Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Rachel Maddow: Trump adds lawyer to defense team who called former president a “crook” and sued him

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow revealed at the top of her show Tuesday that in the middle of the second impeachment trial, that former President Donald Trump was still adding lawyers to his legal team. One of those attorneys, however, has some controversial things to say about his new client.

“Even as the trial is now underway. Yesterday, we learned that he had made a last-minute addition of a new lawyer named van der Veen, Michael van der Veen. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported today that Mr. van der Veen recently sued President Trump, really recently, in the lead-up to the 2020 election, he sued Trump, arguing Trump and his campaign were trying to suppress the vote in Democratic-leaning areas of Pennsylvania,” said Maddow. “He also defended a college student who was prosecuted for trying to hack into an IRS database to obtain Trump’s tax records. That student saying Mr. van der Veen described Trump to him as a quote, ‘f***ing crook,’ but he didn’t just say ‘F’, apparently, he said it for real. And now, that man represents Donald Trump in his impeachment trial.”

Maddow said that she doesn’t know if Trump was aware of that fact when he hired the lawyer.

She went on to wonder if the lawyers being added “got some kind of ironclad agreement that they’re all going to be paid, right? You would be crazy not to get that.”

Trump has a tendency not to pay his bills. His security bills have gone unpaid for years and at the last minute, Trump told his staff to refuse to pay Rudy Giuliani for his legal services throughout the post-election lawsuits.

You can watch the video below via YouTube

Impeachment trial 2, day 1: Now the Republicans are the party of terrorism

Tuesday was the first day of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial for inciting insurrection and a lethal attack on the Capitol as part of a larger coup attempt.

The public evidence of Trump’s guilt is overwhelming and conclusive. His conviction by the Senate should be a fait accompli.

The Democratic House managers’ presentation of the case against Donald Trump was devastating. His attorneys were rendered impotent in response — yet they tried as hard as they could to create an alternate universe.

Trump’s lawyers presented a reality-denying, dangerous, craven and absurd defense, in which they claimed that to follow the Constitution and the rule of law by convicting the former president for insurrection would lead to a second civil war. On Twitter, the bestselling writer Don Winslow aptly summarized the underlying logic of Trump’s defense: “We should not prosecute murderers because to do so might upset their family.”

Senate Republicans have already signaled that they will not vote to convict Donald Trump for his crimes against the country. It is highly unlikely that there is any amount of evidence which could convince them otherwise.

Why? At this point, they have pledged their allegiance to Donald Trump. The Republican Party is now his. Trump’s voters view him as a demigod and shadow president who was “betrayed” by the deep state and other forces who unjustly stole the 2020 election from him (and them).

Trumpism, like today’s version of conservatism more generally, is a type of religious politics. As such, the Trumpists will punish any Republican officials who dare to criticize Trump in any way. Most importantly, the Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly agree with Donald Trump’s neofascist, anti-democratic politics. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley appeared to cheer on the Capitol attackers. Some Republicans may even have assisted Trump’s mob in their assault on Congress by providing information on the layout of the Capitol complex and the locations of Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other congresspeople who were in danger of kidnapping, assault and likely execution.

Trump may no longer be president but his hold over the Republican Party and its voters remains largely intact.

In voting to acquit Donald Trump for encouraging political violence and insurrection, with the evident goal of nullifying the 2020 presidential election and overthrowing democracy, Republicans in Congress are formally announcing their endorsement of right-wing terrorism as a legitimate means of gaining and securing political power.

Writing at Vox, Zack Beauchamp offers this context:

The central fact of American politics today is that one of the country’s two major political parties is broken. Not merely wrong, but broken in a fundamental way, hostile to democracy and incapable of serving as a good-faith partner in governing.

Trump repeatedly attempted to overturn a legitimate election, an effort that culminated in inciting a mob that threatened the lives of members of Congress. Yet Republicans in that body cannot bring themselves to inflict the appropriate constitutional punishment for this kind of offense even after he has left office and is no longer needed to get judges confirmed and tax cuts passed.

Democracies require accountability to function. Political elites must be held responsible for grievous errors and punished accordingly. The GOP’s decay has destroyed this possibility — but the Senate trial is a necessary step toward fighting back.

Past is prologue. As with Hitler and Mussolini in the late 1920s and early ’30s, many coup attempts fail in their first attempts. If Trump is not impeached and convicted for the crime of insurrection, another coup attempt by Republicans and other right-wing extremists is all but guaranteed. To help deter such an outcome, Trump’s co-conspirators (including those in Congress) should also be investigated, put on trial and convicted for criminal and civil crimes as well.

The Republican Party’s final embrace and endorsement of right-wing political violence and terrorism is not a surprise. For decades, such tactics have been increasingly encouraged and normalized by right-wing opinion leaders. Trump’s second impeachment trial offers one more moment when they are showing the American people and the world exactly who and what they are.

On this, William Rivers Pitt warns at Truthout:

The Republican Party today is about one thing: Using democracy to destroy democracy, and all in the name of their thwarted autocratic leader. They don’t want to make deals. They want to take, and take, and that is all.

You don’t make deals with that if you are the Democrats. You defeat it, using the majorities millions of voters and grassroots activists labored to provide you. You pass legislation by hook or by crook that improves people’s lives whether they want it or not. FDR’s Tennessee Valley Authority program is instructive: You win, make things better for people, and wait for the light bulb moment to arrive.

Today’s GOP is a beast. You don’t negotiate with rabid dogs. You’re a damn fool if you try. …

There is an old saying: If there are 11 people seated at a dinner table with a fascist, and none of them are denouncing the fascist, there are 12 fascists at that table.

That is the Republican Party in a nutshell. There is no cooperating with this mayhem. There is no trying to get along, no making concessions, no searching for bipartisan compromise.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump loved to recite a poem that concluded with the line, “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in.” Whatever he thought he meant, it was revelatory. Believe him. He knows himself, his followers and the right-wing media very well.

The Democrats and President Biden must understand that “unity” and “compromise” and attempts at bipartisanship with today’s Republican Party are to be avoided. Any such efforts do the work of betraying democracy, the common good, the rule of law and the Constitution.

Democrats have the presidency and control both chambers of Congress — but only by tenuous margins. They have a public mandate for their agenda, and Biden’s efforts so far have been embraced by a large majority of Americans. After the horrors of the Age of Trump, the Democrats must use their power for the common good. More important still, they must accept that today’s Republicans view politics as a life-and-death struggle where winning is everything, not a give-and-take governed by shared values.

As they will show by acquitting Donald Trump and continuing their full-on embrace of American fascism and white supremacy, today’s Republican Party considers the Democrats and their voters as existential enemies. It is long past time for the Democrats to respond in kind.

Only six Republican senators join Democrats in affirming that Trump’s trial is constitutional

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday evening reaffirmed that former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is constitutional, with just six Republicans joining Democrats on the vote, which came after hours of opening arguments from House impeachment managers and Trump’s widely criticized attorneys.

This is the second time in as many weeks that the Senate has voted on the trial’s constitutionality. In late January, Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski  of Alaska, Mitt Romney  of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania joined Democrats for a similar vote forced by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

All but one Republican — Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana — doubled down on that position Tuesday. Cassidy explained after the vote that “the issue at hand is, is it constitutional to impeach a president who has left office, and the House managers made a compelling, cogent case — and the president’s team did not.”

Tuesday’s vote could indicate an unwillingness by most GOP senators to convict Trump, which would require two-thirds of the chamber.

The vote came after Trump’s attorneys attempted to argue that, despite precedent, the trial isn’t constitutional because Trump is no longer president. Like with the previous vote, which came days after Trump left office, Republicans — particularly Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — came under fire again Tuesday for delaying Trump’s trial until after President Joe Biden’s inauguration and Democrats took control of the Senate by the narrowest margin possible.

“This trial could have taken place while Trump was in office, if McConnell and Senate Republicans had not delayed it,” said Stand Up America founder and president Sean Eldridge in a tweet Tuesday. “Their delays in no way exonerate Trump for inciting a violent and deadly insurrection. Convicting and disqualifying him is still critical to defending our democracy.”

While the House impeachment managers, led by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., were praised for a powerful 13-minute video that bolsters the charge — as laid out in the single article of impeachment — that Trump incited the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, Trump’s attorneys were widely mocked and criticized.

As Andy Kroll summarized for Rolling Stone:

House Democrats on Tuesday afternoon laid out their case for why the Senate should proceed with an impeachment trial against a former president, citing the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the writings of legal scholars of all ideologies. Afterward, attorney Bruce Castor, a member of Trump’s defense team, stepped up to the microphone. What ensued was a meandering and at times incoherent legal argument from Castor, one that by turns flattered the senators in attendance (“senators are family men and women”), evoked Castor’s youth in suburban Philadelphia (“here’s little Bruce”), and offered the obligatory Ben Franklin quote.

While both Castor and David Schoen — who spoke second, after a last-minute shuffle — were slammed for their performances, Castor even drew critique from former Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz, who said on Newsmax: “There is no argument. I have no idea what he’s doing. I have no idea why he’s saying what he’s saying.”

A flood of similar criticism of both Castor and Schoen came from a diverse collection of experts, advocates, and other political commentators:

Castor, for his part, told reporters, “I thought we had a good day.”

 

Trump trial: Impeachment officials promise “devastating” new evidence

Hours ahead of the start of oral arguments in Donald Trump’s historic second Senate impeachment trial, prosecutors on Tuesday said they would introduce new evidence showing the former president spent weeks laying the groundwork for the deadly January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and that he “incited it further” after it began.

“The evidence of Trump’s guilt in this case is overwhelming,” aides to House impeachment managers told journalists, NBC News reports

The aides said the trial will resemble a “violent criminal prosecution” and called the evidence so “devastating” that Republican senators who are not currently inclined to find Trump guilty might change their minds. 

“Once they see that this president did in fact incite a violent insurrection in order to hold onto power, I think it very well may be the case that reluctant senators change their mind and vote to convict,” the aides said. 

Democrats intend to use “all the evidence available in all the forms, including evidence that nobody has seen before,” the aides added.

On January 13, Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives on a single count of “inciting violence against the government of the United States.” 

The impeachment managers’ aides did not provide any further information regarding the new evidence, but said to “stay tuned.” 

Watch Trump’s Senate impeachment trial — which is set to begin at 1:00 pm Eastern Time — here: 

Ron DeSantis was seen maskless at the Super Bowl and then offers a laughable excuse

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) had the opportunity to attend Super Bowl LV in Tampa Bay, Fla. For Florida residents and fans of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the event was football perfection. Not only did the Bucs win the Super Bowl, but they also had the pleasure of doing so in their own stadium.

But, in the midst of the big celebration, photos were snapped of the governor who was seen not wearing a mask despite the pandemic continuing to batter his state, according to CNN. The photo quickly began circulating on social media as criticism mounted against DeSantis.

On multiple occasions, the Republican governor has been publicly scrutinized for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic in his state. His reason for not wearing a mask during the Super Bowl was no different.

Politico reporter Marc Caputo shared details about his encounter with DeSantis. Caputo revealed DeSantis was the first to mention the photo as he offered an excuse for his failure to comply with COVID-19 mitigation recommendations.

“Someone said, ‘hey, you were at the Super Bowl without a mask’ … but how the hell am I going to be able to drink a beer with a mask on? Come on. I had to watch the Bucs win,” DeSantis said.

