Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Netflix’s grisly “Night Stalker” docuseries ensures the victims aren’t just a body count number

In pop culture, we’re still riding a gigantic true crime wave. Streaming services have designated tabs for the genre, annual sales for true crime books have jumped by nearly $600,000 over the last five years, and when Oxygen hosted “12 Dark Days of Serial Killers,” a series of shows about mass murderers, in April 2020, the network reported its highest-rated week in five years. 

As with any genre, there’s a spectrum of quality when it comes to the content — ranging from salacious fetishzation of serial killers at the expense of the victims, to deeply nuanced and boundary-pushing series like “Murder on Middle Beach” and “I’ll Be Gone in the Dark.” 

Regardless of the caliber of various true crime projects, most are still overwhelmingly centered around stories of white, middle or upper-middle class, victims. Think about the most talked-about true crime series and documentaries from the last several years: new episodes of “The Staircase,” “The Jinx,” “Amanda Knox,” “I Love You, Now Die,” “The Confession Killer,”  and “American Murder.”

Stories about white women or children getting killed or kidnapped make international headlines and prompt worldwide outrage — as we saw in Netflix’s “The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann” — while stories about victims of color are like a blip on the radar. There’s a not-so-subtle message about who is worthy of community concern underpinning the genre. 

Filmmakers and documentarians are slowly making moves to rectify this, though, through projects like “Atlanta’s Missing and Murdered Children,” “The Trials of Gabriel Fernández,” and, now, Netflix’s “Night Stalker: The Hunt for a Serial Killer.” 

Directed by Tiller Russell — whose past documentary work has include “The Seven Five” and “The Last Narc” — this four-episode series looks at how two detectives, with the aid of community members, tracked a serial killer dubbed “The Night Stalker” by the media through 1980s Los Angeles. 

The series opens on archival footage from 1985 that features a young Mexican-American detective named Gil Carrillo. He relays an announcement from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department: “The Sheriff’s Department is currently conducting an investigation into a series of homicides and sexual assaults in Los Angeles County. The suspect has used guns, knives, tire irons, handcuffs, thumb cuffs …”

Carillo was one of the lead detectives on the Night Stalker case, alongside homicide detective Frank “The Italian Stallion” Salerno. While Carillo, a Vietnam veteran whose parents had essentially enlisted him to keep him off the streets, was a newcomer to the homicide department, Salerno was a stoic veteran on the force; as one reporter who was interviewed told Russell, ” When you heard his name, you knew these were big-time crimes.” 

Their partnership serves as the lens through which this series revisits the infamous case, and while the two detectives aren’t ever together in the same room for interviews (a missed opportunity, but one ostensibly due to pandemic production restrictions), you get a sense of their dynamic, and their dogged determination to piece together how dozens of murders, attempted murders, home invasions, sexual assaults and molestations were connected. 

Their collective present-day insight about the case is augmented by a wealth of archival footage, as well as interviews with journalists who covered the crimes, with survivors of the Night Stalker’s attacks and with the loved ones of his victims, many of whom were people of color. 

There’s also a fair amount of crime scene reenactments and dramatic cutaway scenes;, most of these feel a little schlocky — think slow-motion shots of a bloody gun dropping from out of frame, or a finger pulling back on a trigger — especially when combined with some cliché scoring choices intended to invoke suspense. It’s unnecessarily cheesy packaging for a docuseries that does a really solid job of ensuring that the killer’s victims aren’t simply numbers in a body count. 

There was the 9-year-old Chinese-American girl Mei Leung, who the killer raped, beat and stabbed before hanging her body in a San Francisco hotel; 79-year-old Jennie Vincow who was nearly decapitated in her home; 22-year-old Maria Hernandez, who survived his attempt to shoot her in the face; Dayle Yoshie Okazaki, 34, who was shot in the forehead; 30-year-old Tsai-Lian “Veronica” Yu, who was shot multiple times; 6-year-old Anastasia Hronas who survived being molested, tossed in a duffle bag and deposited on the side of the road. 

The list goes on and on. The Night Stalker ultimately killed at least 14 people and raped and tortured at least two dozen more during the spring and summer of 1985. (It should be noted that this docuseries doesn’t shy away from the grisly details of the crimes perpetrated and, while it’s narratively important to understand the magnitude of the atrocities that were perpetrated, it may be difficult for some viewers to watch.)  

“The Night Stalker: The Hunt for a Serial Killer” treats all the victims as equally important, and it’s clear — at least through Russell’s lens — that the detectives viewed them that way, as well. They’re positioned here as mothers and fathers, daughters, and community members, defined by their lives and not how they were killed. It didn’t take a white victim for them to take the case “seriously.” I think that’s honestly likely due to the fact that Carrillo was on the case. He describes in the docuseries how he felt the killings were  “close to home” for himself and his neighbors. 

Because of the wide-ranging nature of the crimes committed, and with a clear lack of a victim “type,” the Night Stalker terrorized Los Angeles for months. Gun sales went through the roof and individuals who had never considered locking their doors, sealed their entryways and windows (even during that summer’s wild heat wave). A robust selection of archived news clips which feature concerned citizens discussing their fears for themselves and their communities clearly demonstrates the way this serial killer dominated the collective consciousness. 

When, in the fourth and final episode, Carillo and Salerno finally identify the killer and bring him into custody (aided by a band of community members), it feels like justice has been served — both narratively and, more importantly, for the victims. 

“Night Stalker: The Hunt for a Serial Killer” is currently streaming on Netflix.

House votes to impeach Donald Trump for inciting an insurrection

Donald Trump has officially become the first president in United States history to be impeached twice. The House of Representatives voted on one article of impeachment that formally charges Trump with “incitement of insurrection” after a mob left his Jan. 6 rally and violently attacked the U.S. Capitol. The resolution states in plain terms that Trump “gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government.” Ten Republicans broke with their party to impeach Trump with less than seven days left in his term. The vote was 232-197. 

“We are debating this historic measure at an actual crime scene, and we wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the President of the United States,” said Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern, D-MA, to open the debate on the House floor on Wednesday. “People died,” he expressed, “Everybody should be outraged. If this is not an impeachable offense, I don’t know what the hell is.”

After two hours of debate, several Republican lawmakers joined with Democrats to reprimand Trump in his final days in office. Herrera Beutler, R-WA, wrote in a statement, “The President of the United States incited a riot aiming to halt the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.” She added, “That riot led to five deaths.”

Republican Rep. John Katko echoed Beutler, tweeting, “To allow the president of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy […] I will vote to impeach this president.”

Other GOP backers of the impeachment include Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Rep. Fred Upton, Sen. Pat Toomey and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, and perhaps the most vocal among them, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-WY. Liz Cheney. 

“The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack,” Rep. Cheney tweeted, “The president could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a president of the United States.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is said to be privately in support of the House’s impeachment effort but has refused to use his emergency powers to reconvene the Senate for a speedy trial before Joe Biden’s inauguration. 

Other Republicans, including Rep. Matt Rosendale, Rep. Andy Bigg, and Rep. Jim Jordan –– one of Trump’s staunchest goons in the President’s election conspiracy –– have condemned their Republican detractors. Jordan has gone so far as to call for Cheney’s removal from Congress, saying in a statement, “When Representative Cheney came out for impeachment today, she failed to consult with the Conference, failed to abide by the spirit of the rules of the Republican Conference, and ignored the preferences of Republican voters […] She must step down as Conference Chair.”

As the procedural votes are underway, the Capitol has been fortified tightly with multiple layers of law enforcement, including Capitol Police and National Guard officers, who have laid down barricades outside the entrances and installed a new magnetometer for security screenings –– measures which are, of course, a far cry law enforcement’s presence in their preparation of last week’s riot. 

 

Empathy is key to overcoming COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy

Following promising phase III clinical trials, the UK and Canada have approved Pfizer’s novel vaccine against COVID-19. In the U.S., the FDA has given emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer vaccine and the first doses were administered on December 14. These are collectively tremendous accomplishments and suggest that the virus causing COVID-19 can be contained through an immunization program. However, that hinges on these vaccines actually getting administered to people. This may be an unanticipated hurdle to relief from the pandemic. 

A poll from the Pew Research Center in mid-November shows that about 60 percent of Americans would get an approved COVID-19 vaccine. While this is up from September polls and a Gallup poll in October, which indicated only about 50 percent of Americans were planning to get a vaccine against COVID-19, this would be below the 70 percent of the population the FDA estimates would need to be immunized in order to meaningfully reduce spread of the virus. 

Many of these people who have reservations about getting immunized, sometimes called “vaccine hesitant,” are concerned about how safe and how effective a vaccine which has been produced so quickly can be. These concerns were reflected in a JAMA paper in published in October, where there was survey subjects indicated lowered faith in a vaccine licensed under an EUA from the FDA than one which went through the standard approval process. Furthermore, some groups, such as Black individuals, can be distrustful of American public health institutions because of historical abuses in medical science and maintained biases that impact health outcomes today. This highlights a need to strategize communication efforts amongst scientists and public health officials to address these specific concerns so people understand and trust the science behind these vaccines. 

