR1.” Rep. Jim Jordan similarly expressed over Twitter, “The Democrats’ new election bill will allow politicians to use your tax dollars to pay for their campaigns. In other words, you may have to pay for Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to get re-elected. Insane.” However, the bill’s chief sponsor Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., has made clear that such any public expenditures will be paid for by a “surcharge on corporate law breakers and wealthy tax cheats.”

H.R.1 was introduced in 2019 and was passed by the House with no hope of getting through the then Republican-majority Senate. But now, with the 50-50 Senate split, it appears that H.R.1 is better positioned to end up on President Biden’s desk.

With the House expected to vote on H.R.1 late Wednesday, Democrats anticipate near-unanimous support from their party. However, most bills of this nature require a sixty-member vote in the Senate to pass, meaning that ten Republicans will have to break ranks –– a move that appears extremely unlikely given the torrent of opposition already expressed by Republicans in the Senate. One way Democrats could force the bill through, as Salon’s Amanda Marcotte notes, is by “nuking the filibuster,” a maneuver strongly favored by progressives. Albeit, the move would require a simple majority in the Senate. At least two Democrats have expressed opposition to the idea, casting doubt over its political potential.

Zombie mink, infected escapees, and COVID outbreaks: How mink farms became a political flash point

Scott Beckstead remembers the mink that died from terror.

She was a beautiful female with a bluish shade to her coat — they’re known as “sapphires” in the mink industry — and he was at a mink farm owned by his grandfather. Beckstead describes his grandfather as a “kind, wonderful, generous man” who “sincerely tried to give his animals the best life he could.” That said, Beckstead recalled sadly, “there are some realities about mink farming that are just unavoidable.”

This was one of them.

“The foreman pulled out this sapphire female, and she struggled and she screamed,” Beckstead told Salon, describing an incident that occurred in one of the last years that he visited his grandfather’s southern Idaho mink farm. “Then she went limp. She literally died. There is no doubt that she was terrified. She had watched what was happening to the mink next to her. I think, honestly, the only explanation is that she died of sheer terror.”

His grandfather “cursed” when he saw that; “the sapphires are so fragile,” he rued. Beckstead was struck by the fact that his grandfather was genuinely upset at how that mink died. Though she was to be killed for her fur ultimately, he did not want her life to end in the way that it did.

Beckstead is now the director of campaigns for animal wellness action at the Center for a Humane Economy. The organization, a non-profit that tries to change how businesses behave in order to create a humane economic order, is supporting a recently-proposed bill that would ban mink farms in Oregon. There are many reasons to ban mink farms strictly from the perspective of animal rights, but a new reason has incentivized that movement: The COVID-19 pandemic.

For biological reasons, the novel coronavirus is particularly prevalent among mink, as mink and other mustelidae such as ferrets are notorious for unwittingly serving as virus mutation factories. Mink are so prone to developing COVID-19 infections that outbreaks have repeatedly and disproportionately cropped up in areas with mink farms. The problem is extremely serious, to the point that last year Denmark ordered thousands of mink to be killed and buried in shallow graves to halt the spread of SARS-CoV-2. This led to the unappealing sight of bloated, decayed mink carcasses literally rising out of their graves as their corpses filled with gas.

Even when diseased mink aren’t threatening humans through zombie-like behavior, mink often put human beings at risk simply because they act like — well, like intelligent, wild animals.

“When they’re put in confinement, they are in this very unnatural situation,” Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Salon. Unlike pigs, cows, chickens and other animals that have spent generations being domesticated, mink don’t have that history; they still think and behave like wild animals. This is not to say that factory farms aren’t already vectors for disease and pollution (they are), or that mink won’t already be particularly prone to illness from living in such close quarters (they will).

In any case, mink strongly resist being held captive in small cages. And those wild instincts exacerbate matters.

“They’re extremely stressed in those situations,” Burd explained. “Because that confinement is so unnatural, mink are extraordinarily good escape artists.” There was already one instance where an Oregon farm had a COVID-19 outbreak and, despite being under quarantine, three of the mink managed to escape. Of those mink, two tested positive for COVID-19.

“We don’t have any exact numbers on the percent of mink that escape, but it’s obvious that escapes are common,” Burd explained. “They happen even when the facility is supposed to be under a strict quarantine.”

Not surprisingly, Oregon mink farmers are fighting against Senate Bill 832, which would ban mink farms in the state. Burd told Salon that to address this reality, the bill would offer assistance to people who would lose their jobs as a result of the ban. Yet many Oregon officials seem inclined to sweep the issue under the rug.

“They said, you know, ‘Don’t worry about it. We have everything under control,'” Burd recalled when describing how Oregon authorities reacted after her organization contacted them with concerns about mink farming and COVID-19 outbreaks. “That very day, the first outbreak at an Oregon farm was reported.” The Center for Biological Diversity reached out again to express concern that mink could spread the disease to wild animals, which subsequently happened.

Despite their concerns being validated, however, the facility ended its quarantine after testing a “minuscule” percentage of the mink and found them to be negative.

“Workers can come and go freely,” Burd told Salon. “Mink breeding is continuing and we’re very, very concerned because just because a few of the mink tested negative, [that] does not mean it’s not in this facility, and COVID-19 in mink is unpredictable in its manifestations.”

Beckstead echoed Burd’s concerns, describing how the mink farming crisis has reached a new level of urgency because the conditions there make them ripe for COVID-19 outbreaks. He also spoke from the heart about how, when one understands the mind of a mink, it is easy to see how the farming practices are inherently cruel.

“This is an animal that has the instinct to be out roaming over vast territory,” Beckstead explained. “The animals are semi-aquatic, so they have a strong instinct to spend a lot of time in the water. To take a wild species and raise it on factory farm conditions is inherently cruel, which I think is why the animal welfare community has long wished that they would eventually become obsolete or extinct.”

He recalled another story from the days on his grandfather’s mink farm, the fact that he was not allowed to visit the mink yard when the females were having their babies because “the slightest disturbance would cause them to cannibalize their litters.”

“Those kinds of stories just speak to me of how unnatural of a setting these mink farms are,” Beckstead explained. “This is not a species that belongs on factory farms. I mean, no species belongs in factory farms, but to factory farm an inherently wild species, I think, adds an additional layer of suffering and misery.”

What can I do once I’m vaccinated? The CDC finally has answers

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is preparing to release guidelines for how people who have received COVID-19 vaccines can prepare to transition to normal life. The name of the game seems to be: Baby steps.

Although the CDC guidance has not been formally released yet (it is expected to come out as early as Thursday), Politico reports that it will offer advice on the extent to which vaccinated Americans can relax self-imposed restrictions on socializing and traveling. Among other things, Americans who have been fully vaccinated — meaning, received two shots in the case of Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, or one shot for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine — will be able to safely have small, maskless gatherings.

“I use the example of a daughter coming in from out of town who is doubly vaccinated, and a husband and wife doubly vaccinated, and maybe a next-door neighbor who you know are doubly vaccinated,” President Joe Biden’s chief medical officer Dr. Anthony Fauci told reporters on Monday. “Small gatherings in the home of people, I think you can clearly feel that the risk — the relative risk is so low that you would not have to wear a mask, that you could have a good social gathering within the home.”

“All I can say is that I’m glad they’re doing this because I think that it’s important for people to understand that there’s a benefit of getting vaccinated,” Dr. Carlos del Rio, Distinguished Professor of Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine, told Salon. “I think we need to start telling people what things you can do once you’ve been vaccinated.”

He added that he already has social plans for the weekend, ones that are in accordance with CDC guidelines.

“This coming weekend, a doctor and his wife — who are both fully vaccinated — and me and my wife who are fully vaccinated are getting together for dinner,” he explained. “We’re going to sit at a table apart [from each other]. We’re not going to sit right next to each other. We’ll sit socially distanced while we eat.”

Del Rio’s own behavior may seem like an exercise in extreme caution for those that are vaccinated. Indeed, he noted that, in general, he was merely advising that people continue socializing outside if possible, with a small number of people, and to wear one’s mask when not eating. If everyone in one’s group is fully vaccinated, such caution is not necessary; but “if you are in a small group where there are people vaccinated and not, then yes,” he added.

Dr. Russell Medford, Chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, expressed a similar view to Salon.

“I have not yet seen the specific CDC guidelines to comment on,” Medford told Salon by text message. “Nevertheless, as more Americans complete their full COVID-19 vaccinations, I suspect that CDC guidelines will initially reflect a gradual easing of personal and family-based restrictions that will be extended to the broader community as the new case rate falls to levels dramatically lower than they are today.”

Dr. del Rio’s and Dr. Medford’s observations underscore a growing belief among some in the medical community that people need to see that there are immediate benefits to getting vaccinated.

“There has been, I think, an overemphasis on things not changing when you’re vaccinated — and I think that really is underselling the benefits of this vaccine,” Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center, told Salon last month. “I tell people to pursue whatever activities they want to pursue as long as they’re vaccinated and wait two weeks [after the second dose], and if you’re doing activities with another vaccinated person on the same timeline, there’s really no issue at all.”

It is also important to note that, while the CDC is concerned about the spread of mutant coronavirus variants leading to a surge in infections, the approved vaccines have been able to 100 percent prevent severe cases.

“All of the approved vaccines in the U.S. provide 100 percent protection from severe COVID-19 disease that requires hospitalization, even when the trials were conducted in regions in which the variants are circulating,” Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, told Salon by email earlier this week. She added that “reinfection with variants leading to a symptomatic infection after vaccination or natural infection is rare.”

While experts believe that baby steps toward normalcy may be possible, however, they still agree that Americans need to exercise caution. In that vein, the CDC’s upcoming guidelines will still encourage that Americans wear masks in public, socially distance in public, avoid large gatherings with unvaccinated people who are not masked and vigilantly maintain their personal hygiene by washing their hands.

These guidelines run athwart recent actions taken by states like Texas and Mississippi, where Govs. Greg Abbott and Tate Reeves announced earlier this week that they are ending all mask mandates and completely reopening the states’ economies. Biden responded to this news by denouncing it as “Neanderthal thinking.”