As the photo circulated on social media, Twitter users began hammering the governor for his lack of leadership and approach to the pandemic. One Twitter user said, “Several problems. “deathsantis” was showing his leadership to the people of Florida (my governor. SAD): 1) he’s sitting right next to that other dude; 2) he’s not wearing a mask; 3) his mouth is wide open. Spewing viral particles; 4) so what’s he doing sitting behind glass?”

As the Republican governor continues to wave off masks, his state is still one of the hardest-hit by the coronavirus. As of Tuesday, Feb. 9, more than 1.7 million coronavirus cases have been reported in the state of Florida. The state also has the fourth-highest COVID death rate in the United States.

Trump impeachment lawyer’s terrible opening argument stuns observers​

Bruce Castor, former President Donald Trump’s impeachment lawyer, gave an opening argument in the Senate trial on Tuesday so baffling and confusing that many observers and commentators struggled to understand the point he was trying to make. He seemed to be ad-libbing, rather than reading from a prepared outline or text. While wearing an ill-fitting suit, he made disjointed references and claims, and he employed examples in which he couldn’t remember the specifics.

At some points, he seemed to be gesturing toward an argument about the First Amendment, contending that Trump’s speech to the mob that attacked the Capitol couldn’t be considered an impeachable offense. This is a poor argument that has been widely rejected by constitutional scholars, though some have said it’s the best of the poor options Trump has to defend himself.

But for much of the discussion, it wasn’t even clear if Castor was making an argument at all. Much of it clearly wasn’t focused on what was ostensibly the first topic for the competing sides to address: whether holding a trial for a president out of office is constitutional. At one point, though, he made a claim that will almost certainly be rejected by most conservative legal thinkers: that precedents in pre-revolution British law are irrelevant for understanding the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, many originalists — a form of jurisprudence favored by Republicans and conservatives — look back to this period to try to understand what the “original meaning” of the text teaches us about how it should be applied today.

Here’s what some of the observers, including many legal experts, had to say about Castor’s opening argument:

What makes Romanesco broccoli so mathematically perfect?

In terms of taste, broccoli is a divisive vegetable. But visually, you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t find Romanesco broccoli aesthetically beautiful. 

You’ve probably stopped to gawk at it at the produce aisle before: Romanesco broccoli — or “Romanesco” for short — is a breed of broccoli that looks like a giant green bloom, with flowers in weirdly perfect geometric patterns that self-repeat as you zoom in. It is the nautilus shell of vegetables: a perfect, ever-repeating spiral that resurfaces again and again. As a late fall and winter vegetable, it is found in most grocery stores around the United States this time of year, mesmerizing shoppers with its stunning patterns. 

Those patterns are called fractals, and they are key to understanding Romanesco broccoli.

“A fractal is a shape or structure that is the same as itself at different scales,” Edmund O. Harriss, mathematics professor at the University of Arkansas, wrote to Salon. “In other words, as you zoom in you see the same (or sometimes related) structure.”

In the natural world, plants sometimes approximate these self-repeating structures. Many ferns, for instance, have leaves which exhibit fractal architecture. Pinecones, spiral nautilus shells, and ice crystals all have self-repeating patterns as well. 

But among recursive patterns that appear in living beings, Romanesco broccoli is a fractal par excellence, it seems. 

“Romanesco is thought of as the quintessential model of fractal architecture in biology,” Zachary Stansell, a professor at Cornell University’s School of Integrative Plant Science, told Salon by email. “We know that it exhibits a very unusual and recursive growth pattern compared with ‘normal’ (or Calabrese) broccoli. Almost paradoxically, some of the rules that govern normal broccoli branching and development seem to be ‘relaxed’ in Romanesco — allowing it to repeat the branching process… repeatedly. This iterative branching pattern corresponds with some interesting math like the Golden Ratio, a common theme in classical architecture.”

One of the most ancient mathematical concepts, the Golden Ratio, whose value is around 1.618, is the ratio between two different size objects in which the smaller one is to the larger as the larger one is to the sum of both. As John Edmark, a lecturer at Stanford University’s mechanical engineering and design program, told Salon, the Golden Ratio occurs “if you take a line and divide it into two segments so that the ratio of the entire line to the longer segment is the same as the ratio of the longer segment to the shorter segment.” Edmark noted that “there is only one ratio that can fulfill that requirement — the Golden Ratio — and its value is approximately 1.618.”

The Golden Ratio has a storied history, tracing all the way back to the ancient Greek mathematician Euclid. It has been used by artists, architects, engineers and musicians, incorporated into their respective crafts. Some even believe it can be used to explain beauty and understand how life is designed in nature.

This brings us back to the Romanesco broccoli. The spiral pattern on the broccoli exhibits the golden ratio, in that each small bud that grows outward from the main one has the same size ratio with its predecessor, specifically the Golden Ratio. In other words, the same formula that governs Romanesco broccoli’s appearance was exploited by Leonardo Da Vinci and Piet Mondrian in their canvases. 

That’s the math behind broccoli. But what about the biology? What about Romanesco’s genetics makes it so… spirally?

Peculiarly, the reason that Romanesco looks different than its nearly genetically identical cousins — (normal) broccoli and cauliflower — remains something of a genomic mystery. 

“To my knowledge, no one has fully proven the genetic control of the patterns seen in Romanesco,” Stansell told Salon. “There are some known genes in the ‘lab rat’ of plants (Arabidopsis thaliana) that seem to cause a somewhat analogous behavior, but the genetic control remains a standing question.”

Stansell’s Cornell colleague, Thomas Björkman, added to those observations by writing to Salon that “broccoli (like cauliflower) is built by the growing point making branches and flowers in a consistent repeating pattern. On the other hand, Romanesco’s more regular appearance is caused by the growing point making branches and flowers in an ever-changing pattern. In Romanesco, the time and distance between new branches keeps getting longer. If you look at the very tip of a Romanesco head, you will see that the growing point is really big, easily visible with the naked eye.”

Stansell and Björkman know what they’re talking about when it comes to broccoli, as the two scientists published a paper in October on the genetics behind broccoli. They studied broccoli genomes and learned that the iconic plant has retained roughly half of the genetic diversity that existed in the original broccoli cultivated by Italians centuries and centuries ago — information that could be used to change how it tastes going forward.

“Even though modern broccoli is extremely uniform, it retains about half of the genetic diversity found in its Italian ancestors,” Björkman explained. “That diversity is valuable for resilience and continued improvement.”

He added that he and his co-author, Stansell, “also found parts of the genome (the organism’s complete set of genetic instructions) where the genetic diversity is really low. That uniformity is a sign that a gene in that part of the genome is really important for making good broccoli and other versions have been eliminated.” This reveals that people who grew broccoli deliberately knew which traits to encourage and which ones to downplay. Interestingly, this happened through farmers breeding the vegetable, long before human beings even understood that genes existed.

The “distinctive flavor” of brassica vegetables, the cabbage and mustard family that broccoli also sits in, relates to a class of compounds called “glucosinolates,” Stansell told Salon. “Certain glucosinolates contribute to the spicy or bitter flavors that people love (or detest) in broccoli,” he noted.

Stansell also observed that human genetics can play a role in how we understand the relevance of broccoli genetics; some people have genes that make them more sensitive to glucosinolates.

“It’s possible to breed brassica vegetables to have less of these bitter compounds, as was done by the Dutch plant breeder Hans van Doorn when breeding Brussels sprouts,” Stansell explained. “Greater knowledge of the genetic diversity in broccoli could allow plant breeders to select or cross-pollinate new broccoli varieties with different or even new flavor profiles.”

Perhaps, eventually, such genetic knowledge could allow breeders to select for mathematically stunning broccoli, too. 

“I wanted to be waterboarded for real,” says “The Mauritanian” star on playing a Guantanamo detainee

Tahar Rahim plays Mohamedou Ould Slahi, the title character in “The Mauritanian,” a gripping new drama based on the memoir, “Guantánamo Diary.” Slahi is said to have recruited and helped organize the 9/11 attacks and is being detained in Guantanamo Bay without charges. He comes to be represented by Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster), who hopes to prove the U.S. government lacks evidence to detain him. Meanwhile, Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch, who also produced) is hired to get Slahi the death penalty. How the case evolves, and what Hollander and Couch discover in the process, is compelling — even if that sometimes includes them reading and reacting to files. 

The real excitement in “The Mauritanian” is Rahim’s committed performance. His moving turn will come as no surprise to anyone who saw the French actor in “A Prophet,” another film where Rahim played an imprisoned character. Here, Rahim endures physical and psychological trauma as Mohamedou is tortured for a confession. He spends most of his screen time isolated and/or in chains. Rahim gives a very intense, and often internal performance as Mohamedou reacts to the forces around him. But he also gets impassioned in his speeches as he is fights for his life. 

The actor, who was nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance, spoke with Salon about his film and playing the real-life Slahi.

How much of Slahi’s story did you know when you were approached to play this role? Had you read his book? 

[Making a “zero” with his thumb and index finger] Nothing!

Were you able to meet and discuss the part with Slahi, and what did he tell you that informed your performance?

I did my homework. I read the book. At some point I got to meet Slahi on Skype. And it was a beautiful, joyful moment. He was so full of life, so funny, ready to crack jokes all the time, playing music, talking about movies, it was unbelievable that he went to Guantanamo and lived through the horror. 

At some point, I needed to do my job and I asked him questions about touchy topics. He changed. His face started to darken; the trauma would come to life in his face. It was almost hard for him to articulate, and I felt bad. Who am I to bring him back there?  I stopped. I never did that again. I felt that the right way to get what I wanted was to talk with him and observe him and get to know each other. I felt I was meeting someone extraordinary. That doesn’t happen often in life, so, I took advantage of it. My old friend Bob from Chicago would say, “If you don’t have anything to say, you shut up and listen.” And that’s what I did.

Do you have concerns about playing Slahi, who was seen by many as a terrorist? Did you feel you could approach playing him as guilty or even ambiguously guilty, or not guilty? Did you recalibrate your performance?

When I read the script, and when I met him, it was obvious that he was innocent. The first act is made to make audience feel doubt, and if I fall into that trick, it’s not going to be right. It was written and shot this way. All I had to be is convinced of my [character’s] innocence. I needed to show the doubt, that he could mistrust his lawyers, and a system that put you in jail and tortured him with no charge.  How can you trust the lawyers in front of you? I didn’t think that I should show that I’m guilty or not. 

Your exceptional work in “Un Prophet” surely made you a strong candidate for this role. What observations do you have about making prison movies

[Laughs] I pick parts and good stories, which is what I’m trying to do. It was funny to think that my first big part in America would be a prison movie! But this film is so totally different from “A Prophet.”  This is a true story. I got interested by the depiction of his character regarding his background. It’s rare to read parts like that. What I see from Middle East characters are stereotypical. I never wanted to play them, so I’ve said “no” many times to Hollywood and Europe. But this time, you could take the part and put it in another context, and the story would still work. So there so many layers to play and emotions to convey.

The film requires some real physical work from you — not just your body’s transformation, but also your body language. Can you talk about how you approached the character who is mostly confined, chained, and disoriented?

When I picked the part, I knew there would be a lot of challenges. Thank God, I’ve never been tortured before, and I didn’t know how to do it. The way I found to do him justice and be convincing was getting as close as possible to get to the real conditions as Mohamedou. I asked the props department to bring me real shackles, to make the cell as cold as possible. I wanted to be waterboarded for real, force-fed. I lost 10-12 kilos in short amount of time. I wanted to experience what it feels like to be treated this way, so I don’t have to sell something or create something out of the blue. I needed to feel physically what it was to be in those conditions. When I play feelings and emotions, I take what I’ve been through in my own life. I imagine some stuff and then I mix it and it feels like truth. But this was the other way around. Your emotions pop out here and there in drastic conditions. What I had to do was grab my emotions and let them lead me to some emotional states that I’d not experienced before. That felt like I was touching a sort of truth, and as an actor, that’s what you seek.