Most of us are not familiar with the details of clinical trials, but we understand that they are designed to ensure new medicine works and is safe. If we know anything else, it is that clinical trials usually take a long time. In the absence of good communication and transparency about how these trials are being accelerated, many people can become concerned that corners were cut or scientists don’t fully know if these vaccines are safe and effective. It is not enough to say “this is safe” as reason to accept a vaccine, nor will data transparency alone be helpful in convincing people of safety or efficacy. The data released will likely be densely laden with jargon and statistics most people can’t decipher. 

Instead, a thorough network of public health officials, physicians, and the scientific community should take the advice outlined in a report jointly from the Center for Health Safety and the International Access Center. The report recommends the development of an approach centered on communicating these vaccines safety, risks, benefits, and availability to the public in a non-partisan and empathetic manner to the general public. 

Examples, such as this video from University of Oxford, about how the process was sped up, that are condensed into convenient and understandable formats could be one tool to communicate how scientific integrity was maintained while meeting urgent needs for a product. Content which illustrates how the ability of the vaccine to prevent disease was assessed in clinical trials, and how it will continue to be monitored, would assure individuals of scientists’ basis for confidence in these vaccines. While recommendations from leading public health experts from the FDA, CDC, and WHO would boost confidence and trust as well, these come after or in association with seeing proof of these vaccines safety and efficacy to most individuals.

A widespread campaign to address concerns and provide clear information would establish trust between science bodies and communities, giving individuals the power to make their own informed decisions. Conversely, mandates that enforce immunization, which have been suggested as a way to boost vaccine compliance lowered acceptance of a COVID vaccine: 44 percent of a study group agreed they would take a vaccine proven safe and effective, but only 14 percent agreed when asked if they would take the vaccine were their employer to recommend or require it. 

One rationale this study cited for this is that, while mandates are effective at ensuring vaccine compliance, these are more likely to lower actual confidence and trust in public health measures, driving concerned individuals toward seeking healthcare providers willing to overlook vaccine recommendations and pursue exemptions in school and work. This is observed in childhood vaccination rates, where school requirements often improve immunization status unless medical and non-medical exemptions are available that vaccine-hesitant parents seek. 

In these instances, educating parents on vaccine safety and benefits and disease severity was shown to significantly increase immunization for MMR and DTaP, by 5.1 percent and 4.5 percent respectively, and reduce medical exemptions. However, where non-medical exemptions were permitted, immunization coverage was not affected by state interventions or mandates. This demonstrates the importance of not only communicating vaccine safety and importance, but also to listen to the specific concerns of the individual patient or group and cultivate an open dialogue to establish trust.

Individual demographics are a vital consideration in any communication strategy. It is not without reason, as has been discussed, that greater hesitation to vaccination may be highly prevalent among Black people. This is despite the fact that this demographic has experienced cases, hospitalizations, and deaths at a greater incidence than white, non-Hispanic individuals. Communication efforts must address the specific concerns people have and provide the trust that they will be protected throughout their acceptance of these vaccines. 

At the end of the day, even the most protective vaccine will not matter if not enough people take it. Widespread vaccination can be achieved by organized efforts on the part of public health officials, physicians, and science communicators, to illustrate how scientists have still assessed safety and protection in these products even on this accelerated timeline. People want to understand how there is so much certainty in these vaccines; many are suggesting waiting until “they see the evidence.” Scientists have the evidence, it is just a matter of communicating it.

Rep. Lauren Boebert leads GOP “standoff” with Capitol Police over metal detectors on House floor

Some Republican members of Congress pushed through Capitol Police officers to enter the House floor Tuesday and Wednesday, refusing to go through newly-installed metal detectors set up after last week’s deadly pro-Trump riot.

The acting House sergeant-at-arms issued a memo to all members of Congress on Tuesday warning that refusing to go through the metal detector or carrying prohibited items onto the House floor “could result in denial of access to the Chamber.” But Capitol Hill reporters documented the scene as Republican members refused to cooperate with officers on Tuesday night as the House debated a measure calling for Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office.

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., who has vowed to bring her gun to the Capitol, got into a “standoff with Capitol Police” after her bag set off the metal detectors and she refused to allow it to be searched, according to CNN’s Ryan Nobles. Boebert was ultimately allowed into the chamber, although it is unclear whether her bag was searched.

A defiant Boebert insisted on Twitter after the “standoff” that she is “legally permitted to carry” her gun in Washington and inside the Capitol, even though the sergeant-at-arms stressed that firearms are prohibited on the floor and must be restricted to members’ offices.

Boebert, who raised alarm among some Democrats after tweeting about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s location during last week’s siege, argued that the metal detectors “would not have stopped the violence we saw” last Wednesday, calling it a “political stunt.” The metal detectors were installed after lawmakers expressed concern during a Capitol Police briefing on ongoing plots against the Capitol that “members who were in league with the insurrectionists who love to carry their guns” may aid in a potential future attack. Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., who cheered on Trump’s supporters at a rally before the riot, has suggested on a podcast that he was armed during the siege.

According to HuffPost’s Matt Fuller, about 10 Republicans, including Reps. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., Scott Perry, R-Pa., and Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., “literally pushed through” the entry around the metal detectors while officers “didn’t seem to know what to do.” Fuller later reported that Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, was “the most aggressive member pushing through the metal detectors” and left a female officer who “kind of got in his way” seemingly on the “verge of tears” after he “pushed his way past her.” Some Republicans continued to defy the security measures and walked around the metal detectors on Wednesday as the House debated an article of impeachment against Trump.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, walked around the metal detector, telling officers, “You can’t stop me, I’m on my way to a vote,” according to Fuller.

“They cannot stop me,” Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., insisted when he was told to go through the metal detector, according to CNN’s Manu Raju. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., exclaimed that he was “physically restrained.”

Other members set off the metal detector but were not stopped by police as they entered the House floor anyway, Raju wrote. Fuller said that all Democrats and about 80% of Republicans complied but other members caused “tension” with police.

Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio, went through the metal detectors but stopped to tell the officers he believed they were “unconstitutional,” Fuller reported.

“This is bullshit,” Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Ill., complained as he went through the machine, according to NBC News.

Some members even took the floor to complain about the new security measures.

“I would be remiss if I didn’t address the atrocity occurring right here on the House floor today,” Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., said. “Take note America. This is what you have to look forward to in the Joe Biden administration.”

Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., complained on Twitter that members were being treated “like criminals.”

“We now live in Pelosi’s communist America!” she wrote.

Democrats condemned Republicans who shoved their way past police.

“All these GOP ‘pro-police’ slogans were never actually [about] safety,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said on Twitter. “It was always [about] upholding a system of state violence that targets” Black people and people of color.

Ocasio-Cortez on Instagram Tuesday recalled thinking “I was going to die” during last week’s siege. She said she was particularly concerned that “white supremacist members of Congress … would disclose my location and would create opportunities to allow me to be hurt, kidnapped, et cetera.”

Other lawmakers have expressed concern about potential cooperation with rioters inside the Capitol. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., has questioned how rioters found his unmarked office but did not enter his main office, which bears his name on the door. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., said in a video that unidentified members of Congress “had groups coming through the capitol that I saw on January 5 for reconnaissance the next day,” though she did not detail any evidence or specifics. The chief of staff for Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., told the Boston Globe that every panic button in the congresswoman’s office had been inexplicably “torn out” before staffers were forced to hide inside during the lockdown.

“Do these people not understand that literally everyone else has to go through metal detectors to get in here?” Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., questioned after the Republican protests. “Average people do not get to bring guns into the United States Capitol in normal times. Get over yourselves.”

Many of the Republicans who refused to comply with the new metal detector requirements previously voted for a 2018 bill to set up metal detectors in schools in response to school shootings, including Stivers, Gohmert, Davis, Mullin and Womack.

“Now they know how [high school] students in my district feel,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., tweeted. “Suck it up buttercups. Y’all brought this on yourselves.”

Republicans, don’t be afraid to impeach: Trump’s base will get over it — and get in line

In a twist that is a legitimate shock, it appears that some Republicans — after years of sycophancy, no matter what Donald Trump does — are finally coming around to the idea that impeaching and removing the mofo already might be the smart move after he incited an insurrection at the Capitol.

So far, five Republican House members — including Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the third-ranking Republican in the House — have committed to voting to impeach Trump. In an even more startling development, the New York Times reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “has concluded that President Trump committed impeachable offenses and believes that Democrats’ move to impeach him will make it easier to purge Mr. Trump from the party.”

There are now some troubling signs that large chunks of the Republican congressional caucus supported the insurrection and even claims that some may have conspired with the mob leaders. For Republicans not keen on being chased down by a murderous mob because they refuse to illegally overthrow Joe Biden’s presidential win, the idea of impeaching and removing Trump so that he can never run for office again is starting to sound appealing.


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


Still, what is likely holding many GOP members back is the fear of alienating Trump’s much-ballyhooed base, who is not only loyally standing by their man (75% of GOP voters approve of Trump post-insurrection), but appears to be supportive of the coup itself (68% refuse to say an overt attempt to overthrow an election is dangerous for democracy). And while the fear factor is overstated as a reason for Republican loyalty to Trump over the years —  most of the time, they backed Trump because they wanted to — there is a history of Trump threatening revenge on Republicans by promising primary challenges. 