“I am very concerned about steps taken by states like Texas to prematurely open,” Medford told Salon. “As we have already and unfortunately seen happen in this pandemic over the year, the premature lifting of effective and sensible public health measures, such as mask wearing and moderating commercial operations, runs the very real risk of igniting new surges in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and death.”

This story was updated at 7:06pm with additional comments from Dr. Carlos del Rio. 

Mike Pence is still pushing Trump’s Big Lie as Trump reportedly plots to push him off 2024 ticket

On Wednesday, former Vice President Mike Pence broke his post-election silence to attack H.R. 1, the Democratic-backed election reform and anti-corruption bill, to stir up the same baseless election conspiracies that he and his former boss peddled leading up to the 2020 election and all the way up to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection that nearly cost him his life.

In an op-ed in the Daily Signal, a blog for the conservative Heritage Foundation, Pence accused Democrats of sweeping “valid concerns and reforms” about election security aside to “push forward a brazen attempt to nationalize elections in blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution.”

Pence did not make any specific mention of the 2020 election, in which his former Republican colleagues baselessly pushed forward a movement to overturn the results and undermine faith in U.S. elections, in his column. He, instead, argued that the specifics of H.R. 1, otherwise known as the For the People Act, might conceivably undermine the security of future elections. 

“Congressional districts would be redrawn by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats,” Pence alleged. “Illegal immigrants and law-abiding American citizens would receive equal representation in Congress. Felons would be able to vote the moment they set foot out of prison.”

He continued, “H.R. 1 is also loaded with ill-advised changes to federal campaign laws that would impose onerous legal and administrative burdens on candidates, civic groups, unions, nonprofit organizations, and ordinary citizens who want to exercise their First Amendment rights to engage in political speech, including on public policy issues that are vital to the life of our nation.”

Pence did stress the need for election reform, but only at the federal level.

“Our Founders limited Congress’ role in conducting our elections for good reason,” he said, “They wanted elections to be administered closest to the people, free from undue influence of the national government.”

The op-ed comes as Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday that Donald Trump is weighing a 2024 bid without Pence on the ticket.

According to people close with the former president, Trump’s advisers are discussing a woman or Black running mate. One adviser suggested Trump might tap South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. According to Bloomberg, Donald Trump, Jr. and his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, are planning a fundraiser for Noem on Friday in Palm Beach. On Tuesday, Trump also publicly endorsed the re-election of Sen. Tim Scott, R-N.C, the only black Republican in the Senate. .

Leading up to election certification on Jan. 6, Trump publicly pressured Pence to reject the Electoral College’s votes. But Pence did not make an effort to grant his request and remained out of the public eye until Joe Biden’s inauguration, which Pence attended.  

During his speech at CPAC last weekend, Trump hinted at making another bid for the White House in 2024.

“Who knows,” he’d said, “I may even decide to beat them a third time.” By contrast, Pence rejected an invitation to the event, where just 1% of convention-goers named him when asked who they would vote for if the Republican primary for president were held today.

Can QAnon survive another “Great Disappointment” on March 4? History suggests it might

Thursday could be a big day. On March 4, Donald Trump will be triumphantly returned to power to help save the world from a shadowy syndicate of Satan-worshipping pedophiles – or at least that is what a small fraction of American citizens believe.

But before you circle the date and dust off the MAGA hats, a note of caution: We have been here before. Adherents of the same conspiracy theory, QAnon, had previously marked Jan. 20, the day of Joe Biden’s inauguration, as the big day. As Biden ascended the steps of the Capitol to take the presidential oath of office, tens of thousands of adherents of QAnon were eagerly awaiting the imminent arrest and execution of Democratic politicians in a “storm” that would upend the social and political order. It didn’t happen.

In the aftermath of this disappointment, some disillusioned QAnon followers left the fold. But as evidenced by the new date of March 4 – chosen because it was the day for presidential inaugurations until the 20th Amendment was adopted in 1933 – some hardliners claimed they had simply gotten the date wrong. When – or if – that date too passes without incident, a new date may emerge.

It might be thought that enough failed predictions would eventually discredit a prophet. But as a philosopher of religion, I know history suggests a more complicated set of possibilities. Apocalyptic movements rarely simply dissolve when prophecies are seen to fail. Indeed, such crises have in the past presented believers with fertile opportunities to reinterpret prophecies. They have even strengthened movements, giving rise to new theories that attempt to explain the shortcomings of earlier ones.

The Millerites

This dynamic played out nearly 180 years ago with the Millerites, members of a 19th-century evangelical Christian movement who were part of an earlier “Great Awakening” in U.S. religious history.

A Baptist preacher, William Miller drew on biblical texts and numerology to predict the imminent second coming of Christ. Although Miller did not initially claim to know the exact date, he and his followers offered various predictions. As each passed without incident, the Millerites redid the Biblical math to propose new dates, until finally the movement settled on Oct. 22, 1844.

As the expected second advent drew near, many Millerites gave away their possessions in anticipation of Christ’s return.

When Oct. 22 came and went without incident, the Millerites were left to reconstruct a worldview that acknowledged what came to be called the “Great Disappointment.”

Miller’s followers concluded not that the Scriptures and numerology on which they had based their predictions were false, but simply that they had misunderstood their meaning. In one view, what the predictions foretold were not earthly events, but heavenly ones.

Millerism did not collapse; rather, elements of it were central to the establishment of Seventh Day Adventism, a rapidly growing Protestant denomination that continues to look forward to Christ’s return.

Crisis point

Looking at how the Millerites dealt with their Great Disappointment gives an insight into how believers navigate what the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre calls “epistemological crises.” These are moments when the way someone understands the world is thrown into question by events that don’t fit expectations.

Epistemological crises are not unique to religion. Anyone who has experienced heartbreak in a relationship, or felt the rug pulled out from under them when unexpectedly fired by an employer, knows that they are a fact of life.

Such a crisis undercuts a person’s ability to tell the kind of story about themselves that gives order and meaning to life. Left unresolved, it threatens one’s understanding of oneself and others.

Yet, such crises don’t always prove insurmountable. MacIntyre writes, “When an epistemological crisis is resolved, it is by the construction of a new narrative, which enables the agent to understand both how he or she could intelligibly have held his or her original beliefs and how he or she could have been so drastically misled by them.”

Sometimes the new understanding repudiates the old. Often, however, the new narrative is not a radical departure from the old one, but an improvised and more sophisticated version of it – one that incorporates what had earlier seemed like outlying data points. The Millerites, for example, survived their Great Disappointment by reaffirming their belief that God is at work in ways that humans cannot always fully anticipate.

Writing in the mid-20th century, the philosopher Antony Flew suggested that over time, religious beliefs “die the death of a thousand qualifications.” That is, they are modified beyond recognition, to the point of meaninglessness.

But scholars of religion have documented a pattern in which, rather than dying, fringe beliefs evolve, becoming more socially acceptable. As they are gradually disentangled from politics, they come to be thought of as more truly “religious.”

Making sense of disappointment

Whether or not movements like Millerism can move past great disappointments depends in part on the interpretive tools available within the group and the ingenuity of adherents in explaining away their own unfulfilled expectations.

It is anyone’s guess whether QAnon will survive its current epistemological crisis. And if it does, there is no guarantee that it will emerge chastened.

Some commentators have predicted that it will return even more dangerous than before, evolving into increasingly virulent strains. It may well be subsumed within a larger conspiracy theory that seeks to explain the current disappointment in the context of an even more elaborate narrative.

Perhaps one day QAnon will take its place within the domesticated pantheon of American civil religion as another benign and depoliticized “faith.” Then again, it may simply sputter out, dying the death of a thousand qualifications.

But if history is any guide, whether QAnon survives its Great Disappointment will depend on its adherents’ ability to successfully explain to themselves how they could have been so drastically misled.

Richard Amesbury, Professor of Religious Studies and of Philosophy and Director of the School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Arizona State University

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

D.C. National Guard commander tells Congress he was “stunned” by three-hour Jan. 6 delay

On Jan. 6 at 1:49 p.m., Maj. Gen. William Walker, commander of the District of Columbia National Guard, received a frantic phone call from then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund. The Capitol complex was being overrun by hostile supporters of then-President Donald Trump, Sund told the general, asking for immediate assistance from as many National Guard troops as Walker could muster.

“I would have immediately pulled off the Guardsmen supporting the Metropolitan Police Department,” Walker testified before a Senate committee on Wednesday, and told them to “get on buses and go straight to the armory and report to the most ranking Capitol Police officer they saw and take direction.”

But the decision wasn’t up to Walker; he needed Pentagon approval. While he awaited the official go-ahead, Walker quietly directed 155 Guard troops to meet at the D.C. armory and board buses, in order to be ready the second the order came down.

“That number could have made a difference” in terms of controlling the crowd and protecting the Capitol, Walker told lawmakers. “We could have helped extend the perimeter and push back the crowd. Seconds matter. Minutes matter.”

At 5:08 p.m. — three hours and 19 minutes after his request to senior Army leadership to deploy troops — Walker finally received the green light. The Guardsmen waiting aboard the buses arrived at the Capitol 18 minutes later, only to be greeted with the aftermath of a chaotic bloodbath that had spread across the sprawling grounds and into the halls of Congress.

Walker’s testimony, provided to two separate Senate panels investigating the Capitol insurrection, offered stunning new revelations about the Trump administration’s failure — part bureaucratic red tape, part apparent lack of willingness — to swiftly respond to the event that led to several deaths, including those of Capitol Police officers.

Walker agreed that the hours-long delay, which left him “frustrated” and “stunned,” was unusual. He said that last summer, amid the deployment of D.C. National Guard troops during protests against racial injustice, he was in “constant communication with” then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. On Jan. 6, he said, there was radio silence.

During a call with senior Army leadership, as well as Capitol and city officials, to request mobilization of the National Guard, Walker said that military leaders, including Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn — the brother of former Trump official Michael Flynn, who called for martial law amid efforts to subvert the election — and Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, raised concerns about the optics of sending federal troops to protect the Capitol.