What is your threshold for pain, how much suffering can you endure? 

There was something odd — it was the first time I had gone this far physically. The more I would dive into, I wanted to go on and on, and it would never really stop in my mind. But I’m seeking truth, so when you feel like you’re touching it from the tip of your finger, you want to go further and further and further, to a point that Kevin [Macdonald, the director] came to me. He was worried, and said, “You’re doing well, and I believe in it.” But I was like, “It’s personal now. I need to go as deep as I can. Don’t worry, I’m not going to hurt myself.” And I did. The hallucination scene. I never took drugs before, I never got sick to the point to hallucinate. When we shot it, I was exhausted, and It was like I saw my own mom in the cell, it was very strange. I could do it just once then I literally collapsed. I laid down and said, “I can’t do it twice.”

What can you say about working with Jodie Foster? How did you develop your onscreen relationship with her? I’m assuming you both spoke in French! 

I wanted to hear her speak in French, so I started to speak French, and she answered, and my coach stopped me, and said, “You’re gonna play in English and you’re going to speak French? Stop it now!” She speaks better French than I do.

We met at a read through and I have to say I was a bit intimidated. I grew up with her movies. I was nervous, but the way she behaves, her personality, relaxed me, and we talked about the parts and talked with Kevin. When we were on set it was magical. It was an honor to work with her. It was like a dance. The script was the choreography. When you get on set, you do your dance as it’s supposed to be, but at some point, you want to improvise, and pace left or right, and she follows, and something happens. It brings you to a space where time and space are not the same, and this is what it means to be in the present. It’s all about the trust you have for your partner.

What are your thoughts about Slahi’s faith? He talks about God. He talks about forgiveness.

He has a great, great faith in God and that really helped him to get through this of course, and this extraordinary philosophy — to forgive folks who did bad things to you. I asked him, “Were you angry against God at some point?” And he said, “Yes, because I couldn’t understand why I was here? Why was this happening to me?” He realized that forgiving people is a treat you give to yourself. By doing this you might have the power to change people’s mind. And that’s what happened with his captors. When they would torture him, he would ask them, “Why did you do this to yourself?” After years, they bonded and became friends. To have this power is incredible.

Are you someone who holds a grudge?

I do sometimes. I’m trying not to. His philosophy is a good direction to take in life. I feel like when you are angry at someone you’re pretending it’s all good, but in your head, you feel bad inside, and keep thinking over and over about it; and at the end of the day, you’re the one who suffers. I have the will to be like that, but it’s a long way.

Slahi talks about living in fear of the police but also believing that the law protects. Do you have any experiences with the law yourself?

In every job or groups, you have bad people and good people. I never had trouble with police in my life, or problems with justice. A man I used to see in my suburb, he would drink a lot, and one day he took a slice of pizza and didn’t pay. He didn’t have money. He did six months in jail for a slice of pizza. 

Slahi lives in hope that he will see his family. What is your coping mechanism during periods of trouble?

I have family, and friends. That helps me when I have to face hard things in life. Even if bad things happen in the past, or future, there are still good people with the will to make the world a better place. I like to think about them. 

“The Mauritanian” might position you for more work in Hollywood. Are you worried about being typecast?

Even before I worked in the business, I knew I never wanted to be typecast, or do the same part all the time. It wouldn’t be interesting. I like to explore, and be surprised, and challenged as an actor. It was not an easy thing to do, because you build your career by saying “no” more than “yes.” Sometimes it’s scary. You say “no” three, four times in a row and people think I’m too picky, or that maybe I don’t want work? It’s risky, but you have to risk to reach your goal. My goal is to experience different things all the time, from playing a doctor to a gangster to a murderer to a lawyer. Acting is a bit like being an anthropologist. You have to be the devil’s advocate. You get to know more of the human condition, and humanity, and it makes your more indulgent in your own life. It helps in your everyday life, when you talk to people, or to talk with your kids, or to be more indulgent when you talk with your neighbors, or friends. But with typecasting, actors must be risky enough to say no; producers to want to tell different stories; for writers, to depict characters from certain backgrounds differently, and not always have to justify a color a religion or something because the character has a certain name. I see Arab and Black cops, lawyers from different backgrounds. These are characters as well. Just tell their stories.

“The Mauritanian” premieres in select theaters nationwide on Friday, Feb. 12.

“Framing Britney Spears” makes viewers reflect on how everyone accepted the abusive sexism she faced

The new documentary, “Framing Britney Spears,” which premiered on FX and is now streaming on Hulu, begins and ends with coverage of a #FreeBritney protest outside of the courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. Held by members of the Britney Army, the pop star’s devoted fans, the protesters waited to hear the results of a 2020 hearing regarding Spears’ conservatorship case. 

Spears has been under a conservatorship, led by her father Jamie Spears, since 2008. This means that he controls most aspects of her life — her finances, her recording contracts, her Vegas residencies. Jamie has made approximately $60 million in that role due to a legal stipulation that he will earn a percentage of Spears’ gross profits from her business ventures. Last year, Spears lost a bid to remove her father from her conservatorship, though the judge adapted his role to that of co-conservator with financial company Bessemer Trust and did not rule out future petitions for his removal or suspension.

The documentary, which was produced in collaboration with The New York Times, is partially about the controversial and murky nature of conservatorship programs, in which a guardian is appointed by a judge to manage the financial affairs or daily life — appointments, daily care, medical decisions — of an individual with physical or mental limitations, many of whom are elderly. They are also difficult to terminate; as one attorney says in the documentary, she’s never personally known a client to successfully remove a conservator once installed. 

But “Framing Britney Spears” is also overwhelmingly about the deep misogyny that shaped the public perception of Spears, which was only amplified by paparazzi intrusion. This documentary is making viewers question that dominant narrative — and now many of the people who helped push it are finally facing backlash. 

As the documentary shows, there was already some media-cultivated controversy surrounding Spears’ more sexualized image, which she debuted with her 1999 album “. . . Baby One More Time.” It was a shock to some who knew her from her “Mickey Mouse Club” days, while the shift was interpreted by some male interviewers as permission to ask her publicly about her breasts and virginity with impunity. She was 18. 

But the sexism really kicked into overdrive following Spears’ breakup with pop star (and fellow “Mickey Mouse Club” alum) Justin Timberlake. The tabloids portrayed her as unfaithful and Timberlake only fanned the flames of those rumors by releasing the song “Cry Me a River,” with a music video that featured a Spears look-alike cheating on him. He did the talk show circuit and repeatedly bragged about having sex with Spears, who had spoken publicly about wanting to wait until marriage for sex. 

During one radio appearance, Timberlake was asked: “Did you f**k Britney Spears?” He laughed and paused, before finally responding, “Okay, I did it.” In a later interview, he confirmed that he’d had “oral intercourse” with her, saying, “I did it. I’m dirty.” 

The tabloids simultaneously ran headlines congratulating Timberlake for “getting in Britney’s pants,” while slut-shaming her for having sex before marriage — a perfect encapsulation of the inherent sexism of purity culture and our culture’s deeply ingrained obsession with virginity. 

Even well-established journalists played into that narrative. In a 2003 “Primetime Thursday” interview, host Diane Sawyer blamed Spears for the break-up with Timberlake and insinuated through her questions that she believed Spears had been unfaithful. 

“He has gone on television and pretty much said you broke his heart,” Diane said. “You did something that caused him so much pain, so much suffering — what did you do?”

Sawyer went on to read a quote from Kendall Ehrlich, the first lady of Maryland at the time, who said she’d shoot Britney Spears if she could because of her sexualized image. Sawyer appeared to defend Ehrlich by questioning Spears’ “bad example for kids.” 

Scrutiny of Spears’ public image only intensified in the ensuing years, through her marriage to and subsequent divorce from Kevin Federline, the birth of her two children and her relationship with producer Sam Lufti. The paparazzi tailed her relentlessly, snapping images of her going out and running headlines about whether she was a fit mother or not (this coincided with a publicly messy custody battle between Spears and Federline). It climaxed in 2007 when Spears shaved her head and attacked a relentless paparazzo’s car with an umbrella. At the time it was viewed as Spears “going crazy.” 

Through the lens of “Framing Britney Spears” it’s an understandable response to living your life, the majority of which has been maliciously mischaracterized, under a microscope. 

Regardless, the conservatorship was put in place the next year. 

It’s complicated writing and talking about Spears because, as another attorney puts it in the documentary, we don’t know what we don’t know. Neither Spears nor her family responded to requests to be interviewed (though as producer and director Samantha Stark put it to Variety, they “are unsure if the request for Britney’s participation ever made it to her”). There could be underlying mental health issues that prevent Spears from tending to her own affairs, but she was also healthy enough to perform — and for her father, who was formerly facing bankruptcy, to profit from that. 

What “Framing Britney Spears” does exceptionally well, however, is offer viewers an opportunity to reassess the incredibly aggressive misogyny of which she was a victim, and how that impacted the course of her life. How did incessant tabloid portrayals of her as a bad mother, or as being promiscuous, play into her custody battle? How did spiteful media roundtables about her mental state impact her father’s ability to argue for the need for a conservatorship? 

The effects aren’t necessarily clear, but what is apparent, however, is that the portrayal of Spears through the 2000s was unfair and built on unquestioned sexism that has largely gone unchecked for two decades. Nevertheless, she is still punchline fodder for late night television hosts, a cultural stand-in for women who have snapped in an embarrassingly public fashion — thanks in large part to people like Timberlake and Diane Sawyer. There are already calls from fans of Spears for those two to publicly apologize for their past comments. 

And while “we don’t know what we don’t know” about the conservatorship case, which is still ongoing, the documentary enables viewers to reassess the attitudes that led up to it, perhaps including their own. Hindsight is 20/20 for that. 

“Framing Britney Spears” is now streaming on Hulu. 

 

People with dementia are twice as likely to contract COVID-19, according to new study

Recently, scientists have discovered peculiar connections between neurological conditions and COVID-19 risk. We know that there is a heightened risk of dying of COVID-19 complications for those with schizophrenia. Now, this week comes a new study which finds that people with dementia are twice as likely to contract COVID-19 as those without the deadly cognitive disease.

The study, which was mainly written by researchers from Case Western University and published on Tuesday in Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, analyzed electronic health record data for nearly 62 million Americans adults.

“Currently, there is little if any quantitative analysis of the risks and outcomes for COVID‐19 in individuals with [Alzheimer’s disease] or dementia in the United States,” the authors explained.

But what accounts for the connection between contracting COVID-19 and dementia? The answer may lie in the relationship between the brain and the body. 

Indeed, researchers hypothesized that, because individuals with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia experience damage to the blood-brain barrier, they may be more susceptible to COVID-19 — just as they are to other diseases. In addition, they speculated that patients with dementia might struggle to follow public health guidelines to prevent transmission such as wearing masks, washing hands and social distancing.

Rsearchers also wanted to test whether patients with dementia who were infected with COVID-19 were at a higher risk of dying, noting that “SARS‐CoV2 has also been shown to affect the brain directly with reports of encephalitis, thrombotic events, and brain invasion.”