But Republicans should not be afraid of Trump’s base.

On the contrary, while there may be some political blowback in the short term, the best possible thing the Republican Party can do right now to save itself in the long run is to throw Trump overboard.  His loyalists will whine and fuss, but Republican voters will come around. They always do. Because power matters to Republican voters more than anything. They aren’t going to just give up on the Republican party, which still remains the only viable pathway for conservative voters to retain power in our two-party system. 

The arguments for why Trump is a threat to the Republican party are well-worn, and now indisputable. Despite the confidence of arrogant Republicans who believed they could control Trump through regular golf outings, the truth is that his self-dealing and lack of loyalty to his allies always made him a threat to the party. Indeed, one of his last acts before this insurrection was to pull a stunt undermining the Republican position on the coronavirus stimulus for no apparent reason other than an idiotic belief that he could blackmail McConnell into finding some way to steal the election for him. 

Now he’s a literal physical threat to Republicans, having sent a mob to chase down anyone viewed as “disloyal” — including Vice President Mike Pence — for failing to break the law in order to steal the election for Trump. 

One reason Republicans have stuck by Trump is because he is a voter turnout machine. Trump appears to motivate voters who often don’t vote. The man controls a dirtbag bat signal that moves conspiracy theorists and other assorted weirdoes and losers that are otherwise alienated from electoral politics. He got an eye-popping 74 million votes in 2020, the second biggest voter haul in American history.  The biggest voter haul in American history, however, was Biden’s, who had over 81 million votes. And that exposes the main problem Trump presents to Republicans. Yes, he turns out Republican voters — but he turns out even more Democratic ones, as people who typically tune out of politics are motivated by the sheer repulsion Trump inspires. 

The reality is that Republicans were actually doing just fine prior to Trump. They were able to enjoy structural advantages that allowed them to hold the majority of political power, despite the fact that most Americans prefer Democrats. The overrepresentation of conservative voters in rural and suburban areas, along with voter suppression and gerrymandering, meant Republicans didn’t really need all those extra voters that Trump dredged up, especially not at the expense of mobilizing the left.


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


In addition, Republicans can count on a pre-Trump voting base that is more reliable than Democratic voters. Republican voters tend to be older, less likely to have moved recently, and wealthier — all factors that make them more likely to vote in every election. Those people may like Trump, but most aren’t going to stop voting without him, because they like power more.

Republicans would be wise to worry less about their base, and more about the way Trump turns out the opposition. The Georgia election is proof of this. Prior to 2020, Georgia was a solidly red state, so much so that it was nearly impossible to imagine it going blue. But then not only did Biden win the state in November but two Democrats also beat Republican incumbents in a January runoff the night before the Capitol riot.

This was not because, as many people wishfully hoped, Trump’s conspiracy theories about a “rigged” election drove down Republican turnout. On the contrary, Republicans turned out in droves, proving once again Republican voters are far more motivated by the prospect of beating Democrats than they are by Trump’s personality. It’s just that Democrats turned out even more. 

Part of that remarkable feat was absolutely due to the hard work by Stacey Abrams and other voting rights activists who have done the often thankless labor of registering and turning out underrepresented voters in Georgia. Part of that is the demographic change that has made Georgia more diverse and urban. But the turnout, on both sides, was well beyond what even the most robust get-out-the-vote campaign could typically hope for in a runoff election. That’s because of Trump and how he activates both Republicans and Democrats to vote. 

All in all, the pre-Trump political landscape was really good for Republicans and bad for Democrats.

If any other Republican had been in the White House in 2020, it’s quite likely that they would have been re-elected and Republicans would have won the Senate or both houses of Congress. Instead, Democrats won both chambers of Congress and the presidency by riding a wave of anti-Trump sentiment. Dumping Trump so that he can’t run again will lower the temperature of politics, allowing Republicans to return to their incredibly successful — if deeply evil — strategy of quietly undermining democracy and entrenching minority power. 

McConnell seems to have figured this out, which is why he let it leak out that he is experiencing warm feelings about impeachment. Sure, Republican voters might be mad, for a minute. But what are they going to do, not vote and let Democrats win? Ha! No way! From a strictly self-interested perspective, Republicans would be wise to dump Trump and trust that their voters will come around. Their voters always do, in the end. 

The controversial kitchen tool that’s become my staple

Any professional chef will tell you that good knives are only to be sharpened manually and with a whetstone — electric knife sharpeners are for the uneducated, who don’t truly care about their tools. So like any self-respecting cook (someone who interviews chefs for a living!) I never deigned to purchase a knife sharpener. Instead, I bought a whetstone, found it impossible to use, stuck it far away in a drawer, and subsequently got my knives sharpened by a professional every three months or so (honing daily in-between).

This strategy was working quite well for me, until the world was placed into quarantine. My day job of filming a public TV show about food was replaced this spring by becoming a glorified in-home chef/cleaner for my family, a homeschool prisoner/teacher, and the kind of person who does daily Instagram Lives cooking with her son just to have a reason to get dressed. As the days and weeks dragged into months, I was suddenly faced with a new problem. My daily knife honing was no match for knives that required sharpening.

I thought long and hard about pulling the whetstone out from its hiding place, but after watching one too many YouTube videos about the precision and practice necessary, the idea of failing at another facet of my current life was deeply unappealing. So, I went down the rabbit hole of electric knife sharpeners. All the critics were there, loud and clear. Knife sharpeners are less precise than a stone. Knife sharpeners remove more metal from your knife, dramatically reducing its lifespan.

But the arguments start to break down for me when I considered the normal lifespan of a knife, even for the most active home cooks. Let’s be clear: I am not slicing sushi-grade tuna or breaking down animal carcasses. I am not planning to pass my knives on to my grandchildren. They aren’t heirlooms crafted by an artisanal metalworker. They are higher-end, very serviceable, commercially available knives. Their cost is roughly equivalent to the amount I spend every three years on sharpening them. I was spending more money while I wasted my time dropping my knives off for a day to be sharpened, rather than secretly accepting the shame of being a food journalist and cookbook author who happens to use an electric knife sharpener.

In this new brave world of quarantine, I was happy to accept a bit of shame in exchange for the pure joy and culinary power of a freshly sharpened knife.

Most reputable outlets recommend the same knife sharpener — the Chef’s Choice Trizor XV — so I put in my order, and eagerly awaited its arrival every time I went to cut a tomato with a serrated knife. When the day came, I pulled the machine out of its box and looked it over. It has a simple design and a logo that looks straight out of the eighties. But the instructions made it seem easy enough: Pull the knife through three sections that sharpen, hone, and polish. Three steps, and your knife will be sharp again. I took out one of my least favorite knives and put it through each stage. It was extremely loud and sounded like my knife was being eaten. But when it was done, I took my knife to a tomato and it easily slid right through. My knife was sharp! It did not look smaller or ruined in any way. I quickly took the plunge, and put every knife that needed sharpening right through the process.

As the months wore on and the summer allowed for more stores to reopen, I had a choice to go back to my professional sharpeners. But by that point, I had admitted to myself that I was in fact a convert.

Despite my newfound secret sharpener love, I knew the existing reasons against it remained the mainstream professional opinion. So I reached out to the professionals to get their take—the first step in coming to terms with laziness. A lot of chefs I reached out to politely said they had nothing to contribute to the conversation (a.k.a., not a chance of sullying their knives’ reputations by even thinking about an electric sharpener). But Hiroki Odo of o.d.o by ODO was game to explain why his needs — as a chef at a Michelin-starred Japanese kaiseki restaurant—should of course be different to a consumer. As he explained, “Chefs use many different knives depending on the ingredients. There are specific knives for meat, fish, vegetable[s]. There are different knives for different types of fish. Home cooks typically use the same knife for almost everything.” And, he pointed out, that knife is typically even made of a different material. He recommends home cooks use, “a stainless steel knife. Chefs tend to use knives made with iron, but if you don’t maintain and polish the knives every day, they will rust very fast.”

I was buoyed by his lack of judgement. But what about someone who has devoted their life to knives? I hopped on the phone with Tara Hohenberger of Chubo Knives to get her take. She was, understandably, more cautious in her outlook. For anyone who has invested in a higher-quality knife, the risk of a sharpener is that you have no idea what you are actually changing. “Japanese knives are often not equal on both sides. Not every knife is designed at the same angle.” When you use an electric sharpener, “you can’t see what’s happening in there. You could mess up the good edge that was established and you’re taking off more material than is necessary.”

Her recommendation is to commit to taking proper care of your knives, but to start by setting yourself up for less sharpening. “Consider the type of steel your knife is made of: harder steels maintain their edge longer. Then minimize damage with your cutting board. We recommend using soft rubber or end grain wood. That prevents the knife from being damaged every time it hits the surface of the board.” By her estimation, a home cook could sharpen every two to six months (depending on how often you cook), and using the stone should only take 10 to 20 minutes. For anyone looking to pick up a new skill in the new year, there are tons of resources online to help take the guesswork out of using a stone.