“The Army senior leaders did not think it’d look good [or] would be a good optic,” Walker said. “They further stated it could further incite the crowd.”

The National Guard commander said the issue of optics was “never discussed” when troops were deployed last summer during the Black Lives Matter protests.

Throughout Congress’ probe of the riot, current and former government officials have offered conflicting timelines and statements about the events that unfolded on Jan. 6. Wednesday’s hearing was no different.

Robert Salesses, a senior Defense Department official who also testified, pushed back against some of Walker’s testimony, including the timing of the troop deployment, the suggestion that Flynn and Piatt were concerned about optics and Walker’s authorization to unilaterally deploy troops.

Walker told lawmakers that prior to a Jan. 5 memo from then-Army Sec. McCarthy and then-Defense Secretary Chris Miller stating that he must seek their authorization to address any civil disturbances, he had the power to deploy troops. Salesses, the acting assistant secretary of defense for Homeland Security, contended that it had always been the case that Walker would need prior authorization.

Salesses also told lawmakers that McCarthy approved the request for the National Guard at 4:32 p.m. but that it wasn’t until 5:08 p.m. — 36 minutes later — that Walker was notified. Salesses did not offer a clear explanation for the time lapse, suggesting there were obvious communication failures in the chain of command.

“I think that part of the challenge is some of the delayed communications problems were some of the challenges we had that day,” Salesses said.

Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defended the federal government’s response time to the insurrection while traveling with reporters on Tuesday, according to The Washington Post.

“For the Pentagon, that’s super fast,” he said. “That’s like sprint speed.”

The COVID-19 vaccine has a side effect that is being mistaken for breast cancer

The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is causing an unexpected side effect in many patients, leading many women to believe that they may have cancer and even scheduling biopsies.

The observation of swollen lymph nodes in one’s armpits is a common sign of breast cancer, particularly in female patients. Swollen lymph nodes can also be a side effect of viral infections, and certain flus; an immune response, such as that which the body experiences after vaccination, appears to be the cause of said swollen lymph nodes. According to CNN, radiologists have seen an uptick in concerned patients which has led to a rush of biopsies.

To be clear, the COVID-19 is not causing breast cancer, but in some cases it is causing lymph nodes to swell which is worrying many women. Worse, some women have even reported seeing white “blobs” in their regular mammograms, which are a more serious sign of cancer. Yet such blobs are actually a COVID-19 vaccine side effect, too. 

Doctors emphasize that this is an expected and normal possible side effect, as the white a reaction by the immune system to the vaccine. It occurs on the same side as the arm where the person received the vaccine shot.

“When you hear hoofbeats, don’t think zebra,” Dr. Connie Lehman, chief of breast imaging in Massachusetts General’s department of radiology, told CNN. “If a woman had a vaccine in the arm on the same side, and the lymph nodes are swollen, this is a normal biological response. It’s totally expected. It just doesn’t make sense to start imaging.”

During clinical trials, an estimated 16 percent of patients reported swollen lymph nodes after the second inoculation of the Moderna vaccine; 11.6 percent reported swollen lymph nodes after the first dose. For the Pfizer vaccine, only 0.3 percent of patients in trials reported it. In a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) briefing document for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, swollen lymph nodes aren’t listed as a reported side effect.

In a recently published retrospective study in the American Journal of Roentgenology, a researcher at the University of California–Los Angeles found that 23 women had swollen lymph nodes appear on breast imaging after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine; 13 percent were symptomatic, and 43 percent were detected on diagnostic imaging.

Understandably, doctors are eager to spread the word that this might happen — and it’s not a reason to freak out.

“I am particularly eager to get the word out to all the patients undergoing surveillance after successful prior treatment of cancer,” Lehman told The New York Times. “I can’t imagine the anxiety of getting the scan and hearing, ‘We found a node that is large. We don’t think it’s cancer but can’t tell,’ or worse, ‘We think it might be cancer.'”

Due to the nuance of the symptoms, some professional groups like the Society of Breast Imaging are advising that medical professionals consider asking about a patient’s vaccination status, the date and which arm they received the vaccine, in an intake form. The group also advises women to schedule screening exams prior to the first dose of the vaccine, or four to six weeks after the second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. The Society of Breast Imaging states that if the swollen area continues after a short-term follow-up with a patient’s physician that a biopsy should be considered. They also advise that if the lump persists for six weeks after one’s vaccination to let your healthcare provider know.

Is Trump’s “true inauguration day” upon us? No, but Capitol Police boost security

The Capitol Police said they are ramping up security and calling in additional officers ahead of March 4, which some QAnon conspiracy theorists hopelessly believe to be the “true” inauguration date when former President Donald Trump will be returned to office.

“The Department is aware of concerning information and intelligence pertaining to March 4th and continues to work with all of our law enforcement partners,” a spokesperson for the Capitol Police said in a statement on Monday. “Based on the intelligence that we have, the Department has taken immediate steps to enhance our security posture and staffing for a number of days, to include March 4th. The Department has communicated our enhanced posture as well as the available intelligence for the entire workforce.”

Acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett said in an internal memo obtained by NBC News that his office is working closely with the department “to monitor information related to March 4th and potential protests and demonstration activity surrounding what some have described as the ‘true Inauguration Day.'” Blodgett added, however, that there was “no indication that groups will travel to Washington D.C. to protest or commit acts of violence.”

NBC News also reported that there is no evidence of planned protests or events in QAnon forums, but an FBI official said last week that the bureau is aware of chatter among far-right groups that “Thursday could be the next rallying point.” Some conspiracy theorists have urged followers to avoid any Thursday events over worries that there could be “false flag” operations intended to trap QAnon followers.

“There is little promotion of action around March 4th,” Daniel Jones, the head of the anti-disinformation nonprofit Advance Democracy, told the outlet. “Of course, there may be detailed planning occurring on closed channels that we’re not seeing.  Conspiracy theories around the election persist, and, remarkably, are still promoted by political leaders on the right.  There should be no doubt now that this sort of rhetoric has consequences — so we continue to be concerned about the potential for violence.”

QAnon adherents, who claim to believe that Trump is secretly fighting a satanic deep state cabal of Democratic child traffickers, albeit without an iota of evidence, have repeatedly predicted that Trump would lead mass arrests on several dates in 2018, 2019 and 2020. Those events did not occur. After struggling to cope with the fact that President Joe Biden was inaugurated on Jan. 20 rather than arrested, some believers hatched a fallback theory that Trump would return to office on March 4, which was the date of the inauguration until 1933. The theory largely stems from a brain-melting misinterpretation of a 150-year-old law that formally incorporated the Washington, D.C., municipal government, which some QAnon adherents have bizarrely taken to mean that the entire country was “incorporated” like a business.

“They believe that the United States was turned into a corporation and that invalidated, in their minds, everything that happened after that,” Julian Feeld, co-host of the “QAnon Anonymous” podcast, told Salon last month. “They believe, essentially, that a company was created called the United States of America Inc., or something like that. And that meant that we stopped being a country, like, it broke the Constitution, and made everything after that basically an act of sedition and treason.”

The FBI labeled QAnon a “dangerous extremist group” in 2019. Several QAnon followers were charged in the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Ashli Babbitt, the rioter killed by Capitol Police while trying to breach the House chamber, had frequently posted about QAnon conspiracy theories on social media.

Though some followers have pointed to March 4 as the possible date for Trump’s return — and Trump’s Washington hotel drastically hiked its room rates ahead of the date — Blodgett said in his memo that “the significance of this date has reportedly declined amongst various groups in recent days.”

But Marilyn Mayo, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, said that does not mean QAnon followers are giving up. She pointed to renewed chatter on conspiracy theory forums after Trump’s speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Sunday, in which he hinted at another presidential run.

“There’s renewed hope,” Mayo told USA Today. “A lot of people believe, without talking about a specific date, that Trump will be president, and that the military will somehow be involved.”

The fracturing of QAnon groups in the wake of Trump’s defeat has set some followers on varying courses in the choose-your-own-adventure nature of the conspiracy theory. Some QAnon followers believe Trump will return on May 20, which is 120 days after the January 20 inauguration and the date they believe — again, on absolutely no plausible evidence — that Trump invoked a plan to reset the national debt and abolish tax collection.

“That’s when the military can come in and take over. And then the entire country will be reset back to before the United States became USA Inc,” Robert Guffey, an author and lecturer at California State University, Long Beach, who tracks the movement, explained to Salon in February. “Trump will come back and the military will pull Biden out of the White House. Then all the debt goes away and the IRS is abolished. And then, at that point, Trump starts releasing all these hidden patents for free energy. It’s going to be utopia and all the Democrats will be in Gitmo. Then, when that doesn’t happen, they’ll either create another fake date or cobble up reasons why Joe Biden is actually a hologram and Trump is actually in the White House.”

The Supreme Court may be set to gut voting rights — but Democrats can still stop them

With the news cycle as nuts as it is — the constant pandemic news, the ongoing fallout from the Capitol insurrection, conservatives pretending to believe Dr. Seuss was “canceled” — it likely passed many people’s attention that the Supreme Court listened to arguments Tuesday that may signal the end of voting rights as we know them.

On the surface, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee may not seem like a big deal. The cases address partisan fights over rules in Arizona disallowing third party ballot collection and requiring ballots cast in the wrong precinct to be thrown out entirely, regulations that don’t seem, on their surface, like earth-shattering assaults on the ability of most voters to cast ballots. But voting rights experts fear that the particulars of the Arizona restrictions are not really what’s at stake in the case, which is likely to be ruled on this summer.

Instead, the concern is that the Republican-majority Supreme Court is going to use these cases to issue a broad ruling that will be used to destroy what is left of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, opening the door to a flood of voting restrictions targeting the ability of certain classes of people — such as young people and people of color — to vote. If that happens, it could further entrench minority rule over the U.S., making it nearly impossible for Democrats to hold substantial power, despite routinely winning the majority of votes in federal elections. 

The good news is that Democrats, at this moment, have the power to stop this from happening, by passing the For the People Act, otherwise known as H.R. 1.