The researchers found that patients with dementia were both more likely to develop COVID-19 and were more likely to suffer severe adverse effects after being infected with the novel coronavirus. Although only 25% of the overall number of patients studied in the article were hospitalized due to COVID-19, 59% of those with dementia had to be hospitalized. Similarly, although only 5% of the overall number of patients died as a result of COVID-19, that number quadrupled to 20% among those who had dementia.

The authors also noted a racial disparity. Among black patients with dementia who contracted COVID-19, a staggering 73% had to be hospitalized and 23% ultimately passed away, compared to 53% of white patients with dementia and COVID-19 being hospitalized and 19% of white patients dying.

This is the second recent study to draw attention to the vulnerability of mentally ill individuals to COVID-19. As alluded to, earlier this month a study published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry found that individuals on the schizophrenia spectrum were almost three times as likely to die after being diagnosed with COVID-19.

“In the first month and a half after COVID diagnosis, patients with schizophrenia as compared to patients without psychiatric disorders were roughly two-and-a-half times more likely to die,” Mark Olfson, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, told Salon by email about the study. “An increased mortality risk was not found for patients with mood or anxiety, two common less severe conditions.”

Experts also anticipate that there will be lingering psychological trauma caused by the pandemic, with the lockdowns and fear of death altering human behavior long after the plague itself has passed.

“This will take generations to get past,” Dr. David Reiss, psychiatrist in private practice and expert in mental fitness evaluations, told Salon last month. “And that’s because at every stage of development, things have been disrupted.”

DOJ purging all Trump-appointed U.S. attorneys — except the one investigating Hunter Biden

The Justice Department is expected to ask every U.S. attorney appointed by former President Donald Trump to resign, except the prosecutor who is investigating President Biden’s son, Hunter.

Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson is expected to ask 56 U.S. attorneys appointed by Biden’s predecessor to step down as soon as Tuesday, CNN first reported. But Wilkinson asked Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who is leading an investigation into Hunter Biden’s taxes, to stay on in a Monday night call, according to the report.

John Durham, who was appointed as special counsel by former Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, will continue his review but resign as the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, per CNN.

Another 25 U.S. attorneys are currently serving in an acting capacity after many Trump appointees resigned during the presidential transition, although acting District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin is expected to continue his investigation into the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

It’s unclear when the resignations will go into effect. The report noted that the transition to a new slate of U.S. attorneys, who must be confirmed by the Senate, could take weeks.

It is common for new administrations to replace holdover U.S. attorneys. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly pushed out 46 such Obama-appointed federal prosecutors after taking office in 2017.

One difference from that 2017 purge is that the department does not yet have a Senate-confirmed leader. Biden has nominated D.C. Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland as attorney general, but his confirmation was delayed by former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who retained power over the committee until Democrats and Republicans reached a power-sharing agreement in the evenly divided chamber.

Wilkinson carried out the firings after he was appointed in an acting capacity due to the Biden administration’s “distrust” of Trump-era holdovers, according to CNN. But the decision to keep on two Trump appointees who are investigating Biden’s son and his former boss marks a stark contrast with Trump, who routinely used the Justice Department to help himself and his allies.

Hunter Biden has said in a statement that he first learned of the investigation into his “tax affairs” in December, although The New York Times reported that the probe began in 2018 and grew out of an investigation into potential money laundering that was later dropped.

“I take this matter very seriously, but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisers,” Hunter Biden said.

Joe Biden vowed after his election victory that he would not interfere in the Justice Department’s probe.

“I’m not going to be telling them what they have to do and don’t have to do. I’m not going to be saying go prosecute A, B or C,” he told CNN in December. “It’s not my Justice Department. It’s the people’s Justice Department.”

It’s unclear what prompted the Hunter Biden investigation. Trump and his allies for years tried to allege some kind of wrongdoing by Joe Biden in connection to Hunter’s $50,000 per month position on the board of the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma and his investment in a private equity fund linked to the Chinese government. Trump was later impeached for pressuring the Ukrainian president to launch an investigation into the Bidens even though prosecutors who reviewed the case said there was no wrongdoing on either Biden’s part.

Hunter and his uncle James Biden, the president’s brother, were also involved in a failed deal involving a Chinese energy firm that later paid Hunter’s law firm $100,000 in 2017 in a transaction flagged as suspicious.

Durham’s probe into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe is the last of numerous Justice Department reviews into the Obama administration’s and FBI’s handling of the investigation. Durham was appointed by Barr as special counsel in December to review the FBI’s and former special counsel Robert Mueller’s actions in the investigation. Trump repeatedly talked up the Durham investigation, vowing that it would find evidence that he was illegally spied on despite previous probes showing that was not the case. The investigation ultimately failed to wrap up before the election, infuriating Trump.

Trump likewise previously touted an investigation by Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, before Horowitz ultimately concluded that there was no evidence the FBI had tried to spy on Trump’s campaign.

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced” the decision to open the investigation, the report said, adding that the FBI had an “authorized purpose” when it launched the probe to “obtain information about, or protect against, a national security threat or federal crime.”

The viral feta pasta dish everyone’s raving about is even better without pasta

Lately, I feel about my kitchen the way I feel about New York — it’s 51% great and 49% godawful. As long as I hang on to that slender margin — the one that offers the hope that something magic can happen at any moment — I can make it through the tough days. Keeping that number in proportion, though, takes daily effort.

Whether you’re a practiced home cook or a known personality to every delivery person in your zip code, the pandemic has forced all of us to reconsider how we shop for, prepare, eat and clean up after our meals. It’s a lot — and some days I find myself pretty hostile about the whole thing. On those days, I’d prefer to pour myself a glass of pinot, eat a sleeve of Ritz crackers and call it dinner. But most of the time, I muster whatever remaining shred of daily enthusiasm it takes to get food for my family on the table and turn on the stove. Oddly enough, I often even wind up enjoying it.

We’re all in this together, and I believe we can lower the bar without giving up. When cooking is less tedious and time-consuming, eating is more fun. So I’ll be here each week giving you something “Quick & Dirty.” It may be a stripped down version of a popular recipe or a go-to shortcut that a culinary professional turns to in their own kitchen. Whatever the case, it’ll be cheap, fast and friendly to beginners and exhausted home cooks alike.


What’s your go-to easiest recipe? Tell us below in the comments!


I can think of no dish that better represents the spirit of cooking together while apart this week than that internet-famous baked feta pasta. It began its life with Finnish food stylist Jenni Häyrinen back in 2019, where it first when viral in her home country. As she writes on her blog, “The feta cheese sales went up 300% here, the shops were running out of baked feta pasta ingredients and by this date the original uunifetapasta recipe post has over 2.7 million views. Finland has 5.5 million inhabitants, to put things into perspective.” 

Soon, the uunifetapasta migrated to this side of the Atlantic through MacKenzie Smith’s Grilled Cheese Social, where it enjoyed online success. But it went full bonkers recently when Feel Good Foodie posted about it on her TikTok. Her video is currently closing in on 6 million views, and everyone on social media with an oven is sharing their own version of it.

What is it about this humble dish made of ordinary supermarket ingredients that’s made it so popular? I think it’s the show-stopping technique — you put a whole block of cheese in the middle of tiny tomatoes and roast it. In half an hour, you can’t not wind up with something that makes you go, “Damn, girl, I need to take a picture of this.” In addition to tasting incredible, it doesn’t hurt that this dish makes your house smell fantastic.

While the original recipe is already super easy exactly like it is, I’ve cut a few corners to make it even simpler. Because I’d never dirty two pans when I can dirty only one or keep track of cooking times for two things when I can keep track of just one, I’ve ditched the pasta altogether. Bonus: It’s more flavorful now. I’ve also baked this dish on a sheet pan, so everything gets that much more burnished.

Because feta and tomatoes already evoke the flavors of Greek cooking, I’ve leaned in that direction with gigantes beans, lemon and oregano. You can just as easily go the original route, and serve this meal with cooked pasta or choose any beans of your liking. Or forgo that starchy part altogether, and simply serve the baked feta and tomatoes on crusty bread. Who would actually complain?

You can swap out the feta for another crumbly cheese like chèvre — and don’t tell me this wouldn’t be delicious made with a big old brick of cream cheese. Or make it vegan with a block of tofu, and up the saltiness with some olives and capers. It’s endlessly adaptable, all but foolproof. Most of all, it’s just really, really good.

* * *

Recipe: TikTok Famous Feta and Tomatoes

Adapted from Liemessa, Grilled Cheese Social and Feel Good Foodie

Serves 4

Ingredients:

  • 1 container of cherry or grape tomatoes, cleaned
  • 1 (8 oz.) container of feta cheese
  • 2 cans of butter beans, drained
  • 4 cloves of garlic, sliced thinly (more if you like)
  • 1/4 cup of olive oil
  • 1 small lemon, thinly sliced
  • Oregano and red pepper flakes, plus cracked black pepper and sea salt to taste

Instructions:

  1. Preheat your oven to 400°.
  2. Line a sheet pan with parchment paper.
  3. Add beans and tomatoes to pan, and toss with olive oil and garlic.
  4. Nestle feta in the center of the pan.
  5. Add lemons before scattering salt, pepper, red pepper flakes and oregano on top.
  6. Roast for 30 minutes.
  7. Turn on broiler. Broil approximately 5 minutes, checking after 3. 
  8. Stir, and serve (preferably accompanied by good bread).

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.

Congress opens investigation into Parler’s relationship with Trump amid impeachment trial

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform penned a letter on Monday to Parler’s chief operating officer Jeffrey Wernick, demanding that he hand over documents regarding the company’s stakeholders, creditors, ties with Russia and newly reported ownership negotiations with the Trump Organization. 

The primary signatory of the letter, Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney, D-NY, asked about a report that Parler offered the Trump Organization a 40% stake in the platform if the former president committed to making “Parler his primary social network.” The deal would have required that Trump exclusively use Parler as his primary social media for at least four hours before re-posting the same content to other social media platforms. 

According to a Buzzfeed report, talks between Parler and the Trump Organization kicked off during the summer of last year and continued through November until they were derailed by the Capitol riot on Jan 6. However, Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale and campaign lawyer Alex Cannon had reportedly met with Parler’s CEO, John Matze, as far back as 2019. Legal experts told Buzzfeed that the deal may have been in violation of anti-bribery laws. Matze –– who alleged that he was booted out of the company after pushing for more rigorous content moderation –– said in court filings last month that Trump had intended to create an account on Parler under the pseudonym “Person X.”

In an interview with Axios, Matze expressed that he remembered feeling apprehensive about partnering with the Trump. “I didn’t like the idea of working with Trump, because he might have bullied people inside the company to do what he wanted,” Matze explained, “But I was worried that if we didn’t sign the deal, he might have been vengeful and told his followers to leave Parler.”

Chairwoman Maloney’s letter also argued that Parler shirked its responsibility to moderate right-wing radicalism leading up to the riot, citing “numerous Parler users” who “have been arrested and charged for their roles” in inciting violence. 

“Immediately after President Trump exhorted his supporters to “show strength” during his speech,” Maloney stated, “the term ‘civil war’ surged into one of the top five most frequently used terms on Parler. One user wrote, ‘Be men fight back and f— them up. Civil war is upon us.'” 

Back in mid-January, Maloney called on FBI Director Christopher Wray to launch an investigation into Parler “as a potential facilitator of planning and incitement related to the violence” and “as a repository of key evidence posted by users on its site.” It was then that Maloney also casted doubt over Parler’s financing and ties with Russia. 