The adage says that a sharp knife is a safe knife. I completely understand that taking the extra time to sharpen properly is the best course of action. But I also think it’s OK to recognize that sometimes we don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to take the superior route (see: every diet ever; leaving dishes in the sink; wearing that pair of socks with the holes in them because you haven’t done laundry yet). I have spent my entire professional career learning about food, writing about food, and teaching people about food. If I don’t want to put the effort into a whetstone, I imagine most non-professional cooks feel the same way. Yet we all need sharp knives to cook effectively. Snobbery has always been a part of food — from demanding higher-end ingredients to denigrating freezers and microwaves — and knives have become another cult to follow. For those who want to, I applaud them for their commitment. But it doesn’t have to be right or wrong. We can all pick our priorities.

I will argue until I’m blue in the face about the differences in quality of mass-produced versus small-batch cheeses, but it doesn’t make someone love Kraft singles any less. We can have certain items that we geek out over, and others that we don’t. And the truth of the matter is that I’m not a chef — I’m a home cook who learns from chefs. My job is to teach other home cooks who are just as frazzled, time-constrained and limited in their resources, just like me. And what a home cook needs more than any fancy knife is a simple, sharp knife. For every person researching and purchasing an expensive, hand-crafted knife there are 5,000 others just trying to figure out how to keep their regular knife sharp enough.

So sure, I wish I had the time and energy to practice manually sharpening my knives until it became second nature to me. But for now, I’m going to use my electric knife sharpener. And having a sharp knife will be worth it all.

Get To Know Your Knives A Little Better

Hannity suffers steep post-election decline: Fox News host collapses with 3-to-1 ratings loss to CNN

One of the biggest stars on Fox News has fallen from grace as his ratings have collapsed following the November election.

Eric Boehlert of Press Run on Wednesday detailed Fox News host Sean Hannity’s post-election slump.

“But a closer look reveals that in the post-election cable landscape, the wheels have been coming off Hannity’s ride, just as Fox News was touting his 2020 success in December,” Boehlert wrote. “Soon after Joe Biden was declared president-elect and Trump launched a criminal crusade against free and fair elections, Hannity’s 9 p.m. program slid into a permanent last-place position behind MSNBC and CNN, among viewers 25-54. Hannity has been stuck there now for two months.”

In recent days, Fox News has announced a number of changes to its lineup after primetime host Martha MacCallum lost out to conservative competitor Newsmax on at least one occasion.

On October 30, more than 900,000 people in the 24-25 demographic watched Hannity’s show. But by last Thursday, that number had fallen to 500,000.

That same night, MSNBC beat Hannity by a 2-to-1 margin and CNN bested him with a 3-to-1 margin.

“Hannity’s slow-motion demise represents the starkest reminder yet for Fox News that its post-Trump world could look very different, especially if far-right viewers dump the channel at Trump’s urging,” Boehlert noted.

McConnell privately backs Trump impeachment in hopes it will “purge him from the party”: report

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has privately said that he is “pleased” that Democrats are moving to impeach President Donald Trump in the wake of last week’s Capitol riot, according to The New York Times.

McConnell has told associates he believes Trump committed “impeachable offenses,” according to the report, and thinks it will make it “easier to purge him from the party.” Fox News’ Laura Ingraham confirmed that McConnell will not oppose impeachment and is “done with Trump” after fellow host Sean Hannity tried to dismiss the report as “salacious nonsense.” None of the Republican leaders have denied the report since it came out Tuesday evening.

Axios later reported that there is a “better than 50-50 chance” that McConnell would vote to convict Trump and remove him from office. At least five House Republicans, including Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 Republican in the chamber, have said they plan to vote to impeach Trump. Several Republican senators have left the door open to removing the president but it would require 67 votes to convict Trump after a Senate trial. That remains an unlikely reach in an evenly divided 50-50 chamber, given that Republican voters still overwhelmingly support the president. Following last week’s violence at the U.S. Capitol, some Republicans have even expressed concern that they could be killed if they support impeachment.

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who backed objections to the Electoral College results last week, opposes the impeachment vote but has asked fellow party members whether he should call on Trump to resign and has reached out to Democrats to see if they would be willing to support a vote to censure the president, according to the Times. McCarthy and other party leaders have decided not to press their members to oppose the vote even though McCarthy has publicly said that impeachment would “divide our country more.”

The House plans to vote to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection” against the government on Wednesday, one week after the president’s supporters attacked police and overran the Capitol with weapons while hunting lawmakers amid a vote to certify the Electoral College results. Five people were killed, including a Capitol Police officer. Dozens of other officers were injured.

The article of impeachment has drawn at least 218 cosponsors, meaning it already has the votes to pass the chamber and set up a trial in the Senate. Trump would be the first president to be impeached twice. McConnell has indicated that a trial would not begin until the Senate returns from vacation on Jan. 19. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. — who is set to become majority leader after Biden is inaugurated and two newly-elected Democrats from Georgia are sworn in — is considering invoking emergency powers approved for Senate leaders in 2004 to reconvene the chamber immediately, though the measure is not likely to be backed by McConnell, according to Bloomberg News.

The Times reports, however, that McConnell wants to hear arguments in the Senate for Trump’s removal and has privately said that “now is the moment to move on from the weakened lame duck, whom he blames for causing Republicans to lose the Senate.”

McConnell and Trump have not spoken since last month after the Senate leader acknowledged President-elect Joe Biden’s victory. The majority leader’s wife, former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, was the first Cabinet member to resign in the wake of the riot.

Biden called McConnell on Monday to ask whether the Senate can “set up a dual track” to confirm his Cabinet nominees alongside the Senate trial, according to the Times. McConnell said he would get an answer for the president-elect from the Senate parliamentarian.

McConnell condemned the riot after the Senate reconvened last Wednesday, describing it as a “failed attempt to obstruct Congress” and a “failed insurrection.”

The House voted 223-205 on Tuesday to call on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. Pence had already made clear, in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that he would not do that. The vice president, who defied Trump’s demands to block the certification of Electoral College results — something Pence did not have the legal or constitutional authority to do — wrote in the letter that he did not “exert power beyond my constitutional authority to determine the outcome of the election, and I will not now yield to efforts in the House of Representatives to play political games at a time so serious in the life of our nation.”

At least five House Republicans plan to vote to impeach Trump, though that number is likely to grow ahead of Wednesday’s vote.

Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, said in a statement that Trump “summoned” the mob that attacked the Capitol, “assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.”

“Everything that followed was his doing,” she said. “None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.”

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who has served in the House since 1987, slammed Trump for defending the rally that preceded the riot as “totally appropriate” on Tuesday and for expressing “no regrets” for his role in the “violent insurrection.”

Upton said he would have preferred a “bipartisan, formal censure” but “it is time to say: Enough is enough.”

Rep. John Katko, R-N.Y., the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said he “cannot sit by without taking action.”

“To allow the president of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy,” he said in a statement.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the President … broke his oath of office and incited this insurrection,” said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., an Air Force veteran. “If these actions … are not worthy of impeachment, then what is an impeachable offense?”

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., directly blamed Trump for the riot and the five deaths that resulted from it. “Hours went by” before Trump responded to the assault, instead making calls to senators to urge them to overturn the Electoral College results, she said in a statement.

“The President’s offenses, in my reading of the Constitution, were impeachable based on the indisputable evidence we already have,” she added. “I understand the argument that the best course is not to further inflame the country or alienate Republican voters. But I am a Republican voter … I believe President Trump acted against his oath of office.”

In light of last week’s assault on the Capitol, some Republicans are worried they may face violent reprisal if they join the growing chorus backing the impeachment. McCarthy told fellow Republicans on a conference call not to verbally attack colleagues who support the vote “because it could endanger their lives,” according to the National Review’s John McCormack.

Freshman Rep. Peter Meijer, R-Mich., who said that he is undecided on impeachment, told Fox Business that members “going to vote our conscience … on impeachment” have an “assumption that people will try to kill us.”

Corporate America cuts Trump off in his final days: Where will he turn now?

It’s an amazing turn of events that one year ago today we were on the cusp of the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump in the U.S. Senate and today the House of Representatives is poised to do it again. They will pass another Article of Impeachment against Donald Trump — this time with a bipartisan vote — for the crime of inciting an insurrection. That will make Donald Trump the first president in history to be impeached twice. 

Nobody expects more than a handful of Republicans to sign on, despite the clear evidence we’ve all seen, but there will be a few which is more than we had the last time. The fact that a losing incumbent president would have done something so heinous that he would be impeached a week before he was set to leave office is something none of us could have imagined. During the first impeachment trial, we were told by Republicans that the president had done nothing wrong but even if he did we were so close to an election that we should let the people decide. Well, they decided. And we all know what happened next. There have been two months of non-stop, absurd, overwrought lies, which turned many of Trump’s voters (who were already indoctrinated with wild conspiracy theories) into raving hysterics, egged on daily by Trump himself. January 6th was the inevitable consequence.

The second impeachment vote may just end up being a historical footnote and Trump will likely make his ignominious exit on January 19th, having already announced that he will not attend Joe Biden’s inauguration — clearly not wanting to spoil his perfect record as the greatest sore-loser the world has ever known. He may have a pardon spree in his final days, including one for himself and his family and I would not put it past him to issue a mass pre-pardon for the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. Who knows if any of that is legal, but those questions have never stopped Trump before.