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

But in order to do that, they need to — say it with me now! — nuke the filibuster, or Republicans in the Senate will be able to block the bill from ever even coming to a vote. Unfortunately, more conservative Democrats, especially Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have signaled that they intend to keep the filibuster in place, even as it’s being used to usher in what voting rights activists have deemed the “new Jim Crow.” 

To understand the situation, it helps to note that the conservative justices of the Supreme Court and GOP efforts at suppressing the vote are working in concert. As Ian Millhiser at Vox explains, “The Supreme Court doesn’t just have a 6-3 Republican majority; it’s a majority that includes several justices who’ve shown a great deal of hostility toward voting rights generally and the Voting Rights Act in particular.” Chief Justice John Roberts, in particular, has a long history of hatred for this law, which was passed to end Jim Crow restrictions on Black voters in 1965.

In 43 states, Republicans in state legislatures have introduced at least 253 bills intended to block eligible voters from the polls. Many of these have a good chance of passing, such as the Georgia bill that is clearly meant to target the rights of the Atlanta-area voters, especially Black voters, who helped win the state for Joe Biden in November and Democratic Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock in January. 

This onslaught of bills has largely been attributed to Republican anger over Donald Trump’s loss and to his avalanche of lies about “voter fraud” used to justify his false claims to be the “real” winner of the election. And that is true, but it’s also the case that state Republicans are well aware not just of the Supreme Court’s interest in obliterating the Voting Rights Act, but the urgency to push through any clampdowns this year. And so they are queueing up a series of voting restrictions, many of which would not pass muster with the Voting Rights Act still in place. 

“It’s hard to be optimistic about the Voting Rights Act with this court that already gutted the Voting Rights Act,” journalist Ari Berman explained to Joy Reid on MSNBC Tuesday night. He was referring to a previous case, Shelby County vs. Holder, which struck down a critical provision in the Voting Rights Act and opened the door to the previous flood of often unsubtly racist voting restrictions. If more of the law is eliminated, the situation will get much worse. Unfortunately, Tuesday’s arguments before the court Tuesday did not foretell a good outcome. The conservative judges, especially Roberts, kept asking leading questions that showcased a skepticism of the very idea that the government should not be in the business of making it harder for people to vote. 

The collapse of voting rights was a multi-decade project on the right. It took years of pipelining judges opposed to civil rights through organizations like the Federalist Society and Republicans manipulating the nomination and confirmation process in order to pack the courts with these judges. Once the courts were taken over, then the bill started passing, helping secure more minority power for Republicans and more control over who gets on the courts. This latest round could be fatal to the ability of Democrats to win national elections, no matter how many more Americans prefer them. 

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

But passing the For the People Act would stop this multi-decade Republican effort to gut democracy in its tracks. As Jon Schwarz at the Intercept writes, “The bill makes illegal essentially all of the anti-enfranchisement tactics perfected by the right over the past decades. It then creates a new infrastructure to permanently bolster the influence of regular people.” 

This reality makes the unwillingness of Sinema and Manchin to support ending the filibuster to pass the For the People Act incomprehensible.

Sinema, in particular, would benefit from this bill. It is literally her voting base that is being targeted for elimination with these Jim Crow-style laws in Arizona. Her re-election could very well depend on ending the filibuster and making sure her own voters are protected. Sinema only won in 2018 by 55,900 votes over her Republican opponent, Martha McSally. Without the For the People Act, Republicans can easily kick that many Democratic voters out of the polls by the time she’s up for re-election in 2024, artificially rigging the election for whatever Republican she faces. 

Nothing is more important right now than securing voting rights. The economy, the pandemic, even climate change are all life-altering issues, but without voting rights, the ability to protect public health, fix the economy, and fix the environment are all imperiled. Ending the filibuster is the right thing to do anyway — it’s ridiculous to let a losing minority have veto rights over all legislation — but it is doubly important now. The question of whether the United States will even be a democracy by the year 2024 hangs in the balance.

Democrats aren’t just failing themselves if they don’t end the filibuster, they are failing democracy itself. 

Trump’s White House physician drank on duty, sexually harassed staff, says Pentagon watchdog report

According to an official report issued by the Department of Defense, Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Tex., allegedly made “sexual and denigrating” remarks about a female staffer, drank alcohol, and took the prescription drug Ambien during his time as the top White House physician to Donald Trump.   

The Inspector General’s investigation, launched in 2018, reviewed official documents and interviews with 78 witnesses, corroborating allegations that date back to Jackson’s service under the Obama administration. Jackson, now a member of the House of Representatives as well as the House Armed Services subcommittee, was reportedly known for “yelling, screaming, cursing, or belittling subordinates,” drinking alcohol during presidential trips and taking Ambien during long plane flights. Several witnesses reportedly described him as a “tyrant,” a “crappy manager,” a “dictator,” and a “control freak.” According to CNN, which has obtained the IG’s report, Jackson “established a workplace where fear and intimidation were kind of the hallmarks of him, his command, and control of his subordinates.” 

In one instance, a witness recounted Jackson banging on the door of a female staffer’s hotel room. When she opened the door, he pleaded, “I need you. I need you to come to my room.” In another instance, a witness alleged that Jackson had described a female subordinate as “[having] great t**s,” as well as “a nice a**.” Several witnesses corroborated claims that Jackson’s breath routinely smelled of alcohol, and that the Representative drank less than twenty-four hours before the President’s arrival, a violation of a medical regulation which Jackson dismissed as “ridiculous.” 

The IG’s report also notes that President Trump’s White House Counsel insisted on being present throughout all of the watchdog’s interviews with White House Medical Unit staff, which may have had a “potential chilling effect” on those who gave testimony. In fact, the investigation was put on a ten-month hiatus due to to concerns that the President would invoke executive privilege to quash it –– a privilege the President did not ultimately take.

The report, expected to be publicly released on Wednesday, has been demurred by Jackson as a politically-motivated hit job designed to “to repeat and rehash untrue attacks on [his] integrity.”

“Today,” said Jackson, “a Department of Defense Inspector General report has resurrected those same false allegations from my years with the Obama Administration because I have refused to turn my back on President Trump.”

“I flat out reject any allegation that I consumed alcohol while on duty,” he added, “I also categorically deny any implication that I was in any way sexually inappropriate at work, outside of work, or anywhere with any member of my staff or anyone else. That is not me and what is alleged did not happen.”

Back in 2018, Jackson withdrew his nomination as the secretary of Veterans Affairs over similar allegations of abuse and intoxication. At the time, Jackson has similarly denied the allegations as “completely false and fabricated.”

Biden pulls Neera Tanden nomination after GOP, Joe Manchin sink her over mean tweets

President Joe Biden withdrew his nomination of Neera Tanden to head the Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., joined Republicans in opposing her confirmation.

“I have accepted Neera Tanden’s request to withdraw her name from nomination for Director of the Office of Management and Budget,” Biden said in a statement. “I have the utmost respect for her record of accomplishment, her experience and her counsel, and I look forward to having her serve in a role in my Administration.”

Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress (CAP) and a longtime ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, drew bipartisan backlash after spending years on Twitter hitting out at conservatives and progressives alike. During the Democratic primaries, Tanden had frequently targeted Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who now heads the Senate Budget Committee that was reviewing her nomination. Tanden apologized during a hearing before the committee last month. Sanders, who also pressed Tanden about the corporate donations CAP has received under her leadership, has never said how he would vote on her confirmation. Her hopes quickly faded in the 50-50 Senate after Manchin announced his opposition to Tanden last month over her “overtly partisan statements.”

The White House insisted for more than a week that it would work to find Republican votes to replace Manchin, but failed to attract any takers among moderate Republicans like Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah. The Budget Committee postponed its vote on Tanden’s nomination last week ahead of Tanden’s meeting with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, but a senior administration official told The New York Times that the senator made it clear she would not support the confirmation.

Murkowski, who reportedly sought concessions for her state in exchange for her support, said she never told the White House how she would vote.

“I never did,” she said. “They never asked.”

An administration official told CNN that the White House felt the political capital needed to salvage Tanden’s nomination was better spent on passing the next round of coronavirus relief.

Tanden formally asked Biden to withdraw her nomination in a letter released by the White House on Tuesday.

“I appreciate how hard you and your team at the White House has worked to win my confirmation,” Tanden wrote. “Unfortunately, it now seems clear that there is no path forward to gain confirmation, and I do not want continued consideration of my nomination to be a distraction from your other priorities.”

White House chief of staff Ron Klain has said that Tanden would land another job at the White House that does not require Senate confirmation if her nomination was scrapped. Biden in his statement said he looks “forward to having her serve in a role in my Administration.”

White House officials knew about Tanden’s social media history but believed it would not sink her nomination after the Senate confirmed several of former President Donald Trump’s nominees with long histories of antagonistic or offensive tweets — and after Trump himself spent years spewing vitriol on Twitter before being banned by the social network.

“You should be judged by the time. And the time we were in, we had a fool in the [White House] tweeting all kinds of shit,” a White House official told PBS News’ Yamiche Alcindor. “So, it’s just remarkable that people can’t separate that.”

Biden’s team also believed senators would rally around the nomination of the first Indian-American and first woman of color to head the OMB.

Manchin, who has emerged as an early roadblock to the Biden agenda, was apparently unconvinced by Tanden’s contrition at last month’s hearing.

“I believe her overtly partisan statements will have a toxic and detrimental impact on the important working relationship between members of Congress and the next director of the Office of Management and Budget,” said Manchin, who previously voted to confirm longtime Twitter troll Ric Grenell as ambassador to Germany in 2018. “For this reason, I cannot support her nomination.”

Tanden had deleted more than 1,000 old tweets after the November election, which Collins said “raised concerns about her commitment to transparency.”

Collins, who voted to confirm many of Trump’s most controversial nominees, including Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said Tanden’s past actions showed she has “neither the experience nor the temperament to lead this agency.”