The House’s new letter sent on Monday revisited those same concerns.

“Parler reportedly allowed Russian disinformation to flourish on its platform prior to the November 2020 election,” the letter claimed. While disinformation was removed from other social networking platforms, it wasn’t scrubbed from Parler. 

Chairwoman Maloney also demanded answers as to why Parler was reinstated on a Russian hosting service. 

“When U.S. hosting services cut ties with Parler for repeatedly failing to moderate content advocating violence,” Maloney stated, “Parler re-emerged on a Russian hosting service, DDos-Guard, which has ties to the Russian government and counts the Russian Ministry of Defense as one of its clients.”

According to Matze, Amazon, which removed Parler from its online marketplace two days after the riot, only did so because “it knew there was a possibility that Trump might obtain a Parler account.” Amazon, however, has denied these allegations, maintaining Parler’s removal had “nothing to do with politics.”

Sarah Palin called out by Piers Morgan for “nonsense” voter fraud claim: “You sound totally bonkers”

On Tuesday morning, “Good Morning Britain” host Piers Morgan lampooned Sarah Palin on public television, branding the former Governor of Alaska, who ran on a presidential ticket against now-President Joe Biden in 2008, as “totally bonkers” when Palin suggested that Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory was illegitimate. 

As the first day of Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial kicks off, Piers pressed Palin on whether Biden won the election fairly. “Well, evidently he did, because he’s sworn in as our President,” Palin responded wide-eyed.

“But no one will convince me,” she continued, “that there were no shenanigans going on. No one can argue the numbers.”

When Morgan asked her present evidence of these “shenanigans,” Palin dodged his request, asking him instead, “How many polling areas had to produce their voter rolls and they showed that there were more votes than there were voters in certain districts?”

“Where was the fraud?” Morgan pressed.

“What about all the dead people who voted?” Palin responded, in another graceless act of whataboutism. 

“Sarah,” the presenter said, “I say this with the utmost respect to you. You sound totally bonkers.”

Morgan and Palin continued to spar over just who exactly was acting “bonkers” as Morgan’s co-host chuckled off to the side. Morgan pointed out that no court has upheld any of Trump’s claims of widespread election fraud. However, the former governor continued with her Conway-esque commitment to alternative facts: “You can’t tell me, ‘er, they didn’t vote'” or ‘Er, they legitimately voted from their grave!'”

“Part of the problem for the Republican Party,” Morgan said, shutting her down, “is that people like you –– high level members –– are still perpetuating this utter load of nonsense that somehow there was fraud that stopped Trump winning. Trump got hammered in this election!”

Watch the full interview below: 

Democrats drop the ball on Trump’s second impeachment before the trial even begins

While most Senate Republicans are complicit with Donald Trump’s insurrection and are thus unwilling to convict the former president whose second impeachment trial begins Tuesday, Democrats still have a chance to make a powerful case to the nation about the dangers of the Republicans’ embrace of right-wing radicalism. But, in typical Democratic style, it appears they’re pointlessly clipping their own wings right off the bat. 

The Washington Post reports that an agreement between Republicans and Democrats is focused on “a rapid timetable that could bring the proceedings to a close within a week.” That sounds like a good thing, especially as President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, reportedly have a robust legislative agenda (though it can’t actually be robust if they won’t end the filibuster) that they want to get cracking on swiftly. The fine print of the deal, however, swiftly makes clear that this yet another example of Democrats giving up a serious political advantage for no good reason. 

“[T]here still exists the possibility that senators could vote after four days of arguments to extend the trial by calling witnesses and examining testimony,” the Post reported. 

They could call witnesses? Could?! 

It appears that Democrats in the Senate are more interested in the possibility of wrapping by Monday than having heart-rending testimony from congressional staffers and Capitol police that underscores Trump’s guilt and GOP complicity. They just want to take all that possible new footage that could be used and reused for ads and viral content … and just toss it in the trash? 


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


And what about the various Capitol rioters, Trump aides, and victims of Trump’s pressure campaigns during his extended coup efforts that could offer testimony that would be must-see TV? Who wouldn’t want to watch some wild-eyed QAnoner rave about conspiracy theories involving Dominion voting machines and Wayfair pedophile cabinets? Who wouldn’t be riveted by state officials explaining how they had to endure Trump berating them to steal the election for him? Who wouldn’t be dying to see some Trump aide squirm when asked under oath exactly how excited Trump was while watching his minions storm the Capitol, baying for Mike Pence’s blood? 

Forgoing witness testimony is the kind of rookie error Republicans would never make.

Republicans dragged out the Benghazi hearings, a controversy that was not just fake but incomprehensible — even to the conspiracy theorists they were feeding — for two years. Republicans understood the value of generating an endless stream of content for Fox News, Facebook ads, and other channels that made Democrats — again, completely falsely — look shady and bad at international security. California Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy, now the House Minority Leader, infamously bragged to Fox News’ Sean Hannity that the GOP’s Benghazi investigations successfully marred Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions. 

Democrats have the same opportunity here, except this time it is a moral imperative because they’re telling the truth.

Trump did cause an insurrection. Republicans have been shielding him from responsibility because ultimately, their only problem with him is that he failed. The rise of American fascism is a major problem facing our country, one that the majority of Americans who disapprove should be riled up about. Hastily getting this over with so it can be forgotten in a month’s time is a terrible mistake. 

Note that Sen. Lindsey Graham, R.-S.C., freaked out at the possibility of Senate Democrats calling witnesses. He responded with a bunch of impotent threats about how Republicans will retaliate by calling FBI witnesses to talk about “what happened with the security footprint at the Capitol,” as if Democrats themselves weren’t even more critical of Capitol police failures. Graham is only making threats now because he knows full well how bad it would be for Republicans if Democrats called witnesses. 

Or look at the absolute meltdown right-wing media and Republicans are having in the face of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D.-N.Y., releasing a video talking about her experiences during the Capitol insurrection. They spent a week fruitlessly trying to discredit her testimony, using every trick misogynists typically use to smear rape and domestic violence victims. Republicans aren’t frantically trying to silence Ocasio-Cortez because they think her testimony doesn’t matter. They recognize how politically damaging it is. Why can’t Senate Democrats see this as well? 


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


Part of the problem might be the one-sided inability of Democrats to take the fight to their opposition. The New York Times reports that “the managers were wary of saying anything that might implicate Republican lawmakers who echoed or entertained the president’s baseless claims of election fraud,” because to “have any chance of making an effective case, the managers believe, they must make clear it is Mr. Trump who is on trial, not his party.” This is uncut nonsense.

There is no chance Senate Republicans will be swayed to convict Trump because no matter how painful this is to accept the vast majority of the GOP has become radicalized against democracy and will do whatever it takes to protect the openly fascist leaders who are emerging, including Trump himself. So the only value of this trial is to make the case to the public — and doing so requires witnesses. As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post writes, “Insulating the GOP from its extensive entanglement in Trump’s effort to subvert our democracy — at exactly the moment when Congress is focusing maximum public attention on it — would seem like a missed opportunity.”

That is an understatement. Right now, Democrats have a real chance to outline for the country not just Trump’s guilt, but the stakes if we continue down this path of having one out of two political parties increasingly reject democracy. Whatever silly rationalizations Democrats come up with, the fear of really taking the fight to the Republicans appears to be based in a genuine fear of conflict with their colleagues, one rooted in the same ridiculous D.C. obsession with “bipartisanship” that is only and ever the responsibility of Democrats to maintain. 

Democrats need to stop being such cowards. The very fate of our nation rests on their ability to show courage in the face of creeping fascism, and to marshal every tool they have towards beating it back. Democrats may fail — fighting fascism is often an uphill battle — but it shouldn’t be for lack of trying. Calling witnesses is a no-brainer, a way to help draw media attention and make the case to the public about why violent authoritarianism and the party that supports it, the GOP,  should be wholly rejected. If Democrats fail to make that case out of a fear of offending Republicans, they share in the complicity of letting Trump pull our nation further into darkness. 

Georgia investigating Trump call pressuring secretary of state to “find” votes, overturn election

On Monday, the state of Georgia opened an investigation into former President Donald Trump’s phone call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger pressuring him to “find 11,780 votes” to overturn his loss in the state.

The secretary of state’s office launched its investigation of Trump’s Jan. 2 call one day before Trump’s Senate impeachment trial is set to kick off. The investigation comes in response to a complaint filed by George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, who told Reuters he filed four different election interference complaints following the call.

“The secretary of state’s office investigates complaints it receives. The investigations are fact-finding and administrative in nature. Any further legal efforts will be left to the attorney general,” Raffensperger spokesman Walter Jones told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Election investigations are referred to the State Election Board, which is chaired by Raffensperger, a Republican. The board can then decide whether to dismiss a case, impose a fine or make a criminal referral to the state’s attorney general.

“Any investigation of a statutory violation is a potential criminal investigation depending on the statute involved,” David Worley, the lone Democrat on the election board, told The New York Times. “The complaint that was received involved a criminal violation.”

Trump adviser Jason Miller disputed that Trump did anything wrong on the call.

“There was nothing improper or untoward about a scheduled call between President Trump, Secretary Raffensperger and lawyers on both sides,” he told Reuters. “If Mr. Raffensperger didn’t want to receive calls about the election, he shouldn’t have run for Secretary of State.”

Raffensperger had rejected Trump’s first 18 attempts to reach him, a Georgia official told CNN, before ultimately relenting.

“No, I never believed it was appropriate to speak to the president,” Raffensperger told ABC News last month. “But he pushed out — I guess he had his staff push us. They wanted to call.”

He previously suggested that his office would not investigate the call because of a Trump lawsuit that named him.

The Fulton County district attorney is still considering launching a criminal investigation into the call as well.

The call was one of several Trump made to Republican officials pressuring them to help his effort to overturn the election after courts around the country found no evidence that there was any widespread fraud. Trump also pressured Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and other state officials, and former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pressured Raffensperger as well. Trump also tried to call Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey to stop him from certifying the state’s results. Even after rioters broke into the Capitol and hunted for lawmakers on Jan. 6, Trump tried to pressure newly-elected Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., to object to the counting of electoral votes.

Trump pressured Raffensperger on the call to “find” him enough votes to reverse his narrow loss in the traditionally red state days before the deadly Capitol riot he is charged with inciting.

“I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump told Raffensperger in a recording obtained by The Washington Post. “There’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you’ve recalculated,” he added.

Raffensperger repeatedly refuted Trump’s baseless allegations of fraud in the state’s election publicly and during the call.

“The data you have is wrong,” he told Trump on the call.

But Trump repeatedly insisted “there’s no way I lost Georgia.”

“So what are we going to do here, folks?” Trump later added. “I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.”

Trump on the call also criticized B.J. Pak, the U.S. attorney he appointed in northern Georgia, as a “never Trumper” while grousing about Pak’s failure to investigate unfounded allegations of fraud. The call promoted Pak to abruptly resign a few days later, amid pressure from the White House. Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, is reportedly investigating Pak’s unscheduled departure.

After the call, former Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the call was “stunningly improper” and and “arguably violated state or federal law.”

Democrats have also called for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the FBI to investigate the phone call.

The Georgia investigation adds to a growing list of legal issues facing the former president. According to Reuters, Trump currently faces nearly a dozen legal battles, including Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance’s investigation into his business dealings.

Legal experts told Reuters the Georgia call may have violated state laws against “conspiracy to commit election fraud, criminal solicitation to commit election fraud, and intentional interference with performance of election duties.”