Up until his post-election tantrum and his incitement to riot last week, Trump might have been able to count on rich friends and Republican donors giving him some back-up simply because as the likely frontrunner for 2024 with a potential for a blockbuster rematch. He likely would have maintained tremendous clout within the GOP.

But he blew it and he is now not only facing legal threats, but his personal financial future is also seriously threatened.

The backlash to his actions in the past week among corporations, banks and Wall Street has been swift and severe. Aside from “Big Tech’s” decision to ban Trump and remove right-wing apps that were involved in plotting violence from their platform, major firms from Coca Cola to Marriott to Morgan Stanley suspended political donations to Republican politicians who contributed to the insurrection.

Furthermore, the Trump Organization itself is going to bear the brunt of this withdrawal of support from the business community. The company was already in trouble. It was previously reported that Trump holds a tremendous amount of debt that’s coming due very soon and for which he is personally liable. Had he won the election or even if he had maintained his hold on the Republican establishment and kept a slight modicum of respectability, he would probably have been able to refinance that debt fairly easily. That’s no longer going to be possible. Deutsche Bank, which holds a big piece of the debt, has reportedly decided not to do business with him. Two other banks have closed his accounts and have stated they will no longer work with him. Investment banks that might have held their noses and helped him out will no longer need or want to take the risk on someone who is so publicly damaged.

Meanwhile, his company was already reeling from a resort and hotel business in deep distress from the COVID pandemic and is now suffering from a global recoil from his brand name.  New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced on Wednesday that the city will terminate decadeslong business contracts with Trump, costing the Trump Organization about $17 million a year in profits. Trump’s hotel in D.C, which has hosted so many people from all over the world currying favors and hoping to mingle with the elite MAGA crowd, will now have a new landlord: the Biden Administration, which is highly unlikely to stonewall the congressional investigations into its corrupt contracts.

The PGA canceled the 2022 Golf Championship that was scheduled for his Bedminster golf club (which reportedly upset Trump more than anything else that’s happened this past week.) No doubt his resorts all over the world will be hemorrhaging members, upscale professional types who can no longer afford to be associated with him and expect their employers to be sanguine about it. The Washington Post additionally reports that Cushman & Wakefield, the real estate brokers who handle the leasing for many of the Trump Organization properties says it will no longer do business with them. New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick even turned down a Presidential Medal of Freedom from Trump this week.

Trump was warned by his good friend Tom Barrack after the election that he needed an “elegant” exit if he hoped to save his business, according to the Post. He refused and now he is described as “shell shocked” by what’s happened. All of this leads to a very important question: If Trump cannot refinance his debt through normal channels and no one wants to bail him out otherwise, what will he do?

It was always a very dangerous risk for a man like Trump, having had access to all the nation’s secrets, to leave the White House and travel the world seeking flattery and favors from foreign adversaries. After all, he did that even as president. But there were at least some restraints on the information he would share. In the near future, fresh from this disaster, deep in debt and seeking revenge, is it not at least possible that he could market some of what he knows in exchange for help from some shady state-owned banks such as Turkey’s Halkbank for which he already went out on a limb? Or perhaps he could find some willing ears from VEB, the Russian state-owned bank that was involved earlier with some Trump development deals. And there are the various Middle East entities with whom he and son-in-law Jared Kushner have cultivated such close relationships. Surely they’d love to sit and have a nice long private chat with a loquacious ex-president who desperately needs cash.

As a former president, Donald Trump will be a serious national security risk no matter what. But now he has more incentives than ever to parlay what he knows into a financial windfall. There is some comfort in the reports that he was distracted and bored during intelligence briefings but it wouldn’t be surprising if he paid closer attention than we think.  He knows a financial opportunity when he sees one.

Attack on Capitol was a victory for white supremacy — can Joe Biden rise to the challenge?

Last Wednesday, thousands of Donald Trump’s followers launched a right-wing white supremacist assault on the U.S. Capitol. On that same day, more modestly sized Trump mobs engaged in other acts of political terrorism and harassment across the nation.

Trump’s supporters committed these acts of political terrorism in response to his many incitements to sedition, treason and other forms of political violence, which go back to the 2016 presidential campaign and appear to be escalating in these days before Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration.

Trump’s mob eventually overran the Capitol building last Wednesday, forcing members of Congress, staffers, and other people to flee or hide, in fear for their lives. This fascistic coup attempt would result in the deaths of at least five people including a Capitol police officer. If not for the valiant efforts of Capitol police, District of Columbia police and other law enforcement officials to fight back against Trump’s mob, the death toll could well have been much higher.

The forces attacking the Capitol building did not constitute a “riot,” as many in the news media have incorrectly called it. Trump’s coup attack on the Capitol (by implication, an attack on American multiracial democracy) was coordinated and planned weeks if not months prior.

The obvious objective of the assault was to disrupt the counting of the Electoral College ballots that would formally make Joe Biden president, but we may reasonably speculate that for some who participated, the goals were much larger than that. Some involved in storming the Capitol evidently wanted to take Democrats (and some Republicans) hostage, perhaps to execute them; pillage and defile the seat of democratic government; cripple the country’s civilian leadership and chain of command; spark a nationwide uprising; and create a chaotic scenario in which Trump could declare a state of emergency allowing him to remain in power indefinitely. The fact that some of those goals were wildly implausible doesn’t mean they weren’t what the mob desired.

To that point, some U.S. allies have concluded that last Wednesday’s attack on the Capitol was part of a coup plot that included people at senior levels of the government and the Trump regime.

In an op-ed for the Washington Post on Monday, Hillary Clinton warned of the power of white supremacy and its role in Trump’s coup attempt. She described Wednesday’s events as “the tragically predictable result of white-supremacist grievances fueled by President Trump” and continued:

But his departure from office, whether immediately or on Jan. 20, will not solve the deeper problems exposed by this episode. What happened is cause for grief and outrage. It should not be cause for shock. … What were too often passed off as the rantings of an unfortunate but temporary figure in public life are, in reality, part of something much bigger. That is the challenge that confronts us all.

As from before the founding of our republic through to the 21st century, white supremacy remains a dire threat to the security of the United States and the American people.

In the form of Trumpism and American fascism, white supremacy fueled the election of this president more than four years ago. White supremacy in its various forms helped keep Trump in power — and allowed him to become even more popular despite his obvious failure to protect the health, safety and prosperity of the American people. White supremacy and other antisocial and pathological political values and beliefs motivate Trump’s followers in their unwavering loyalty and their relentless efforts (through legal, illegal and quasi-legal means) to overthrow the U.S. government and multiracial democracy.

White privilege is one of the primary ways through which white supremacy manifests itself on a day-to-day basis in America. It was white privilege that did the work of normalizing the Trump regime. It was why so many of the country’s elites — including the mainstream news media and other opinion leaders — denied the obvious threat to the country’s democracy, safety, and security represented by Trumpism and his imminent coup attempt. The logic was simple: Coups are exotic events that happen “over there,” not in the United States. White Americans would never behave in such a way. American exceptionalism, which itself is a fantasy of whiteness and a result of its ability to twist and distort reality, deems American fascism and a coup attempt to be impossible.

For years, Black and brown people have desperately sounded the alarm about the existential danger to the United States and its multiracial democracy embodied by Donald Trump and his movement. With few exceptions, those warnings were ignored by the mostly white spaces that constitute America’s mainstream news media and other major political and social institutions. As journalist Farai Chideya recently summarized on Twitter, “We’d never be here today — I truly believe this — if Black and POC reporters and editors had the authority and roles needed to shape the coverage of 2016.”

Moreover, the loudest public voices who attempted to mock, silence and dismiss the prescient warnings of Trump’s imminent coup attack were mostly white. Whiteness literally blinded too many elites to the attack on the Capitol and democracy itself, which was being planned in plain sight.

Donald Trump and the Republican Party’s politics of white grievance and white victimhood have radicalized many tens of millions of white Americans (and too many Black and brown Trumpists as well). These Americans are increasingly rejecting democracy if it means that “people like them” do not maintain eternal control over the nation’s political, social and economic institutions. In this version of America, nonwhite people are effectively to be treated as second-class citizens. There are established terms for such a societal arrangement: Apartheid and Jim Crow.  

As exemplified during the attack on the Capitol, white supremacy and American fascism are inherently violent. Such violence is also infectious: It spreads like a type of social contagion first from the leaders (Trump and other far-right Republicans, Christian nationalist churches, the right-wing media) and then throughout society. That dynamic helps to explain why the Age of Trump has seen record increases in hate crimes and other right-wing violence. White supremacist violence will not suddenly cease when Trump leaves the White House. If anything, this epidemic of political violence will likely continue to spread, and attacks such as last Wednesday’s will become more frequent — and more lethal.

In a recent essay for Time Magazine, John Douglas, the founder of the FBI criminal profiling program, whose career is the basis of the book and Netflix series “Mindhunter,” warned:

Words really do matter — be they the blatant screed of an out-and-out hater or the dog whistle of a political leader only too happy to sow anger and divisiveness for personal advantage. And as the election confirmed, our society is so divided that words have entirely different meanings to each segment. To half the population, diversity translates into “social progress.” To the other half, it means, “Not me.”