It’s not unusual for new presidents to lose some confirmation battles. Former President Barack Obama failed to get his first nominees to head the Commerce and Health and Human Services departments confirmed. Though Trump had more success early on, toward the end of his administration he effectively decided to bypass the confirmation process entirely, appointing many Cabinet and sub-Cabinet officials secretaries in acting capacities, with varying degrees of success. Though many progressives on or near the Democrats’ left flank expressed relief that Tanden’s nomination has been pulled, her supporters hit out at the double standard facing Biden’s picks after four years of Trump.

“I respect Neera’s decision to withdraw her nomination for OMB. What I don’t respect is any Senator who chose to apply a different standard to her ‘temperament’ and ‘tweets’ as a woman of color than they did to similar postures of the white men who they voted for with no apology,” tweeted Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Allowing a pass on these double standards is corrosive, wrong, and damaging to our democracy which thrives on diverse representation in government.”

The failed nomination underscores Biden’s perils with a 50-50 Senate and ongoing Republican obstruction efforts. Biden’s Cabinet is being filled at the slowest pace in modern history, according to the Associated Press, with just 13 of his 23 Cabinet nominees confirmed six weeks into his presidency. By comparison, the previous four presidents had 84% of their core Cabinet picks confirmed about a month into their terms. After sinking Tanden’s nomination, Republicans have now turned their ire to Xavier Becerra, Biden’s pick to head HHS, accusing him of being a culture warrior over lawsuits he filed defending abortion rights and challenging Trump’s policies as California’s attorney general. Unlike Tanden, however, Becerra is expected to be confirmed with bipartisan support.

Biden’s potential fallback options to head OMB include Gene Sperling, who led the National Economic Council under Obama, and Ann O’Leary, the former chief of staff to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to the New York Times. Many top Democrats, however, are pressing Biden to choose Shalanda Young, who is currently nominated to be OMB’s deputy director. Young, who would be the first Black woman to lead the agency, served for over a decade as a leading staff member to Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee and has received support from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., the Congressional Black Caucus and even Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Shelby, who is retiring, said last month that Young “would have my support, and I suspect many of my Republican colleagues would support her as well.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. also praised Young during her confirmation hearing for the deputy role.

“Everybody that deals with you on our side has nothing but good things to say,” he said. “You might talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it. … You’ll get my support, maybe for both jobs.”

How to cook a spiral ham (and enjoy it for days)

Spiral sliced ham is, in fact, an American invention. Harry Hoenselaar, the founder of the HoneyBaked Ham Company, built the world’s first spiral slicing machine in 1924. The idea, he said, had come to him in a dream, and his prototype was assembled from “a tire jack, a pie tin, a washing machine motor, and a knife.” If you’re as enamored by the idea of this gorgeous meat helix as we are and wondering how to cook a spiral ham at home, you’ve come to the right place. Let’s cut the fat, and get right down to the bone of how to treat your ham right, so you and your guests can properly feast on this succulent American classic.

What is a spiral ham?

A spiral ham is, in a nutshell, a bone-in ham that’s been sliced with a special spiral-slicing machine, which carves the meat into perfectly thin slices while allowing it to retain its show-stopping centerpiece shape for optimal presentation. All spiral sliced hams are pre-cooked, so there is actually no need to cook a spiral ham — it’s ready to eat. Nonetheless, there are two additional steps to take in order to get the most enjoyment out of your ham: heating and glazing.

How to heat a spiral ham

Your ham is already cooked, so it only needs to be brought to a suitable serving temperature, which is about 140°F. Since it’s a large piece of meat, warming should go slow and low because it takes time for heat to penetrate all the way to the bone. You don’t want to dry out the surface in the process, however, and heating too aggressively will rob the ham of its succulence (to the point where neither glaze nor mustard can improve the situation).

The most important tool to help you properly heat a spiral ham isn’t an oven, it’s a thermometer. Yes, you need an oven, too. But being able to measure your target is the best way to avoid overshooting it. You don’t want to miss Juicytown and end up in Jerkyville.

Next you’ll want some kind of covering. Foil is the easiest vapor barrier to apply, and it’s foolproof. Loosely wrap the ham with foil, set it in a roasting pan, and you’ll have everything you need to keep your ham nice and moist. If you don’t have foil, you can use a cooking bag, or even a large oven-safe pot with a lid set ajar.

Some folks like to add liquid or lemon slices to the bottom of the pan, but this isn’t necessary. As long as you use a thermometer and don’t set your oven too high, your ham will reach serving temperature without drying out.

Many ham preparation guides will tell you to heat your ham for X minutes per pound at Y temperature. The X is usually somewhere between 10 and 20, while the Y is generally 250-300°F. Don’t worry so much about the time, and just check the ham’s internal temperature periodically with the thermometer. When it hits 135°F or so, pull it out, and it will continue cooking to reach the recommended 140°F. For a large ham, this can take several hours, so plan accordingly.

You can use a crockpot instead of an oven to heat your ham, provided, of course, the crockpot is spacious enough. In a crockpot set to low, an eight to 10-pound ham will warm through in four or five hours, depending on the ham’s initial temperature.

How to glaze a spiral ham

Many spiral hams will come with a little packet of glaze. Everyone loves to advise you to throw the packet away, but we’ll leave that decision up to you (to be certain, there’s nothing especially wrong with the glaze packet). If you’re making your own glaze, feel free to take the flavor profile in just about any direction, although traditionally most glazes are made with a combination of brown sugar, honey, mustard, fruit juice, and spices like clove or cayenne pepper. Maple and bourbon are also popular flavorings.

In terms of timing, it’s best to apply several applications over the course of reheating. That way the glaze has time to drizzle in between the slices, and help seal in the moisture throughout the warming process. If you like, you can put the ham under the broiler for a couple of minutes at the end in order to get those crispy, caramelized edges with sizzle and shine announcing the presence of a formidable centerpiece. Crispy edges can also significantly boost leftover ham’s value, adding a pleasant texture even days later.

How to carve a spiral ham

Now that your ham is hot, glazed, and ready to serve, you’d better photograph it, because next you’ll need to carve it. Simply slice along the bone and watch those perfect slices fall like autumn leaves or the petals of spring flowers onto your platter or plate. Drizzle with a few glaze-infused pan drippings, and enjoy. Don’t forget to save that ham bone, it’s perfect for collard greens, pasta fagiole, or red beans and rice.

Related recipes:

CPAC, conservatives and the culture war: Why Republicans will become more extreme in Trump’s absence

Back in 2017, the dominant post-election analysis held that the people who voted for Trump were driven into the arms of the billionaire, populist, demagogue out of an overwhelming sense of “economic anxiety.” Political pundits spent months wringing their hands over how the Democrats had somehow failed to address the basic, workaday, kitchen-table-issues of these hardscrabble Americans while Donald Trump gave them hope that he would ease their burdens with his very stable business genius.

That was never very accurate as anyone observing the Trump phenomenon could see. Those voters were just mad at the fact that society is changing and they feel they are losing their status. In other words, they don’t want to share the culture equally with people who think and live differently than they do. Donald Trump spoke their language of grievance and exclusion and they reveled in it. They followed him around like a bunch of red-hatted Deadheads, dancing, chanting and cheering ecstatically at every insulting, degrading remark he made, unashamedly telling the press that they loved him because he said out loud what they were thinking.

Despite losing his re-election, being impeached twice, overseeing the worst pandemic response of all developed countries and inciting an insurrection based upon the colossal lie that the election was stolen, most of them are still with Trump. If anything, they have gone way beyond simple grievance about losing their status as this series of interviews by CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan at last weekend’s CPAC illustrates:

You might think it makes sense to chalk up all those comments to the fringiest of the fringe but that would be wrong.

Political scientists Christopher Sebastian Parker and Rachel M. Blum at the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage recently surveyed avowed MAGA followers and the findings were predictable. “At least half are White, Christian, male, over 65, retired and earn over 50,000 a year.” It turns out 30% have college degrees so the idea that it’s all about “non-college-educated” voters is at least somewhat erroneous. According to the Post:

MAGA supporters overwhelmingly believe Trump’s election misinformation, as well as other conspiracy theories. Nearly 100 percent of MAGA supporters believe Trump’s claims that the election was stolen, and 70 percent support Trump remaining in office beyond the allowed two terms. Their distrust extends to other areas as well. They overwhelmingly agree, in proportions of 80 percent or higher, with statements suggesting that unknown elites control America and with conspiracy theories about covid-19. […]

MAGA supporters are also biased against Blacks, immigrants and women. They fully accept Trump’s rhetoric on these groups, downplay any obstacles faced by Black Americans, view immigration as a threat to U.S. laws and culture and agree women are seeking special favors, or worse, are trying to control men.

This is a very radical group of people and they are much more extreme than they were in 2016. These are self-described MAGA believers so perhaps they don’t accurately represent all Republican voters, but the fact is that most Republicans do support Donald Trump and it’s hard to separate him from this wild set of beliefs. Certainly, the rejection of all reason and facts concerning the election results and democratic norms applies across the board.

New York Magazine’s Ben Jacobs smartly observed that the American right has pretty much abandoned any pretense to libertarianism and is now much more aligned with the European right than its ever been. (Yes, their paeans to “freedom” are as shrill as ever but, as Jacobs points out, the point seems to be more aimed at “owning the libs” than any adherence to principle.) He notes that while there were some tepid gestures toward small government economics, the over-arching theme at CPAC this year was demagogic, culture war red meat, with “strident warnings about Marxism and Black Lives Matter, hardline stances set out on immigration and the rise of China and newfound zeal to combat and regulate social-media companies.” And Jacobs notes that politicians all tried to tap into the “‘but he fights’ ethos that fueled Trump’s rise.”

The New York Times also reported that the crowd loved those they perceived as “fighters” from Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo, to South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. (They even like the lame demagoguery of former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, which I find incomprehensible.) They don’t care if these people are right or wrong, it’s their unwillingness to back down no matter what that they admire.

“We can sit around and have academic debates about conservative policy,” DeSantis said. “But the question is, when the klieg lights get hot, when the left comes after you: Will you stay strong, or will you fold?”

That’s also what they love about Trump. Considering that, perhaps the most disturbing parallel with European far-right nationalism and today’s GOP is the Big Lie of the stolen election and the rejection of the peaceful transfer of power.