“If you listen to the call, it sounds like any other call that you might have with an organized crime ring or a drug conspiracy ring or something. And that is that you’ve got almost code talking about — this is what I need you to do, if you could just help me out here,” Michael J. Moore, a former U.S. attorney in Georgia under Barack Obama, told CNN. “So you take note of things, you read the Georgia statue, and I think it amounts up to a request that the secretary come in, do something untoward or illegal to allow the election to be shifted in a way that was different than the will of the voters, and that would be an effort to commit election fraud.”

Prosecuting Trump may be more difficult, legal experts said, because criminal laws require a deliberate intent to carry out a crime. Trump’s lawyers could simply argue that the then-president genuinely believed the election had been plagued with fraud despite an absence of evidence.

Trump bragged about the call during his speech at the rally that preceded the Capitol riot, which killed five people and injured dozens of police officers.

“People love that conversation because it says what’s going on,” he said. “These people are crooked.”

The Western United States is a hotspot for snow droughts

Most of us know a bad drought when we see one: Lakes and rivers recede from their normal water lines, crops wither in fields, and lawns turn brown. Usually we think of these droughts as being triggered by a lack of rain, but scientists also track drought in other ways.

“The common ways to measure droughts are through precipitation, soil moisture and runoff,” says Laurie S. Huning, an environmental engineer at the University of California, Irvine. Her most recent work adds another dimension to that by looking at water stored in snowpack.

Huning is the co-author of a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, with U.C. Irvine colleague Amir AghaKouchak, which developed a new framework for characterizing “snow droughts.” These can occur when there’s an abnormally low snowpack, which may be triggered by low precipitation, warm temperatures or both.

Their research is timely. This winter, southwestern states have received just a quarter to half of the average snow-water equivalent —the amount of water held in the snowpack — the key metric for determining a snow drought.

And that can have sweeping impacts. The water content of a snowpack can change the amount and timing of when runoff occurs, and that has implications for wildlife, ecosystems, water resources, flood control, hydropower and drought mitigation.

Snow droughts can also have far-reaching effects on agriculture — and economies. California’s Central Valley, the heart of its agriculture industry, relies on snow melt from the Sierra Nevada. The state saw $2.7 billion in losses in the sector following low precipitation and warm temperatures during 2014-2015.

Snow droughts can also make conditions dire in regions that are already stressed by conflict and resource shortages. A snow drought in Afghanistan in 2017-2018 triggered crop failures and livestock loses that left 10 million people food insecure.

The concept of a “snow drought” has been around for several years, and it’s been studied in certain key locations, but until now scientists and water managers lacked a worldwide method to assess them.

The study aims to solve that. Huning and AghaKouchak have developed a standardized snow-water equivalent index in an effort better characterize and compare the duration and intensity of snow droughts around the world.

The results already reveal some areas of concern. Looking at data from 1980 to 2018, the researchers found a few hotspots where snow-droughts became longer and more intense during the 21st century.

The most notable area was the western United States, which saw a 28% increase in the length of periods of snow drought. Eastern Russia and Europe also saw increases, though less severe.

And on the flip side, some areas saw a decrease in snow drought duration, including the Hindu Kush, Central Asia, greater Himalayas, extratropical Andes and Patagonia.

“It’s important to remember that not only does the snowpack vary but the impact that it has differs across the world,” says Huning.

Huning hopes the framework developed for the study can help water managers better understand the amount and timing of snowmelt, and to integrate that with drought monitoring systems to recreate better resiliency and management of resources.

“We know that the snowpack is highly variable,” she says. “Further development of this framework can improve our near real-time monitoring of drought.”

The study didn’t delve into the specifics of why snow droughts may be becoming more severe in certain places, but other studies have found that climate change is playing, and will play, a role in reducing snowpack in some areas — including western U.S. states.

study by UCLA climate scientists published on Aug. 10 found that in California warmer temperatures will cause more rainfall and less snow during the winter in coming decades. This will likely increase flood risks and reduce the snowpack that usually melts slowly over the spring months.

Earlier research found that a decrease in Arctic sea ice leads to changes in atmospheric circulation that creates a high-pressure system, known as an atmospheric ridge, off the Pacific coast. These ridges deflect storms, pushing them northward and leaving the region high and dry. A particularly stubborn system that developed in 2013, nicknamed the “ridiculously resilient ridge,” had a big hand in California’s five-year drought, which extended until 2017.

Better understanding of how to measure and track snow droughts can give water managers another tool to help plan for similar droughts and to better manage this changing resource.

“Snow is a natural resource and, given the warming temperatures that some parts of the world will see, the amount of snow is changing,” says Huning. “We need to recognize that there are so many different ways the environment and humans will be affected.”

The soothing science of tea steeping

In The Kitchen Scientist, The Flavor Equation author Nik Sharma breaks down the science of good food, from rinsing rice to salting coffee. Today: a piping hot cup of tea.

* * *

Every afternoon at 4 p.m., I partake in my daily ritual: tea with cookies (often gingersnaps) or a sandwich (usually cucumber, salted butter, and a sprinkling of black pepper). And if I’m stressed or on a tight deadline, my work table will without fail contain a cup of tea.

True tea is produced from the leaves of the tea plant, also known as Camellia sinensis. This is regardless of whether it is black (Darjeeling), green (matcha), or white (white hair silver needle). After tea leaves are harvested, they’re subjected to a process of drying, oxidation, fermentation, heating, and in some cases even smoking. Those are some of the steps that distinguish varieties like black and green.

Tisanes (aka herbals teas) are a separate category with a wide variety of fresh and dried ingredients — spices like ginger, herbs like peppermint, even fruits like mango — and a wide variety of steeping conditions.

Today, we’ll focus on true teas and how to steep them. Let’s begin!

What’s the difference between black, green and white teas?

Green tea is first treated to destroy the enzyme responsible for the darkening of the leaves. Moreover, the leaves do not pass through the withering or fermentation stages of production. As a result, green teas retain their green color.

The fermentation of tea leaves diminishes their grassy flavor profiles and creates fruity and floral notes, which gives black tea its noticeably stronger flavor.

Some black teas, such as Keemun tea and lapsang souchong have a smoky flavor (though only the latter is smoked). Russian caravan tea is a blend of both Keemun and lapsang souchong teas along with oolong. These varieties carry a gorgeous aroma that makes them wonderful to steep in stocks.

Oolong teas lie somewhere between black and green teas. They’re prepared by manipulating the oxidation conditions and, as a result, are partially oxidized and do not undergo complete fermentation. Because of the way oolong tea is manufactured, the flavor notes can vary from grassy to floral to fruity, and the color of the brewed tea can vary from shades of brown to green.

In comparison to green and black teas, white teas are minimally processed and come from the younger, tender leaves of the tea plant that haven’t yet opened and are still in their nascent bud form. This creates a more delicate flavor.

What gives tea its taste?

The bitter taste in tea comes from certain chemicals called polyphenols. In black tea, the major polyphenols are theaflavin and thearubigin, while in green tea the major polyphenols include epicatechin, epicatechin-3-gallate, epigallocatechin, and epigallocatechin-3-gallate.

Theaflavin gives black teas their red color and is produced from the polymerization of  catechins through a series of chemical reactions during fermentation. Theaflavin is also responsible for mouthfeel and tea cream formation — this is considered an undesirable trait, referring to the white precipitate that forms as tea cools. Experimental studies on black tea have shown that calcium and glucose (sugar) in steeping water enhance the formation of complexes between caffeine, polyphenols, and theaflavin that form tea cream.

The stimulants in tea that keep us awake and alert — caffeine, theobromine, and theophylline — also contribute to bitterness. And some teas, like green tea, contain high concentrations of an amino acid called theanine, which contributes umami (you can use these teas to build savoriness in stocks and broths).

Sometimes dried fruit or herbs are combined with tea. Think of Earl Grey, which contains bergamot orange rinds or essential oils, lending a citrusy note.

What are the grades of tea?

As “Food Chemistry” shares, there are several different grades of tea:

  • Leaf grade: Fully intact tea leaves, such as pekoe.
  • Broken tea: Broken or cut tea leaves; the preferred grade because there’s more exposed area accessible to the water, leading to better tea extraction and a finer aroma.
  • Fannings and fluff: Broken or cut tea leaves typically used to make tea bags.
  • Tea dust: The tiny particles left behind from broken tea, which is used in tea bags.
  • Brick tea: Tea dust or ground tea that is compressed into a block. Historically, they were used as a form of currency by nomadic people of Mongolia and Siberia. Pieces of the compressed brick are broken and then steeped in hot water to produce tea.

What are the pros and cons of loose-leaf versus bagged tea? 

Loose-leaf teas are usually considered superior because the whole leaf is used, but they can be pricier than tea bags. Tea bags are more convenient, and since they contain either powdered or broken tea leaves, they’re also generally less expensive. The bags are either made of some kind of natural paper or artificial material like plastic. Note: Plastic bags tend to release microscopic particles into the hot tea and are best avoided.

How do you steep tea? 

Steeping is nothing more than extraction: tea leaves plus hot water. But the finer details — are the leaves placed in a strainer? For how long? And do other ingredients get involved? — depend on the type of tea and where it’s being poured. In many countries, how tea is steeped is a cherished practice with specific traditions. In Japan, tea is steeped in hot water (the exact conditions vary by the type of tea). In India, chai is usually steeped in a pot of boiling water and then left to sit before milk is added.

How steeping is performed also affects the antioxidant properties of the tea. In one study, green teas appear to favor cold steeping, white teas prefer prolonged hot and cold steeping, and black teas do best in short hot water infusions.

You can steep tea directly in the water and strain it out with a fine-mesh strainer. Or place the leaves in a tea caddy or muslin bag, then immerse this in the hot water (the same way a tea bag works).

Steeping conditions for common tea varieties 

This is meant to serve as a rough guide. Exact steeping conditions will vary by brand.

Does the water itself make a difference? 

Yes, the type of water can affect the final taste of your brew. Hard water, rich in metals like calcium, can affect the final taste and also produce the tea cream phenomenon mentioned above. Filtered tap water is usually the easiest, best option available to most of us.

What’s the ideal water temperature? 

The optimal temperature of the water is determined by the type of tea. Most brands state the target temperature and time on their packaging. The numbers might vary a little, but usually black teas are steeped at 185°F (85°C) and green teas at 170°F (77°C). If you want a higher boost from the caffeine in tea, steep it longer, for about 3 to 5 minutes. Usually, green and white teas are steeped at lower temperatures because, at higher temperatures, they run the risk of tasting bitter. In contrast, black teas are steeped at higher temperatures because they are a bit more robust.

How about timing? 

As the tea leaves soak in hot water, they rehydrate and their water-soluble components dissolve. The pigments in tea — tannins in black tea and chlorophyll in green tea — release their color, which they impart to the water. If you steep too long, beyond the recommended time by the manufacturer, the tea can taste very bitter.

When I make black tea with milk, I usually steep the tea leaves for two minutes, then add hot milk. If added earlier, the milk will prevent the tea from developing its rich, dark color and the flavor tends to be a bit milder. Non-dairy milk such as nut milks won’t show this effect as dramatically because milk proteins tend to bind polyphenols (though some studies show that soy milk behaves similarly to dairy).

Is re-steeping a bad idea? 