In this environment, any movement that can give explanation, pride, and hope to those who feel left out and disparaged, and make them feel that there are those lower than them or responsible for their condition, that gives them promise of ascendancy and retribution, is a powerful, dangerous force. And in this fraught atmosphere — when candidates for the highest office in the land need to be asked to repudiate white supremacy — constant awareness and eternal vigilance are required. Merely changing the national leader is not enough to solve the problems of racism, white supremacy, and other forms of extremism and domestic terrorism.

Donald Trump will in all probability be impeached for a second time (and perhaps even convicted by the Senate) because of his most recent incitements to violence and sedition. He may even be removed from office under the terms of the 25th Amendment (although Vice President Mike Pence appears to lack the courage for that). But even with Biden becoming president next week, Trump and his authoritarian, fascist and white supremacist movement will not stop their attacks against America’s multiracial democracy.

Last week, their vile cause scored a great triumph. Like barbarians of old, their forces sacked the Capitol building, overran the security forces, took prizes, terrorized the country’s elected officials and won a heretofore unimaginable symbolic victory for the cause of white supremacy in America.

Years and decades ago, such an outcome was only fantasized about in white supremacist fiction or how-to manuals like “Victoria” and “The Turner Diaries,” or in online forums. Viewed in that light, the Age of Trump was and is a strategic breakthrough for white supremacy.

Donald Trump is, in effect, America’s First White President. Senior adviser Stephen Miller, one of the few members of Trump’s inner circle to endure through his entire term, is an overt white supremacist. The Republican Party, despite its current, fumbling attempt to jettison Trump as an embarrassment, is the world’s largest white supremacist organization. Human and civil rights have been undermined and rolled back in the Age of Trump. The coup assault and siege of the Capitol was but one battle in a longer struggle for (and against) white supremacy.    

A report this week from the Associated Press describes the current state of affairs:

Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, said authorities in state capitals and other major cities besides Washington should prepare for the possibility of violent protests next week.

“A lot of people were energized by what happened last week,” he said. “State capitals are a natural place where people might want to show up, especially assuming that they think there might be a huge presence of police and military in D.C. because of what happened last week.”

Pitcavage tracks militia, white supremacists and other far-right extremists, but he said the Capitol siege demonstrated the emergence of a new movement of “Trumpist extremists, so caught up in the cult of personality around Trump that they may be willing to break the law or engage in violence purely in support of Trump and whatever he wants.”

President Joe Biden will have much work to do to save the American economy from collapse, end the coronavirus pandemic and improve the country’s much diminished image and power abroad. Biden and his administration will also have to confront and defeat a white supremacist fascist insurrection within the United States.

Many Americans voted for a “return to normalcy” in the 2020 election. That resulted in a landslide victory for Biden, whatever Trump and his allies may claim. But normalcy is nowhere in sight. 

Mark Meadows could face criminal exposure for his role in Trump’s Georgia phone call

In the wake of last Wednesday’s attack on the Capitol, President Trump is reported to have compiled a lengthy list of  potential subjects of presidential pardons, including top aides, outside advisers, family members, rappers and other celebrities, and himself. Among those on the list is current White House Chief of Staff and former North Carolina congressman Mark Meadows, who has so far not been accused of a crime, but could be in jeopardy for his role in the now-infamous phone call during which Trump pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find” votes for him, an apparent solicitation of fraud.

In addition to potential criminal exposure, Meadows identified himself in his White House capacity during an overtly political conversation and would appear to have violated the Hatch Act, a federal statute that the Trump administration has rendered virtually meaningless. And Trump’s pardon power would not affect any possible civil action on campaign finance violations that might result from a complaint that a watchdog group filed against Meadows with the Federal Election Commission this fall, based on Salon’s reporting — though that could veer into criminal territory, as it did for former Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., whom the outgoing president recently pardoned for his conviction of the same violations alleged against Meadows.

On the Jan. 2 call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a tape of which was leaked the next day to the Washington Post, Meadows played a dual role as emcee and translator for Trump’s possibly criminal demands. At the top of the conversation, he identifies himself as “the chief of staff,” then lists the participants, including the mysterious role of lawyer Cleta Mitchell, who Meadows said “is not the attorney of record but has been involved.” Later, Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” enough votes for him to win the state.

“All I want to do is this,” Trump says. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”

The president also warned Raffensperger that both the secretary of state and his general counsel, Ryan Germany — who was also on the call — were taking a “big risk” by not complying with Trump’s demands, suggesting they might be opening themselves up to criminal liability. “It is more illegal for you than it is for them,” Trump said, apparently referring to unnamed others he believed had committed election fraud, “because you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer.”

The tape’s publication prompted two House Democrats to ask FBI Director Christopher Wray to open a criminal probe, saying that they “believe the president engaged in solicitation of, or conspiracy to commit, a number of election crimes.” Former attorney general Eric Holder tweeted that it is a federal crime for a person “who in any election for federal office knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a state of a fair and impartially conducted election process.”

Election lawyer Matthew Sanderson told NBC News, however, that it would be difficult to meet the bar of criminal intent “against an individual who seems pathologically unable to recognize his own loss.” That may be true, other experts say, but in legal terms would not matter: Trump had been repeatedly informed of the reality of the situation for nearly two months, including during the phone call in question.

Meadows, who pushed Raffensperger for cooperation up until the final call’s moments, does not have that same exit ramp available. However, he may be able to avail himself of another ignorance plea.

“It is possible that Meadows could be involved in a conspiracy to defraud Georgia electors of their rightful electoral votes,” election law expert Rick Hasen told Salon. “The problem is that we don’t know that Meadows had any idea that Trump was going to engage in potentially criminal activity on the call.”

Mitchell, the veteran attorney on the call, resigned from her senior position at the prominent Washington firm Foley Lardner when the tape became public. She had previously done legal work for Meadows’ congressional campaign, and it seems likely that the chief of staff asked her to join the call and help steer the legal discussion. Such a move — adding an election law expert unaffiliated with Trump’s campaign or fringe groups — could indicate that Meadows did anticipate illegal activity from the president, who one year earlier had been impeached for blatant extortion during a political phone call.

On Jan. 4, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an accountability watchdog organization, filed a criminal complaint against the president that referred Meadows’ role to the Justice Department: “While this complaint focuses on President Trump’s conduct, we believe that your offices should also review the conduct of Mr. Meadows, Ms. Mitchell, and any other individuals who aided the President’s likely illegal activity.” The document also points out that Meadows sought during the call to access voter data that was protected by law.

As for the other possible liabilities facing Meadows, Hatch Act violations are administrative and do not carry criminal charges — but the alleged FEC violations could.

In October, Salon reported that the Meadows campaign reported spending thousands of dollars on what appear to be personal expenses, including for gourmet cupcakes, private clubs, a Washington jeweler and lodging at the president’s hotel. CREW later filed a complaint urging the FEC to administer any and all appropriate fines and to take further action, “including, but not limited to, referring this case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.”

The complaint cites suspicious transactions among nearly $75,000 in campaign expenditures after Meadows announced his retirement from Congress in December 2019, payments that extended well past his resignation from the House when he joined the White House on March 30.

“One of the clearest rules in campaign finance is you can’t spend your campaign’s finances on yourself,” Noah Bookbinder, director of CREW, said in a statement accompanying the complaint.

Meadows’ campaign committee kept on racking up expenses throughout 2020, including more than $6,500 in spending at numerous clubs and high-end restaurants. Other charges included grocery stores and the Lavender Moon cupcake bakery in Washington. FEC records also show that the campaign dropped $2,650 on “printed materials” from Washington custom jeweler Ann Hand on the day Meadows resigned from Congress. 

Brett Kappel, a campaign finance expert at the firm Harmon Curran, previously told Salon he could see “no legitimate explanation for that one.” The purchase, he said, was strongly suggestive of a personal use violation, and could indicate that Meadows had made false statements to the FEC, another crime.

Hand, 87, told Salon in a phone interview that her custom work for private clients can run well above $10,000, and her website showcases a number of individualized pieces, some fashioned for members of Congress and the White House. Photos show that Meadows’ wife, Debbie, wore a necklace to the Republican National Convention event on the White House lawn that matches one of Hand’s designs.

“Mark and Debbie are wonderful clients,” Hand said. She said she could not remember any specific purchases that the former congressman made at the time, adding that even if she could, she would not discuss them.

The White House did not reply to multiple requests for comment.

Trump and Mike Pompeo’s parting outrage: Falsely accusing Cuba of sponsoring terrorism

On Jan. 11, in his final days before leaving office, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added one parting blow to the series of bludgeons his administration has inflicted on Cuba for four years: putting the island on the list of “state sponsors of terror” that includes only Iran, North Korea and Syria. The designation drew swift condemnation from policymakers and humanitarian groups as “politically motivated.” It comes six years after the previous administration had removed Cuba from the same list as part of Barack Obama’s policy of rapprochement. 