As the New Yorker’s Masha Gessen points out, this widespread belief, validated and confirmed by all those “fighters” in the GOP and the right-wing media, has a disturbing precedent in recent political history. She tells the story of right-wing populist leaders Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, and Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński, both of whom were voted out of office after early failed terms, claimed that the vote was rigged and returned to office later to dismantle what was left of liberal democracy. They are still in office years later.

Gessen also quotes Bálint Magyar, the author of such books as “Post-Communist Mafia State” and “The Anatomy of Post-Communist Regimes” who defines their populism as, “an ideological instrument for the political program of morally unconstrained collective egoism.” Gessen explains:

Magyar suggested reading the definition backward to better understand it: “The egoistic voter who wants to disregard other people and help solely himself can express this in a collective more easily than alone.” The collective form helps frame the selfishness in loftier terms, deploying “homeland,” “America first,” or ideas about keeping people safe from alien criminals. In the end, Magyar writes, such populism “delegitimizes moral constraints and legitimizes moral nihilism.”

Now go back and look at the characteristics of the MAGA people surveyed by Parker and Blum for the Monkey Cage. Magyar describes their leadership as well.

At their CPAC confab last weekend, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem proudly took credit for refusing to follow health guidelines that would have saved lives in the pandemic. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz mocked the necessity to wear masks. And their president in exile stood before them and insisted over and over again that the election was stolen from them. That sure sounds like “a political program of morally unconstrained egoism” to me. 

Arizona’s Rep. Paul Gosar: GOP’s leading ambassador to white supremacy

Former Republican lawmakers slammed the GOP for its silence after Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., spoke at a conference organized by a white nationalist who praised the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, weeks after being linked to the rally that sparked the deadly attack

Gosar skipped Friday’s vote on a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package approved by the House to attend the America First Political Action Conference, which was organized by white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who mused about killing members of Congress days before the riot. Gosar later condemned “white racism” during an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference ahead of former President Donald Trump’s speech over the weekend — and then met with Fuentes again after the event.

Former Rep. Joe Walsh, an Illinois Republican who was elected alongside Gosar during the 2010 Tea Party wave before rejecting far-right extremism after Trump’s rise to power, said he was “stunned” by Gosar’s extremist turn and expressed frustration that Republican leaders have stayed silent on his appearance at AFPAC.

“It’s beyond disappointing,” Walsh said in an interview with Salon. “This is where the party is now. The fact that this party— and we all contributed to it — but here we are in 2021, and one of their members keynotes a white nationalist event and the party can’t condemn it. The party is telling the country that they’re OK with white supremacy.”

Former Rep. Denver Riggleman, R-Va., also slammed the party for failing to condemn Gosar for getting cozy with white nationalists, noting that Fuentes is a Holocaust denier who has pushed anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. (Fuentes has denied this.)

“This is what @RepGosar supports: Unambiguous anti-Semitism,” Riggleman tweeted. “He should be condemned by the full House for speaking at AFPAC.”

The Anti-Defamation League’s Arizona chapter said in a statement that Gosar’s appearance at AFPAC was “deeply disturbing.”

“A member of Congress should never share a stage with Fuentes,” the group said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center said it was “unimaginable” that Gosar would not be held accountable by his colleagues.

“Less than two months after the violent attack on the Capitol, Rep. Paul Gosar participated in a gathering of white nationalists at the beckoning of one of the movement’s most notorious and hateful leaders who glorified the events of that day,” Susan Corke, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, said in a statement to Salon. “While his colleagues were holding hearings to ensure that another violent insurrection will never again disgrace the halls of Congress, Gosar provided these extremists a mainstream platform and further stoked the hate that drives their movement.”

Gosar, who was described by “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander as a key ally in organizing the Jan. 6 rally that preceded the riot, and who has extensive ties to extremist groups, skipped Friday’s House vote, citing the coronavirus pandemic — although he previously joining a lawsuit arguing that voting by proxy in Congress is unconstitutional. “I continue to be unable to physically attend proceedings in the House Chamber due to the ongoing public health emergency,” he said in a letter justifying his absence.

Gosar, who led Republican objections to the counting of Arizona’s electoral votes, and later reportedly asked Donald Trump for a pardon related to his involvement with the rally, spoke at AFPAC after former Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who was denounced by the GOP in 2019 for comments defending white nationalism and white supremacy.

The event was organized by Fuentes, a 22-year-old white nationalist agitator who promoted the Jan. 6 rally and originally gained prominence after the deadly 2017 “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville. Fuentes, who has been banned by some social networks for making racist and anti-Semitic comments, called on the AFPAC audience to help America protect its “white demographic core” and accused Black Lives Matter activists of trying to create “a new racial caste system in this country, with whites at the bottom,” The Washington Post first reported.

“If America ceases to retain that English cultural framework and the influence of European civilization, if it loses its White demographic core and if it loses its faith in Jesus Christ, then this is not America anymore,” Fuentes said.

Fuentes, who attended the Jan. 6 rally but says he did not enter the Capitol, later praised the rioters as “patriots.”

“I saw the police retreating and we heard that the politicians voting on the fraudulent election had scurried to their underground tunnels away from the Capitol,” Fuentes said. “I said to myself: ‘This is awesome!'”

Fuentes went on to mock Gosar’s Republican colleagues and made fun of Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., for using a wheelchair.

Gosar did not mention AFPAC or Fuentes on Saturday during an appearance at the Trump-headlined CPAC but abruptly interrupted a panel discussion to note that he disavows racism, with no apparent context. “I want to tell you, I denounce . . . white racism,” he said. “That’s not appropriate.”

Gosar acknowledged to the Washington Post after the panel that he was referring to Fuentes’ comments. He told the outlet that he accepted the invitation because “you don’t accomplish anything by isolating” certain audiences.

“We thought about it, and we thought: There is a group of young people that are becoming part of the election process, and becoming a bigger force,” Gosar said. “So why not take that energy and listen to what they’ve got to say?”

CPAC organizers did not comment on Gosar’s appearance but blocked Fuentes from entering the conference with a group of maskless supporters.

Despite Gosar’s comments, Fuentes posted a photo of the two sharing drinks on Saturday.

“Great meeting today with Congressman Gosar!” he wrote. “America is truly uncancelled.”

Walsh, who like many Tea Party-backed Republicans pushed racist conspiracy theories to win elections, said the appearance made clear how far Gosar had drifted to the extremist fringe from their time in Congress together in 2011 and 2012.

“Gosar was sort of nuts back then,” Walsh said, but we were all sort of part of the same Tea Party wave. Even though some of us were kind of nuts, it was all about the issues. I don’t recognize these guys now. I mean, this crazy shit was fringe — now it’s like the base of the party.”

Walsh noted that just two years ago the Republican Party stripped King of his committee assignments after he questioned why the term “white supremacy “was deemed offensive.

“Maybe I’m naive, but back in 2010, if Gosar pulled something like this I got to believe [former House Speaker John] Boehner and leadership would have come down on him like a ton of bricks,” he said. “It’s amazing. He blew off a COVID relief vote to fire up a bunch of white supremacists, and the fucking party, they’re not going to do a damn thing to him.”

Republicans were recently forced to reckon with freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who has made comments pushing conspiracy theories and calling for Democrats to be executed. The party ultimately decided not to punish Greene, but Walsh predicted it won’t even have the same conversation about Gosar.

In the pre-Trump era, Walsh said, the situation was quite different: Republican leaders would “bounce his ass off of committees, immediately the party censures him, and the party goes out of their way to condemn this Nick Fuentes and this white nationalist group.” Now, he added, “I didn’t see one Republican in the conference who condemned what Gosar did. … I don’t think they’ll even bring it up.”

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., has been one of the most vocal Republicans in opposing the racism and conspiracy theories pushed by his party’s fringe, but like the rest of his colleagues has stayed silent on Gosar’s speech. Kinzinger’s office did not respond to Salon’s request for comment.

Fuentes is understood as the leader of the “groypers,” a fringe far-right group fueled by supposedly ironic memes, including specific Pepe the Frog poses. The ADL describes them as a “white supremacist group” who believe they are defending the country against “demographic and cultural changes that are destroying the ‘true America’ — a white, Christian nation.” The FBI is currently investigating a $250,000 bitcoin payment Fuentes received ahead of the Jan. 6 riot, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Alexander, the “Stop the Steal” organizer, praised Fuentes’ “hugely successful” AFPAC event over the weekend. Last week, Alexander hosted Gosar’s chief of staff, Tom Van Flein, a former top aide to ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in a Clubhouse chatroom that also included indicted right-wing fraudster Jacob Wohl.

Alexander said after the Capitol riot, in a now-deleted video, that he had “schemed up” the Jan. 6 rally to put “maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting” to certify the election, in collaboration with Gosar and Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., and Mo Brooks, R-Ala. Biggs and Brooks have both denied involvement with Alexander. Gosar, notably, has not.

Gosar previously appeared at a rally organized by Alexander in December, where he told supporters they planned to “conquer the Hill” to return Trump to the White House.

Gosar’s office did not respond to questions from Salon.

Gosar has also come under scrutiny for his ties to extremist groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, some of whose members now face conspiracy charges after they were seen in videos leading the invasion of the Capitol.

The New York Times reported after the riot that Jim Arroyo, who leads an Arizona chapter of the Oath Keepers, promoted a “coming civil war,” citing Gosar’s appearance at an event held by the group several years earlier.

“We had Congressman Paul Gosar come to a meeting, he is the elected representative here in Northern Arizona,” Arroyo said. “And we asked him, flat out — Do you think we are headed towards a Civil War? And he said, ‘We are in a Civil War, we just haven’t started shooting yet’ … So that is about to change.”

The group has used that kind of civil war rhetoric as a recruiting tool, according to KNXV.

Gosar came under criticism last summer after posing for a photo with a member of the Proud Boys. In 2018, he met with the jailed leader of a far-right anti-immigrant extremist group and made comments about Muslim immigrants that were widely seen as Islamophobic. In 2014, he traveled with Arizona Republican Party chairwoman Kelli Ward to support the Bundy militia in its Nevada standoff with federal law enforcement, after rancher Cliven Bundy refused to pay grazing fees and stop trespassing on federal land.