I admittedly never do this, but you can. However, with every steep, the liquid will be less flavorful (and less caffeinated) than before. And there are some differences based on the tea: One study showed green tea to contain the highest level of antioxidant activity and total phenolic and flavonoid content when compared to black and oolong teas with every subsequent steeping performed. To help increase some of the flavor extracted, you can increase the temperature of the water used and even increase the amount of time it steeps; this works better with whole tea leaves — if tea leaves are already pulverized or broken (as in most tea bags), then the first steep usually extracts almost everything out.

What are some of your favorite teas to drink? Do you re-steep your tea — and if yes, how many times?

Related reading:

“Like the lunar landing”: The day the Beatles changed the world on “The Ed Sullivan Show”

Today marks the anniversary of the Beatles’ legendary February 1964 appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” On that fabled Sunday night 57 years ago, the Fab Four served up blockbuster performances of such tunes as “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” “She Loves You,” and “All My Loving” for an audience of some 73 million viewers. But it was much more than that.

As far as music culture is concerned, the tremors from that evening have been felt for years, even decades to come. For budding musicians across the United States, the Beatles’ “Ed Sullivan” appearance proved to be a watershed moment.

For Heart guitarist Nancy Wilson, who will be a guest on this season of the “Everything Fab Four” podcast, the experience of seeing the group that night changed everything. As she remarked to Maura Kelly in 2007, “The lightning bolt came out of the heavens and struck [my sister] Ann and me the first time we saw the Beatles on ‘The Ed Sullivan Show.’ My family was living on the marine base in Camp Pendleton, California, and we’d all gathered around the little black-and-white TV at our grandmother’s in La Jolla. Most people didn’t have color sets at home back then. There’d been so much anticipation and hype about the Beatles that it was a huge event, like the lunar landing: that was the moment Ann and I heard the call to become rock musicians. I was seven or eight at the time.”

Nearly 3,000 miles across the country in Brooklyn that night, seven-year-old Patty Smyth (who kicks off the second season of “Everything Fab Four” today) experienced a life-changing moment of her own. The day after the Beatles’ appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show,” she demanded that her mother buy her a copy of “Meet the Beatles!” But it didn’t end there. Patty already had plans to marry a Beatle. As far as she was concerned, her single mother needed to stay out of the way. She could settle for Elvis; besides, he was older anyway.

For the future lead singer of Scandal, the music of the Beatles loomed even larger in the autumn months of 1969. Then 12 years old, Patty found herself on a cross-country car trip to Southern California, where her mother planned to make a new start. With the Beatles’ “Abbey Road” in heavy rotation, she and her sister memorized every lyric and every note of the group’s swan song. And a month later, when her mother gave up on the family’s West Coast plans and moved back to Brooklyn, Patty enjoyed another cross-country dose of the Beatles.

For the singer-songwriter, it was a musical education that would never stop paying dividends. As with the Wilson sisters, Patty had discovered a fount of inspiration that would never truly subside, that would only become richer and deepen with age.

But perhaps even more significantly — as the guests on “Everything Fab Four” have observed, time and time again — the Beatles created a form of shared experience from one generation to the next. From last season’s Steve Lukather and Jon Anderson, to upcoming episodes with Twisted Sister founder Jay Jay French and the Doors’ John Densmore, our guests have identified the Beatles’ music and influence as a sort of connective tissue. They reveal a sense of wonder about our collective good fortune — whether you happen to be five or 95 — at having been alive at the same time in which some or all of the Beatles walked the Earth.

Listen to Ken’s conversation with the Doors’ John Densmore:

Listen to past episodes of “Everything Fab Four” on Anchor.FM, and subscribe today through Spotify, Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcasts, StitcherRadioPublic, Breaker, Player.FMPocket Casts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Meghan McCain realizes “there’s not a lot of love” for Republicans like her any longer

“The View’s” Meghan McCain seemed to have a moment of realization on Monday that the Republican Party may have abandoned her and those like her.

Over the weekend it was revealed that House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) that she needed to apologize for voting to support impeachment. Cheney, who was among nine other Republicans to support impeachment, obviously refused to apologize. She was censured by the Wyoming Republican Party, however. It’s something McCain should understand because her own mother was censured by the Arizona GOP just a few weeks ago for endorsing Joe Biden for president.

“It’s interesting to know that it’s the leader of the caucus that asked her to do that, and she defiantly said she won’t apologize and she has nothing to apologize for,” said McCain. “I now am feeling very concerned about the fact that the leader of Republicans in Congress seems to think that if you are for impeachment, you have something to apologize for, and atone for, and I do think that’s a losing strategy. I’m very skeptical of the big tent party narrative right now, because it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of love for the Liz Cheneys of the party, which I guess at this point includes me.”

She went on to say that she’s been feeling “tribal” lately about being a Republican because “it seems like the only good Republican to a lot of people is one that is no longer in power and is irrelevant or a person who goes on TV or sort of atones for the sins of the Republican Party. I’m very skeptical of the promises that we will respect the Liz Cheneys after this.”

She went on to wonder how long it will take before the GOP starts trashing Cheney as a RINO (Republican in Name Only).

Four steps to building vaccine trust in marginalized communities

As of this writing, more than 425,000 Americans have lost their lives to Covid-19, a heartbreaking number that continues to climb at an alarming pace. Now that highly effective Covid-19 vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have been authorized by the Food and Drug Administration, however, there is hope that an end to the pandemic may be in sight. Although the initial rollout has been tumultuous, some experts remain optimistic that more than 100 million Americans will be vaccinated by late spring.

Overwhelmingly, the available evidence suggests that the vaccines are safe. Despite external pressure from the White House, no steps were skipped in the vaccine development process. And unlike some conventional vaccines, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain no live virus, and therefore cannot inadvertently cause or transmit Covid-19. The vaccines use messenger RNA to help the body make a protein that teaches the cells to develop antibodies to the virus. Because messenger RNA does not enter the cell nucleus, it does not affect DNA. 

Even so, wide swaths of the public remain hesitant to take a Covid-19 vaccine, with the distribution showing deep disparities along racial and ethnic lines. According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted last November, just 60 percent of all Americans indicated they would be willing to take an FDA-approved Covid-19 vaccine. That number dropped to 42 percent among African Americans.

The unfortunate irony is that Black communities stand particularly to gain from widespread Covid-19 vaccination. African American, Hispanic or Latino, and Indigenous people are succumbing to Covid-19 at disproportionately high rates — deaths that must be understood in the context of structural racism and entrenched health disparities. For communities of color, the price of vaccine hesitancy could be especially steep.

To be sure, there are deep wounds underlying the skepticism of many Black Americans. We remember all too clearly the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, the harvesting of cancer cells from Henrietta Lacks, and the inhumane gynecology experiments of J. Marion Sims. We feel the sting of discriminatory medical practices that continue to this day. But these injustices shouldn’t cloud our judgement about Covid-19 vaccination.

As two Black nurses with more than 70 years of combined nursing experience, we believe that health providers — especially those who are minorities — must play a key role in providing information, engendering trust, and facilitating informed vaccine decision-making in Black and Brown communities. But it will call for a plan, one that communicates clear narratives about the vaccine and involves a village of trusted community members who are prepared to deliver factual information without being overly coercive or paternalistic. If health care providers are to reconcile, reconnect, and reestablish trust with racialized communities, the following principles will be paramount.

First, health professionals must sharpen our own messaging. We must educate ourselves on the vaccines. We must be able to explain to patients how the vaccines were developed, how they were tested, and how they work. We must communicate clearly, without unnecessary medical jargon. After sharing vital information with a patient, we should ask them to restate what they heard. We must be prepared to communicate effectively with non-English speakers. And we must also be prepared to maintain ongoing conversations with patients; it takes time to garner trust. Meaningful actions like the “Love Letter to Black America,” recently penned by a group of Black doctors and nurses who are part of the Black Coalition Against Covid-19, can provide a starting point.

Second, health care institutions must work with communities to develop and deliver messaging via multiple streams of communication in order to reach multiple generations. Social media is but one venue for countering the numerous inaccuracies and conflicting information circulating among the public. Health care leaders should also be providing resources and support to trusted community organizations. One potential template is the Accountable Communities for Health (ACH) model, which aims to create partnerships between community stakeholders and health care providers and to address not just medical care but social determinants of health like housing and food insecurity. There are currently more than 100 ACHs throughout the U.S. However the ACH model may inadequately capture how structural drivers of inequities like racism fuel community distrust.

Third, health care providers should recognize the unique role that pastors and other faith leaders play in many communities of color. According to the Pew Research Center, three-quarters of Black Americans say religion is very important to them, compared with just half of White Americans. Health care providers, particularly those of color, should partner with these faith leaders to provide information about Covid-19 vaccines and to help them translate jargon for their parishioners.

In some places, we’re already seeing that begin to happen. In North Texas, for instance, the pastor of a predominantly Black church recently invited the National Institutes of Health’s Kizzmekia Corbett — who is also Black and has helped lead the NIH’s Covid-19 vaccine efforts — to share evidence-based information with the church’s parishioners. According to the pastor, the conversation resulted in some church members expressing more trust and belief in the information they received.

Finally, health care administrators must bear in mind that vaccine administration can be a logistically complicated undertaking, especially in Black and Brown communities where access to health care may be limited. To facilitate the delivery and administration of tens of millions of vaccine doses, it will be important to forge new relationships between local health departments and health-professional education programs such as nursing schools. In Illinois, where one of us practices, city, county, and state health departments are partnering with area medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools to provide support for vaccine administration and follow-up. Illinois has passed legislation to permit some emergency medical technicians to administer vaccines as well. Several other states are also gearing up to have students support vaccine administration.

Furthermore, some states are allowing dentists, pharmacists, and pharmacy technicians to administer the vaccine when it becomes more widely available. To boost access, Illinois is considering offering vaccines at drive-through sites, in large open spaces such as city colleges, and at small community sites. This kind of all-hands-on-deck approach will be vital for reaching people in marginalized communities who may lack access to health care.

More than 60,000 Black Americans have died from Covid-19. Blacks are 1.4 times more likely than Whites to become infected with the disease, 3.7 times more likely to be hospitalized, and 2.8 times more likely to die from the disease. Some Black Americans may understandably feel that the health care profession’s sudden interest in the wellbeing of Black and Brown folks is disingenuous.

But the scourge of health inequality did not begin with Covid-19, and it won’t end there either. Injustices like the treatment of Dr. Susan Moore, who died of Covid-19 after a doctor at an Indiana hospital downplayed her respiratory distress and complaints of pain, are emblematic of deep-rooted systemic racism in health care — racism that must continue to be fought with every available weapon.

In the long run, addressing racism and the ways in which economic policies contribute to disparate health outcomes could bridge the gap between communities and health care providers. Greater racial concordance in health care could also help to improve patient outcomes. Studies have shown that Black and Brown patients are more likely to respond positively to providers who look like them and who have shared cultural beliefs and life experiences.

In the short run, lawmakers, health professionals, and community members alike must do everything possible to quell a pandemic that is claiming hundreds of Black and Brown lives every day. We must push for greater access to health care and mitigate inequitable treatment while we combat vaccination fears with science, and distrust with wisdom. 

* * *

Dr. Wrenetha Julion is professor and department chair at Rush University College of Nursing and a Public Voices Fellow with the OpEd Project.

Dr. Kenya Beard is associate provost for Social Mission and Academic Excellence at Chamberlain University and the chair of the American Academy of Nursing’s Diversity & Inclusivity Committee.

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

The French pottery I’ve spent 30 years collecting

An object is often worth more than its material form. It can bring with it cultural echoes, family history, and personal memory. In The Things We Treasure,” writers tell us about their most priceless possessions — and the irreplaceable stories behind them.