In the six years since then, Donald Trump’s State Department could not point to a single act of terror sponsored by Cuba. Instead, Pompeo based his decision on Cuba’s alleged support for the ELN (National Liberation Army – Colombia’s second-largest guerrilla group) and the harboring of a handful of U.S. fugitives wanted for crimes committed in the 1970s, including renowned Black revolutionary Assata Shakur. Lacking more specific accusations, the State Department criticized Cuba for its supposed “malign interference in Venezuela and the rest of the Western Hemisphere.”

These claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. Regarding the ELN, the gist of the story is that the Trump administration is punishing Cuba for its role in attempting to bring peace to the long-simmering conflict in Colombia. ELN negotiators arrived in Cuba in 2018 for peace talks with the Colombian government. As part of the protocols for these meetings, ELN negotiators were allowed entry into Cuba and promised safe passage back into Colombia after their conclusion. Guarantor countries, including Cuba and Norway, assumed responsibility for their safe return. The talks collapsed in January 2019 following an ELN car bombing in Bogotá that killed 22 people. Colombia requested the extradition of the negotiators, but Cuba refused because the Colombian government would not honor the previous government’s commitment to guaranteeing the negotiators’ freedom upon returning home.

Regarding Pompeo’s other arguments, Cuba’s main influence in the Western Hemisphere has been the opposite of “malign”: it has deployed its doctors throughout the region and the world, saving thousands of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. And when it comes to harboring terrorists, it’s worth noting that for decades the United States harbored Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban exile and CIA agent who masterminded of a 1973 bombing that killed 73 people on a Cuban commercial airliner. 

Cuba’s placement on the list of state sponsors of terror is meant to be a thorn in any plan by Joe Biden’s incoming administration for rapprochement. Taking Cuba off the list will require a review process that could take months, delaying any new initiatives to roll back Trump-era policies. It will also cause further pain to Cuba’s economy, already battered by tightened sanctions and the pandemic that has devastated the island’s tourism industry. The new terrorism label will likely scare off many businesses that import to Cuba, banks that finance transactions with Cuba and foreign investors. 

A week before the designation, nine U.S. senators wrote to Pompeo and warned that such a step “will politicize our national security.” It has drawn strong condemnation from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who said it made a “mockery of what had been a credible, objective measure,” and House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., who said the hypocrisy from President Trump, less than a week after he incited a domestic terror attack against the U.S. Capitol, was “stunning but not surprising.” 

Faith group Pastors For Peace was one of many organizations to condemn the designation: “We know that this latest act, in the waning days of the Trump administration, is not only an aggressive act against Cuba, but aggression against the incoming administration who have pledged to return to a policy leading to peace and civilized relations with our island neighbor.”

Policy group ACERE (of which our organization, CODEPINK, is a part) drew a connection between the designation and recent events at home: “Perpetuating the myth that Cuba is a threat to the American people — while minimizing the threat posed by far-right extremists at home — is an embarrassment to our country on the world stage.”

The real motive behind this move is to offer a parting gift to the Cuban exile community and its allies, who have been loyal supporters of the Trump administration and helped oust several Democratic members of Congress (and push Trump to a surprisingly easy win in Florida) in the recent election. This is par for the course for an administration that has repeatedly used sanctions for political gain with no regard for the Cuban people who, over the past four years, have borne the brunt of sanctions affecting everything from energy, tourism, medicines, remittances and flights. Just like millions of U.S. citizens, Cubans are counting the days until the Trump administration becomes history and hoping that the next administration will offer some relief.

Democrats must demand total accountability for GOP’s attempted coup before America can ever move on

Call me old-fashioned, but when the president of the United States encourages armed insurgents to breach the Capitol and threaten the physical safety of Congress, in order to remain in power, I call it an attempted coup.

Last week’s rampage left five dead, including a Capitol Hill police officer who was injured when he tangled with the pro-Trump mob. We’re fortunate the carnage wasn’t greater.

That the attempted coup failed shouldn’t blind us to its significance or the stain it has left on America. Nor to the importance of holding those responsible fully accountable.

Trump’s culpability is beyond dispute. “There’s no question the president formed the mob, the president incited the mob, the president addressed the mob. He lit the flame,” said Rep. Elizabeth Cheney, the third-highest ranking Republican in the House.

He should be impeached, convicted, and removed from office — immediately.  

To let the clock run out on his presidency and allow Trump to seek the presidency again would signal that attempted coups are part of the American system. If Senate Republicans can install a new Supreme Court justice in eight days, Trump can be removed from office within ten.

He should then be arrested and tried for inciting violence and sedition (along with Trump Jr. and Rudy “trial-by-combat” Giuliani).

Those who attacked the Capitol should also be prosecuted. They have no First Amendment right to try to overthrow the U.S. government.

Trump’s accomplices on Capitol Hill, most notably Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, should be forced to resign. Knowing Trump’s allegations of voting fraud were false, Cruz and Hawley nonetheless led an attempt to exclude Biden electors, even after the storming of the Capitol.

The United States Constitution says that “no Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress” who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the Constitution, “or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Both Cruz and Hawley are eyeing runs for the presidency in 2024. They should be barred from running.

Other abettors are now trying to distance themselves, but their conversions come too late.

Senator Lindsey Graham now says Trump must “understand that his actions were the problem, not the solution,” and criticizes the White House for making “accusations that cannot be proven.”

Graham had been one of Trump’s key attack dogs, even bullying state election officials to change voting tallies. If Graham is not forced to resign, he should at least be censured and stripped of his ranking membership on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Michael Pence finally broke with Trump, but only after remaining mute as Trump lied and bullied his way through the last eight weeks, thereby signaling agreement with his preposterous claims.

McConnell should also resign or be censured and stripped of committee assignments. Pence should be barred from any future public office.

Some administration officials have already resigned in response to the attempted coup. Transportation secretary Elaine Chao said it was “entirely avoidable,” and education secretary Betsy DeVos told Trump there was “no mistake the impact your rhetoric had.” Other Trumpers are reportedly jumping ship, too.

Yet before Wednesday most of them defended Trump’s antics, lavished him with praise, and willingly did his dirty work. Their complicity should forever haunt their reputations and consciences.

Other accessories are Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet, YouTube’s parent company.

For four years, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have functioned as Trump’s megaphones, amplifying his every lie and rant. When pressured to remove Trump’s fabrications about the election, they labeled them “disputed.”  

Twitter has now permanently suspended Trump, preventing him from sending messages to his more than 88 million followers “due to the risk of further incitement for violence.” Facebook has banned him indefinitely. YouTube should be next.

But why did it take an attempted coup for them to act?

Many business leaders who are now denouncing the violence enthusiastically bankrolled Trump’s re-election campaign, knowing full well who he was and what he was capable of doing. And they’ve had no qualms about advertising on his largest megaphones, including Fox News. All are complicit because they knew Trump would stop at nothing.

Fox News’ mendacious hosts and producers have no excuse. After repeatedly telling Trump supporters the election was stolen, they’re now saying the attempted coup was “understandable” because Trump supporters believed the election was stolen. Morally, if not legally, they share responsibility for this travesty.

All are all part of the ecosystem that led to Trump’s sedition. That ecosystem is still in place.

Those who say we should “look forward” to a new administration and forget or dismiss what occurred last week are delusional. Unless all who participated in or abetted the attempted overthrow of the United States government are held accountable, it will happen again. Next time it may succeed.

They came for blood: Trump’s terror mob were there to kill Pence, Pelosi, someone

The mob Donald Trump sent to sack the Capitol on Jan. 6 intended to assassinate Vice President Mike Pence, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others, admissions by some of those captured as well as photographs, videos, texts and tweets show.

The attackers came with a gallows and noose, ready to seize Pence, Pelosi and other lawmakers, police and journalists, among others. “Murder the Media” was scratched on a door. Nonetheless, Trump’s handpicked latecomers now running the Pentagon pooh-poohed the insurrection, calling it mere “First Amendment Protests” in an official timeline of law enforcement and military inaction that day.

Once the mob overwhelmed police and broke into the Capitol, pro-Trump lawyer L. Lin Wood exercised his First Amendment right to protest with an inflammatory tweet on the insurrectionist Parler website calling for the murder of the vice president:

“Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST.”

Had Trump’s mob proved competent to capture and murder our lawmakers, it would have given Trump cover to suspend habeas corpus. That would have allowed him to lock up his perceived enemies while ignoring their right of access to the courts, lawyers or anyone else.

Our Constitution at Article I Section 9 provides that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

While President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus because America was under attack by the Confederacy, Trump perverts that necessity by having his own goons attack, creating a pretext to jail his enemies and seize dictatorial power.

Trump’s Coup Effort Goes On

While Trump’s coup has not succeeded so far, his effort to overthrow our government clearly is not over. Law enforcement agencies are asking for public help to prevent armed insurrections, especially on Jan. 15, 17 and 20, the latter Inauguration Day in Washington.

UPDATE: After this article was posted ABC News revealed that an FBI bulletin alerted law enforcement to armed actions planned “at all 50 state capitols” between Jan. 16 and Jan. 20.

Zealots infected with Trump’s delusional belief that he won the November election in a landslide and the presidency is being stolen harbor crazy ideas. Some describe Joe Biden and other top Democrats as baby-raping cannibals. Others call Republicans traitors, as with the angry mob that surrounded Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at Washington’s Reagan National Airport.