“He’s been involved with anti-Muslim groups and hate groups,” his brother, Dave Gosar, told the Times. “He’s made anti-Semitic diatribes. He’s twisted up so tight with the Oath Keepers it’s not even funny.”

Dave Gosar and other siblings of the congressman bought ads to campaign against their brother in 2018 after he falsely suggested that the deadly Charlottesvile neo-Nazi rally was “created by the left” and carried out by an “Obama sympathizer.” He also falsely claimed that billionaire Democratic donor George Soros, the target of countless anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, had bankrolled the event.

“We warned everybody how dangerous he was,” Dave Gosar said after the riot.

Gosar condemned the rioters on Twitter, urging them to “not get carried away” while posting a photo of the mob scaling a Capitol wall. But he posted the same photo to the far-right social network Parler, which was used by some rioters to coordinate the attack, without any such criticism. “Americans are upset,” he wrote in response to the image.

In the days following the riot, Arizona Democrats called for the FBI and Justice Department to investigate Gosar and other state lawmakers “directly involved, as well as those who, through words and conduct, aided and abetted sedition, treason or any other federal crimes.”

“The events of January 6 were not spontaneous, nor were they the random acts of a diffuse handful of unconnected individuals,” the state Democratic party said in a letter to federal law enforcement officials. “For weeks prior to the breach, a group of Republican Arizona legislators and legislators-elect publicly advocated for the overthrow of the election results which encouraged precisely the kind of violent conduct that we witnessed.”

CNN has reported that Gosar and Biggs asked Trump for a pardon related to their involvement with the rally that preceded the riot in January, but were denied.

Gosar’s siblings have launched a new campaign to remove their brother from Congress in the wake of the riot.

“We feel it’s our moral obligation,” Dave Gosar told the Los Angeles Times, adding that his brother is “in my opinion, about as despicable a politician as I have ever seen.”

“He started at an extreme place, he started at a bigoted place … and he’s gone even further into that,” added sister Jennifer Gosar.

“Paul has no character, no integrity, no honor,” agreed brother Tim Gosar, “and is absolutely as close as you get to a pathological liar.”

Walsh predicted that despite calls for Gosar to be punished, the Republican Party will stay silent because of the effect Trump has had on the party over the last five years.

“This is one of Trump’s impacts on the party,” he said. “The party follows a lot of Trump’s signals. Trump makes signals to a lot of these white supremacists and white nationalists. I mean, Donald Trump didn’t go out of his way to condemn them. They’re more welcomed now in the coalition, and I think the party gets that. So the party is much, much more loath to condemn people like this.”

Donald Trump’s “real” legacy to America: The weaponization of an alternate reality

Sen. Ted Cruz is a proud disciple of Donald Trump’s legacy to America — his weaponization of alternate reality. In recent days, Cruz has been positively Trumpian in his betrayal and lack of empathy regarding his family’s getaway to a beach resort in Mexico while his state was paralyzed by a catastrophic winter storm. To make matters worse, Cruz championed an alternate reality by concocting different versions of the “truth” with a web of lies and shifting blame to his children. For now, his alternate reality appears to have won the day.

Sen. Ron Johnson claims that the mood among the demonstrators at the Capitol on Jan. 6 was largely “positive,” and that there were “fake Trump protesters” in the crowd. In proclaiming this blatant falsehood, Johnson is egging on the millions of Trump supporters who still believe that the election was stolen from their leader. Alternate reality lives on.

At the conclusion of Trump’s second impeachment trial, he was acquitted for his role in the insurrection at the Capitol. Despite being presented with mountains of audio and video evidence from that fateful day, 43 out of 50 Republican senators voted to exonerate him. It was not just cowardice or foolishness that led to their votes. No, they made a purposeful decision to follow their cult leader into the abyss of his alternate reality. According to Trump, his speech that morning to the escalating mob was “totally appropriate.” Alternate reality triumphed over observable truth on center stage.

Trump has created his alternate reality to bolster his fragile ego and to advance his political fortunes. He has used it to cover up his evident character defects and to persuade others to believe in his greatness and superiority. His “reality” consists of “big lies,” small lies, conspiracy theories, misinformation, propaganda, false narratives and violence. He is masterful — although deeply corrupt — at blurring and even shattering truth for his political advantage. In Trump’s fantasyland, there is no oversight, no accountability and no laws that apply to him. The means justify the ends. Anything he says or does is acceptable as long as it brings him attention, adoration, profit and power. 

Unfortunately for our country, Trump’s use of alternate reality has become the ideology of the Republican Party and nearly half of all Americans. This explains why most of the party and legions of followers still support a man who has been impeached twice, botched the deadly coronavirus pandemic, crashed the economy and incited an insurrection against our government. This is what happens when a demagogue promulgates a “reality” that carries the weight of the presidency but is inherently toxic and pernicious.

A large swath of America has adopted and internalized Trump’s use of alternate reality. Millions of Americans have been brainwashed into accepting his distorted reality. They view Trump as their cult leader who possesses the qualities of greatness. They believe in his alternate reality — even his blatant lies, his outlandish conspiracy theories and his provocation of violence. And now, they believe that the use of alternate reality by both politicians and followers is smart and effective strategy.

Trump’s alternate reality is wholly malignant and dangerous because it undermines objective truth. It is a myth. It is an illusion. Trump is a salesman, a carnival barker, a con man. He has no interest in people, policy or public service. All he cares about is selling himself — his personal and commercial brand — through his lies, his conspiracy theories and his propaganda. Anything is fair game, even an alternate reality that is nonsensical and poisonous. 

Trump’s use of alternate reality is antithetical to democratic principles and the Constitution. He does not love democracy and he does not love America. He wants to destroy it. He is an authoritarian at heart. He orchestrated and incited an insurrection against our government, intended to overthrow the will of the people. His singular goal was to maintain his power at any cost. If that had happened, his alternate reality would have lived on and flourished. We would have become a country of lies, conspiracy theories, propaganda and violence — also known as an authoritarian state.

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are the antidotes to Trump’s alternate reality. They function within the context of facts, the truth and science. They have not constructed an alternate reality that is self-serving and virulent. They cherish democracy and understand that its sustainability requires observable and transparent truth.

The solution is for Trump to be marginalized and purged. Even now that he is out of office, he has hit the airwaves to continue to spread the “Big Lie” that he won the election. He will never accept or understand that his alternate reality is destructive to the well-being of our people. Nor does he care. He still thinks it is his sure-fire ticket to success. After all, he became president and came close to winning re-election by convincing Americans that his “exceptionalism” could be theirs too — and that their lives would be better for it. Please tell the families of the 500,000 dead Americans that their lives are better. Please tell the millions of Americans who are jobless, broke and frightened that their lives are improved. 

Americans must stop being lazy and complacent about figuring out the observable truth. They cannot let partisan bias allow their thinking to be hijacked by an alternate reality. Cable news networks and social media platforms must make truth their sole vehicle of communication. Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, Facebook and other entities must take responsibility for promoting truth over fiction, facts over lies and critical observation over conspiracy theories.

Trump’s weaponization of alternate reality must be repudiated once and for all. Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson and other congressional Republicans need to rebuke Trump’s alternate reality — and must stop creating their own for purely selfish and political reasons.

There is only one truth — the objective truth. What Donald Trump and his cohorts do not want you to know is that truth is the one “real” ticket to success in a democracy based on freedom, rule of law and the will of the people. History shows that our country has never been divided by alternate reality versus the truth in such a stark and destructive way. It would be so much easier for us to govern ourselves if we could make objective truth our top, shared priority.

The use of alternate reality by Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, or anyone else — including millions of Americans — is unacceptable, anti-democratic and venomous to our way of life. Observable, verifiable and transparent truth is what our democracy is founded upon. Without that, all is lost.

The Canadian butter crisis, explained

So, so much has changed over the past year. Apparently, the texture of butter in Canada is one of those things. There’s a storm brewing online over what some outlets are calling “Buttergate.”

It all started on Twitter (where else?) when Canadian food writer, Julie Van Rosendaal, stared into the digital abyss and pondered a seemingly innocuous query: Was the butter in Canada different? Had the texture changed? More specifically, was it less soft at room temperature?

She followed up the tweet with a few theories of her own. The difference in supposed butter texture, she posited, could be explained by either changes in Canada’s tariff rate quota (limitations on the quantity of products that can be imported into the country) or a result of adjustments in the feeding practices of dairy cows.

Whichever it was, Van Rosendaal was determined to find an explanation. Her posts started to garner a significant response, and she soon found herself at the center of a larger conversation. “I had well over a thousand responses on social media, and most of them said the same thing — I thought it was just me!” she tells me over email. “So I really dug into it a few weeks ago, with a theory that it was a change in the fatty acid profile that was making butter more solid at room temperature.” As it turns out, saturated fats remain solid at room temperature, while unsaturated fats are liquid.

It wasn’t until she received a tip via Instagram DM that she located the potential explanation. What she realized was that the change in butter texture could be explained by a “supply chain disruption affecting ingredients that come from overseas, like palm fats. It triggered the connection — highly saturated palm fat in feed could affect the fatty acid profile of the resulting milk.” Essentially, palm fat (which is oil derived from the oil palm fruit) could be to blame.

In a Globe and Mail article published just this week, Van Rosendaal suggests that due to the massive increase in pandemic baking, dairy suppliers altered their livestock feed in order to increase production. According to a BBC article, palm fat-based supplements are used to “increase the milk output of cows and increase the milk’s fat content.” This ultimately results in butter that is more solid at room temperature

Palm oil is a notoriously controversial ingredient. The oil palm industry is often cited as environmentally detrimental, and a large contributor to deforestation.

Since the article’s release, Van Rosendaal has been met with a surprising amount of support, and very little pushback from the dairy industry. “It seems this is a conversation a lot of farmers, processors and industry leaders have been wanting to have,” she says. “Industry groups have already begun to address it. It will be interesting to see where things go from here.”