* * *

I grew up in the Baby Boom years. As my parents ascended from working class to middle class, I noticed (even as a child) that there were things they acquired that were often not meant to be used. They had “fancy” dishes that only saw the light of day at Thanksgiving, table linens too pristine to ever be served on, and rooms that were deemed suitable only when we had company (even though we rarely had any).

Years later, as I began to form my own household, I was determined that my home would be the kind of place where people could put their feet up and put a glass down — and that I wouldn’t buy anything if it seemed too delicate. I also decided I wouldn’t be the kind of person who collected things, but as it turned out, I discovered my soft spot — for a certain simple but sturdy French Pottery.

This rustic pottery is referred to by several names: Poterie en Grès (sandstone), Terre-Cuit (cooked earth), salt-glazed pottery, or Berrichon Pottery, as it comes from that historic region in the Loire Valley, where it has been manufactured for over a century, and until recently, by a firm called Poterie Renault. This family-run workshop has made its rustic salt-glazed stoneware for five generations — a tabletop classic, showing up in restaurants and homes all over France. Until 2016, when they announced their closure. I felt genuine distress when I heard they were closing because their pottery was a touchstone to so many wonderful experiences over three decades, but I’m also glad for the pieces I have to remember them by.

* * *

The first piece I acquired was right after a trip to Paris in 1991. Each morning as I wandered solo to a different breakfast spot, I’d ask for a café au lait. Frequently, the waiter would deliver my espresso in a small, sturdy brown bowl with a small pitcher of warm milk on the side. And then I found one just like it, in a Parisian kitchen store: easy to grip because of its sandy, salt-glazed exterior, and thick enough to keep the coffee warm. It may never win a beauty contest, but it feels so pleasing in the hand. To this day, this bowl is in my most-handy kitchen cabinet for frequent use.

The next purchase came a year later when my now-husband, Bob, entered my life, and we hatched a plan to go to Paris on holiday. We stayed at an inexpensive and quaint hotel across Notre Dame on the Left Bank, regularly frequenting the dense touristy area nearby referred to as Little Greece. Stopping at the first place with a cheap French menu, we were escorted upstairs to a cozy, crowded room, and an utterly forgettable meal, but when the frites were brought to the table, I point out to Bob that they were in a bowl that appeared to be the same pottery as my café bowl back home. I’ll admit I’ve never actually made frites, but when the occasional bag of frozen fries comes into our house today, we always reach for this bowl to serve them.

On another trip some years later, we dined at Chez Paul, a lively boite in the 11th Arrondisement where we tucked in to Pot au Feu and some of the house red. House wines in France are often quite good and served in a pitcher — decorated with grapes or in the shape of a wine barrel. Our Pichet de Côtes du Rhône is delivered to the table in a sturdy Berrichon workhorse. Easy to grip, easy to pour, and not the least bit likely to be bumped off the small table thanks to its straight sides and flat bottom. It might have been the heady glow of the buzzing bistrot, or the house wine working its magic, but this is when I really start to fall in love with this pottery.

We started to look for these jars and vessels at every antique shop or brocantes (second-hand goods) or vide grenier (yard sale) we came across. We found a pitcher in the exact size and brought it home, and when it isn’t filling water glasses at the table, it is parked next to the stove, always full, so I can quickly thin a sauce, stop a scorch, or re-fill the pan where I’m steaming some vegetables.

In our many, many years of visiting France, the jar we have encountered the most is the small crock. The first time we saw one was at the legendary spot, Chez Denise, one of the few restaurants that dates back to when Les Halles was the food market in Paris and Emile Zola dubbed it “the belly of the beast.” In any restaurant in France if you order a rillette or pâté or any of the other numerous dishes that French folk think requires the accompaniment of a small pickle, this nice little Berrichon crock of cornichons (dilled gherkins) will be dropped at the table with a pair of wooden tongs for fishing them out.

Over the years our collection has grown to include several jars in this size and larger, as well as other pitchers, crocks, and some terrific straight-sided bowls. Bought both new and used, I remember vividly where each of these pieces came from and I deeply enjoy using every one of them. It is remarkable to me that in 30 years of near-daily use, not a single piece has ever broken.

One day, I trust, the pandemic will pass and we will be able to go back. Ideally, with a shipping container lined up for the return trip. In fact, there is a three-foot tall Berrichon planter that I spotted full of flowers in a teeny Burgundian village. I’m certain it would be perfect in my garden.

Sarah Palin “opened the door” for Donald Trump. Now, he’ll fade into the same obscurity

Writing in Vanity Fair this Monday, Peter Hamby contends that when it comes to Donald Trump’s political and public future, he’ll go the way of Sarah Palin.

“These days Palin has receded to a historical footnote and a punch line for a news media that’s become even more cocooned in its urban bubble since 2008, with Trump now receiving most of the credit for upending the presumed order of national politics,” Hamby writes. “But it was Palin who opened the door for Trump, the first politician to fuse together backlash politics and anti-elitism with the mighty American power of celebrity.”

Hamby points out that like Trump, Palin retained star power after her stint as John McCain’s running mate in 2008, making politics “purely about cultural identity—and there would be no turning back.”

“Whether Trump was watching closely or not, Palin carved out a new path to power. And now, in his post presidency, Trump’s future might also look a lot like Palin’s,” writes Hamby. “Out of the White House and essentially deplatformed from Twitter and Facebook, Trump is inhabiting something of a media time warp, now much more dependent on traditional media for attention.”

Read the full article over at Vanity Fair.

Expulsion is the only remedy: Insurrectionists in Congress must be rooted out

We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”  

These were the words of then-President Donald Trump as he addressed a large, hostile crowd in front of the White House on Jan. 6, 2021.

It has now been more than a month since Trump and his congressional allies incited and supported the insurrection against our country’s democracy. It was an attempt by a mob of violent seditionists to attack the Capitol and stop Congress from affirming the Electoral College victory of Joe Biden. This was planned and orchestrated by the sitting president with the hope that he could remain in power against the will of the people. Five people died. Dozens of police officers were injured. Vice President Mike Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were in grave danger of being seized and murdered. It was an unimaginable and indescribable scene of terror. Many of the insurrectionists had tactical gear and communications equipment. They roamed the halls with zip ties hunting for Pence and Pelosi. They built gallows and chanted death threats. They beat a police officer with a pole bearing the U.S. flag.  And let us not forget that President Trump chose not to intervene when the violence began. With the resources at his disposal, he easily and rapidly could have. 

Never in our 245-year history has our democracy been actively sabotaged by a sitting president and his congressional sycophants. The events of Jan. 6, 2021 will be highlighted in all history books going forward. The insurrection of our election will never be forgotten. Its significance is on par with Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor Day). 

Donald Trump was quickly impeached — for the second time — for his incitement of this insurrection. At this writing, he is about to stand trial in the Senate. He is refusing to testify. Trump’s behavior in the insurrection is easily explained by his psychopathic personality and his unrelenting desire to remain in power, despite losing both the popular vote (for a second time) and the Electoral College vote. Those of us who are mental health professionals predicted his pathological and violent response to his election defeat. No one should be surprised by the depth of his crass, repugnant and anti-democratic behavior. After all, everything is about Trump — the welfare of the country and its people be damned.

The Republican Party has been complicit with Trump for four years and counting. It has enabledhis quest to obtain absolute authority, politicize the Justice Department in his behalf, grift the American people and break norms, rules and laws with impunity. Republicans have been walking side-by-side with Trump every step of the way during his march to transform democracy into his own brand of authoritarianism. The insurrection was to be Trump’s final accomplishment in his mission. He failed — but it was a close call. It was a bungled coup attempt that matched the ineptness of his past four years in office. A more intelligent and capable man might have pulled it off.

It is unlikely that Republican senators will have the insight and courage to convict Trump during his impeachment trial. Their complicity will continue. Their support of Trump’s insurrection is crystal clear. They have tried to distract us by saying we must “move on.”  They want us to deny the objective reality of their full-throated endorsement of Trump’s self-serving conspiracy theories that the election was stolen from him.

Congressional Republicans who supported Trump’s overthrow of the democratic election must be rooted out. On the morning of the Capitol attack, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado tweeted, “Today is 1776.

Some congressional Republicans had reportedly given tours to the insurrectionists on Jan. 5. Eight Senators and 139 representatives supported at least one objection to the already-certified Electoral College vote. They promulgated false and fake conspiracy theories about how the election had been stolen from Trump, and cast their votes to support an authoritarian president who wanted to remain in power in defiance of the Constitution. Their entire scenario was a lie — the Big Lie — but they maintained their allegiance to their cult leader even though an insurrection against our government had occurred just the day before.

Sen. Ted Cruz supported the insurrection and actually engaged in fundraising during it. At least three newspapers in Texas have called for his resignation. Sen. Josh Hawley was in full support of Trump’s efforts to remain in power despite the will of the people. He cheered on the mob attackers with the now indelible image of his raised clenched fist. Newspapers in Missouri are calling for his resignation. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has talked out of both sides of his mouth about Trump’s role in the insurrection, and has refused to disavow the dangerous conspiracy theories about a stolen election. Sen. Lindsey Graham has voiced his disapproval of the impeachment of Trump for the insurrection. Sen. Ron Johnson is blaming Pelosi for the mob’s actions. Rep. Matt Gaetz traveled to Wyoming to rile up supporters to punish Rep. Liz Cheney, the Republican House whip, because she supported Trump’s impeachment. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a newcomer to Congress, has been an outspoken supporter of Trump’s efforts to remain in power. Rep. Mo Brooks has gone on the record to support Trump and his fake conspiracy theories about the election. The list goes on and on. But Congress, the media and historians need to do what has been started here: List the seditionists by name and call out their treachery.

Since the Jan. 6 insurrection, the Republican Party has degenerated and gravitated to the fringe of the extremists, showcased by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and others. Their support of Trump is stronger and more irrational than ever — despite the fact that he has been defeated and disgraced.

There are some reasonable Republicans who have spoken out against Trump and the insurrectionists. Sens. Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse and Lisa Murkowski have led the way, yet their words have been drowned out by the loud voices of the Q party who are doubling down on their blatant lies and conspiracy theories.

We have just witnessed an attempted coup against our democratic election. If the insurrectionists had been successful, Donald Trump would still be in high office and our democracy would be in shambles. We would no longer have open and free elections. We would no longer have three branches of government, the rule of law and a free press. Lies, conspiracy theories, violence and authoritarianism would prevail. Our country would be transformed into the psychopathic image of Donald Trump.

Accountability must be our mantra as we try to recover from the trauma of Jan. 6. Sticking our collective heads in the sand will not help us maintain and renew our democratic experiment. Reprimand and censure are far too weak for the offenses at hand. An attempted overthrow of our democracy requires nothing short of expulsion. There is no more egregious and reprehensible offense an elected official can commit.

It is time for us to clean house of all seditionists and traitors. We cannot allow them to remain in the sacred halls of Congress. They are a cancer that has metastasized. They are anti-democratic and anti-American outliers. Their voices and their influence must be stamped out decisively.

Please remember that not one of these congressional Republicans has shown an ounce of regret or shame for their actions on or before Jan. 6. Not one has apologized to the American people. If anything, they have fortified their position and their resolve. They continue to support Donald Trump and his abortive insurrection. They have not learned a thing. This is a collective lack of conscience shown by a large group of seditionists.

They leave us no choice: The only way to save our democracy is through expulsion, banishment and lasting shame.