More butter knowledge:

Misleading GOP messaging forces Democrats to change landmark election reform bill

A flurry of criticism and misleading rhetoric from Republicans aimed at House Democrats’ sweeping anti-corruption bill, known as H.R. 1, appears to have been successful in forcing changes to the legislation.

The measure, which is expected to pass the House this week, is a top Democratic legislative priority that includes reforms to campaign finance, voting and ethics laws meant to curb corruption and gerrymandering. But amid heightened concerns over Republican levied at some of the slim Democratic majority’s most vulnerable members, House leaders have reportedly amended the campaign finance provision.

Republicans have portrayed the broad bill as a corrupt Democratic endeavor to divert “taxpayer money” directly into their campaign coffers and federalize the nation’s elections, which are almost entirely controlled at the state level.

“It’s wrong for House Democrats to try to use your taxpayer dollars to fund their own political campaigns,” Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., said.

Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., who was fined $50,000 for his office’s misuse of taxpayer money, said the bill would “use taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns.”

Those claims are not accurate. The legislation would utilize public funding — not taxpayer money — from criminal and civil penalties to match small-donor contributions, with the intentio of minimizing the influence of wealthy donors and special interest groups. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that such fines and penalties would “generally apply only to organizations,” because only the wealthiest Americans who face such punishments would actually pay them.

Still, Republicans have asserted — or at least implied — that taxpayers would be on the hook for funding political campaigns. The GOP-aligned American Action Network launched attack ads in dozens of House districts, many of which are represented by the most vulnerable Democrats in the chamber.    

“This bill is nothing more than a shameful attempt to shovel public funds to the campaign coffers of corrupt Washington liberals,” AAN President Dan Conston said in a statement Monday. “Especially in a time of unparalleled health and economic crisis, public funds should be used to help end the suffering of this pandemic — not to help Washington politicians get re-elected.”

These GOP talking points, although broadly misleading if not flat-out false, have apparently been successful. Democratic leaders reached a deal with more moderate members of the caucus, including some of those targeted by the AAN attack ads, to alter the language so it was clear that the public campaign financing program would not receive taxpayer money, according to Politico. Lawmakers will also be able to opt out of the matching program.

In a sense, this Republican strategy — and the subsequent tactical retreat by Democrats — was reminiscent of the sort of successful “big government” attacks the GOP frequently deploys against legislation it opposes.

Still, as Politico noted, the language change surrounding the public funding portion using non-taxpayer money does not alter the actual meaning of the bill. That’s because taxpayers would have never been on the hook in the first place. Some top GOP aides still appear to sense blood in the water. House Democrats already passed H.R. 1 under the previous Congress — with a much larger majority — but swing-district members now face heightened scrutiny with one party narrowly controlling all of Washington.

“Not sure changing ‘taxpayer money’ to ‘public money’ will make the attack ads less effective,” National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokesman Mike Berg tweeted. “Plus every ‘moderate’ already voted for the old version two years ago.”

Michael McAdams, the NRCC communications director, warned that Democrats “will pay the price for backing a corrupt bill that will funnel” millions of dollars in public funds to their campaigns.

John Boehner: Ted Cruz is “a reckless a**hole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, once joked that someone could kill Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, on the Senate floor and they wouldn’t be found guilty even if they were tried by the U.S. Senate, CNN reported at the time.

According to Rolling Stone, Cruz’s former college roommate Craig Mazin joked, “One thing Ted Cruz is really good at: uniting people who otherwise disagree about everything else in a total hatred of Ted Cruz.”

The latest in a long line of attacks against Cruz from his colleagues comes from former House Speaker John Boehner, R-OH. His upcoming autobiography even put the attack in a prominent position at the top of the book jacket.

“There is nothing more dangerous than a reckless a**hole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else,” Boehner said of Cruz, according to Punchbowl’s Jake Sherman.

After Cruz abandoned his own freezing state to vacation in Cancun, his approval rating dropped to 43% with 48%disapproval, a Morning Consult poll said. Those numbers are even amid 71% approval from Republicans.

Fox News staffers fume over hiring of Kayleigh McEnany: “They don’t give a damn about facts”

Fox News has officially announced that former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany will join the network as a paid contributor, but some insiders within the network aren’t pleased, according to a report from The Daily Beast.

“It’s truly disgusting they fired hard-working journalists who did care about facts and news reporting only to turn around and hire a mini-Goebbels whose incessant lies from the White House helped incite an insurrection on our democracy that got five people killed, including a police officer,” a Fox News insider told The Daily Beast.

The source appears to be referring to longtime politics editor Chris Stirewalt, who was fired in January after upsetting conservative Fox News viewers by calling Arizona for Joe Biden on election night.

“Post-Trump Fox is quickly becoming a very scary place and quite dangerous for our democracy. It’s not even conservative news anymore. They’ve plunged into an alternate reality where extremist propaganda is the only course on the menu,” the insider added.

Another Fox staffer told The Daily Beast that the decision to hire McEnany was “upsetting.”

“So many good people are out of a job now and I’m sure she’ll get a huge contract,” the staffer said, adding that ultimately the hiring makes sense since so many Fox News viewers love McEnany.

“It bothers me in that it is basically a slap in the face to the hardworking journalists that value real news and facts. But it also doesn’t surprise me because they have shown that they don’t give a damn about facts and real news,” another staffer said.

A third staffer lamented that there’s “no objectivity in this business anymore.”

“It’s a self-serving profiteering enterprise,” the staffer said, adding that McEnany was hired because of “name recognition, notoriety, an obvious willingness to say anything her employer desires. The viewers are morons.”

WHO official: It is “unrealistic” to expect pandemic to be over by end of 2021

A senior official at the World Health Organization (WHO) believes that the world should not assume that the COVID-19 pandemic will be over by the end of 2021.

It is “premature” and “unrealistic” to believe that the pandemic will be a thing of the past by Dec. 31, director of WHO emergencies program director Dr. Michael Ryan told reporters on Monday. “If we’re smart, we can finish with the hospitalizations and the deaths and the tragedy associated with this pandemic” by the end of 2021, Dr. Ryan explained to the journalists at the media briefing.

Although Ryan said that the pandemic could wind down if vaccines manage to reduce transmission as well as the number of deaths and hospitalizations, he stated that “right now, the virus is very much in control.”

At the time of this writing there have been more than 114 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 throughout the world, including more than 28 million in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center — about 1.4% of the human population. More than 2.5 million have died of COVID-19, including more than 500,000 in the United States.

A specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for global public health, WHO became a center of controversy during President Donald Trump’s administration after he removed the United States from the organization in May. Trump claimed that the WHO was under the influence of the Chinese government and had misled the world about the COVID-19 pandemic. He also argued that the United States would save money by withdrawing from the multinational group, pointing to the $450 million that the American government spends each year as a member state of the organization.

Public health experts condemned Trump’s decision at the time. Dr. Russell Medford, Chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, described the WHO as “one of the world’s leading public health agencies.” “The WHO plays an important role in international cooperative efforts, not only against COVID-19 but against many other global diseases and health challenges,” Medford told Salon.

Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding, an epidemiologist at Harvard University, echoed Medford’s concern. “The US withdrawal from the WHO will almost certainly hurt US’s soft power abroad and reduce its influence,” Feigl-Ding told Salon at the time. “It will hurt US interests in countless sectors beyond health, from economic investments and national security.”

President Joe Biden had the United States rejoin the WHO shortly after taking office. Dr. Irwin Redlener, leader of Columbia University’s Pandemic Response Initiative, praised Biden’s decision.

“It was totally irresponsible for us to withdraw in the first place. It is the only global organization working on this extraordinary global crisis,” Redlener told Salon in January.

Alex Jones goes off on Donald Trump in leaked video: “God, I’m f*cking sick of him!”

Trump-supporting conspiracy theorist Alex Jones confessed to a filmmaker in 2019 that he was secretly sick and tired of dealing with former President Donald Trump.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hate Watch blog, filmmaker Caolan Robertson caught Jones disparaging Trump after Jones had hired him to help shoot a propaganda movie called “You Can’t Watch This.”

“It’s the truth — and I’m just going to say it — that I wish I never would have f*cking met Trump,” Jones confessed. “I wish that it never would have happened.”

Jones went on to say that he was simply exhausted by the former president.

“I’m so sick of f*cking Donald Trump, man!” he fumed. “God, I’m f*cking sick of him!”

Robertson also showed Hate Watch text message exchanges with Jones in which Jones asked him to not put his negative comments about the then-president in the final movie.

“Please don’t put me b*tching in the film,” he requested. “I don’t do it a lot. But when I do look out.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube: 

Tucker Carlson worries about falling sperm counts on Fox News — then Jimmy Kimmel offers to help

Fox News host Tucker Carlson had a freakout over a recent report that American males have lower sperm counts than they once did. ABC host Jimmy Kimmel is offering to help by offering the right-wing personality his own sperm.

“While many of us are still worried about COVID and climate change, Tucker Carlson is worrying on another level,” Kimmel began. “Tucker right now is worried about our testicles.”

Saying that it “may be the biggest health crisis” since the pandemic, Carlson panicked about “falling testosterone levels which have completely reshaped our society. Falling sperm counts, which may make it impossible to continue the human race. Why is this happening? Probably because of chemicals in our environment.”

Ironically, chemicals in our environment are regulated by the government, and under former President Donald Trump, those regulations of toxic chemicals were halted, YaleEnvironment 360 reported in 2019.

“According to one scientist, sperm counts in the western world have dropped 59% between 1973 and 2011,” said Carlson. “At this pace, sperm counts will reach zero by 2045.”

Kimmel cracked up laughing at Carlson’s attempt at math.

“Listen, dude, if you need sperm, I can get you sperm,” Kimmel promised. “I got a guy. Tucker Carlson always comes up with something. Of all the sperm in his father’s sac, I can’t believe he was the fastest one.”

He went on to address the latest panic at Fox News over Dr. Seuss, saying that it “had to put a dent in old Tuck’s nuts.”

Kimmel also mocked the state of Oklahoma for its substantial purchase of hydroxychloroquine that no one needs or will use.