Others assert that Democrats, whom they call socialists and communists, plan to destroy the Bill of Rights and deliberately force millions of people into joblessness. Crazed posts like this are all over extreme rightwing websites:

“Trump is done. America is on life-support. Stop living in fantasy land. The world shall fall to communism unless each of us stands up RIGHT FUCKING NOW!”

Civil War

Insurrectionists also are planning their next attack on our government. They’re not doing it in secret, but telling journalists and writing on Internet webpages and forums right out in the open that they want a second Civil War.

As Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Julia Terruso tweeted, quoting a man on his way to the Jan. 6 rally: “We wait for Civil War. It will be next. You have to prepare for the worst, and the worst will come because the left is pushing it.”

In remarks riling up the insurgents on Wednesday, Trump, Don Jr., Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., Rudolph Giuliani and Ginny Thomas, who is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, all violated the federal law against seditious conspiracy. It provides:

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

As soon as Biden is sworn in Trump loses his immunity from prosecution for this and other crimes which I described in an earlier article.

People can be heard on videos shouting “bring us Pelosi” and calling her vile names. Rioter Cleveland Grover Meredith Jr. arrived in Washington with what he called “a shit ton of 5.56 armor-piercing ammo” and other weapons, an FBI affidavit shows.

A Bullet for Pelosi

Meredith texted that “putting a bullet” in Pelosi’s head was one part of his criminal plans. In classic Trumpian style, Meredith also texted an uncle that he was just kidding.

public repository of links to siege videos has been started at Google docs. While it has only one video at this writing, it is more than an hour-long and filled with scenes of attacks on and threats against police.

Sadly, the siege is being excused, justified or outright dismissed as an insurrection by a majority of House Republicans and a significant number of minority of Senate Republicans. Brooks, wearing camo at the Wednesday “Save America Rally” urged the mob to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s November election victory. For that Brooks should be expelled by the House.

“Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” Brooks told the crowd before it marched off, incongruously, toward the Capitol to a Village People anthem.

There are indications that people with deep knowledge of the many unmarked rooms and hideaways in the Capitol helped the invaders. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., said, “I have an unmarked office that you have got to know exactly where it is,” and yet invaders did and broke in.

“They didn’t go to where my name was. They went where I usually hang out,” Clyburn said. “That to me indicates that something untoward may have been going on.”

Given surveys showing Trump enjoys wide and deep support among police, it would be criminal, but not surprising, if the coup conspirators included Capitol Police officers.

Police officers, firefighters, state lawmakers and combat veterans were among the Trump mob that laid siege to the Capitol.

Trump admin argues the inconvenience of rescheduling executions outweighs the “harm” to prisoners

The Trump administration is charging ahead with plans for three back-to-back executions this week, even though two of the condemned prisoners are sick with COVID-19 and multiple courts have objected to the government’s aggressive maneuvers.

Despite outstanding legal obstacles in all three cases, the executions remain on the calendar. The three prisoners’ fate will ultimately be decided by President Donald Trump and the Supreme Court. Neither has intervened to stop the 10 executions carried out since July.

In their determination to kill Nos. 11, 12 and 13 — capping an unprecedented string of federal executions after a 17-year hiatus — Justice Department officials scheduled executions in defiance of court orders, flouted pandemic safety measures and lied about it, and demanded that judges yield to the administration’s self-imposed deadline of Jan. 20.

Their filings don’t explicitly acknowledge what everybody knows: They’re running out of time to execute people before the inauguration of Joe Biden, who opposes the death penalty.

Instead, their legal rationale for why they cannot wait appears to rest in part on the availability of the private contractors whom the government hired to carry out the executions. Justice Department lawyers argued in court in the past several weeks that the inconvenience of rescheduling these private contractors would “irreparably harm” the government more than the prisoners would be irreparably harmed by dying.

The government has not said who the contractors are or why it hired them. But according to court papers, the contractors have already taken time out of their busy schedules to work this week’s executions. The contractors “have made themselves available and presumably have made any necessary arrangements for personal and work-related matters based on the executions scheduled in January,” Bureau of Prisons lawyer Rick Winter said in a declaration. The contractors would need at least a month’s notice to reschedule, Winter said in another court filing.

Based on the contractors’ limited availability, the Justice Department says execution dates “cannot be rescheduled with relative ease.” As government lawyers have put it in various court filings, rebooking the contractors would amount to “significant practical burdens,” “severe operational burdens,” “complex logistical considerations” and “significant, unwarranted logistical challenges.”

This, according to the Justice Department, would “inflict irreparable harm on the government.” The prisoners, on the other hand, do not face irreparable harm if they lose their last-ditch legal bids to stop or delay their executions, according to the Trump administration. “They cannot show that they will be irreparably harmed,” government lawyers wrote in an emergency court filing on New Year’s Eve.

The White House, the Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The contractors’ scheduling constraints help explain why the Justice Department clustered its executions together, two or three at a time, despite concerns from BOP officials. Noting that conducting multiple executions a day was found to be a factor in a 2014 Oklahoma execution that went awry, BOP leaders were worried about the strain on their staff. But according to a deposition, the agency went ahead and scheduled multiple executions in a week because that’s what then-Attorney General William P. Barr wanted.

Tuesday: Lisa Montgomery

Tuesday’s execution of Lisa Montgomery was scheduled despite a court-ordered halt that was in effect at the time. The court order was meant to give Montgomery more time to work on her case because her lawyers caught COVID-19 while visiting her in prison.

The Trump administration fought back, arguing that she had just as much time as all the other “federal death-row inmates who have been scheduled for execution during this year — all of them during the pandemic.”

A federal judge in Washington said the execution date violated the Justice Department’s own regulations, but the appeals court disagreed. The court-ordered halt expired on Dec. 31.

Montgomery is the only woman on federal death row and would be the first woman to be executed by the federal government since 1953. Convicted in 2007 of a gruesome murder-kidnapping, Montgomery suffers from severe mental illness and trauma, according to her lawyers. International human rights experts with the United Nations and Organization of American States have said her life should be spared, though their recommendations are not binding on U.S. courts.

The Justice Department has accused Montgomery’s legal team of stall tactics. “Montgomery seeks delay for its own sake based on alleged procedural violations that she could have raised many months — if not years — ago,” the government lawyers, led by Missouri U.S. attorney Timothy A. Garrison and acting D.C. U.S. attorney Michael R. Sherwin, said in a Wednesday court filing. They even suggested that Montgomery should have raised her complaints before her execution was first announced in October.

That notion stunned Montgomery’s lawyers. The government’s “suggestion that Mrs. Montgomery should have challenged an execution date before it was set would be laughable if the stakes were not so serious,” her lawyers said in response on Thursday. “The fact that this litigation is occurring at all — and now so close to the scheduled execution date — is because [the administration] unlawfully abbreviated the time between notice and a scheduled execution in an unprecedented rush to the execution chamber.”

Thursday: Corey Johnson

The government is planning to proceed with executing Corey Johnson and Dustin Higgs this week even though the condemned men both tested positive for COVID-19.

The federal death row facility in Terre Haute, Indiana, has had an outbreak of more than 400 cases after the Nov. 19 execution of Orlando Hall. Each execution brings 50 to 125 people to the facility, including BOP staff, the private contractors, victims’ family members, journalists and other witnesses. The warden, T.J. Watson, said in a sworn declaration that the facility followed “rigorous safeguards and precautions,” including rapid tests and contact tracing using surveillance footage.

But that assurance, a federal judge would later conclude, “has proven to be wholly false.” When six members of Hall’s execution team tested positive for the coronavirus, BOP conducted contact tracing for only one of them at most. In response, the government explained that it couldn’t do contact tracing without compromising the execution team’s “unique mission.”

“The identities of execution team members are kept confidential to the greatest extent possible, from inmates, the public, and even from other BOP staff members,” government lawyers said in a Jan. 4 filing. “Contact tracing would reveal their identities, or information leading to the disclosure of their identities, so as to threaten their safety and subject them to threats and harassment from inmates, members of the public and others.”

In December, Higgs started coughing and having chills, then labored breathing. Johnson developed a cough, headache, runny nose, fatigue and body aches. Both inmates tested positive on Dec. 16. Their conditions continued to worsen, and lawyers cited medical experts who said both men have suffered lung damage.

They argue the lung damage will cause Johnson and Higgs to suffer more painful executions because of how the government’s lethal injection drug works. The lawyers presented evidence that the drug, a sedative called pentobarbital, would flood the prisoners’ lungs with froth and foam, causing pain and terror akin to death by drowning. The suffering would be even more prolonged, they said, for people with lungs damaged by COVID-19.

The Justice Department hired its own medical experts who argued that Johnson and Higgs wouldn’t suffer from the lethal injection because they wouldn’t be awake. But even if the drug did simulate death by drowning, the government lawyers argued the pain would be “comparable” to death by hanging. Hanging has not been deemed unconstitutional in repeated Supreme Court reviews, as recently as 2019.

Other prisoners at Terre Haute filed their own lawsuit, arguing that the government’s execution plans, without adequate COVID-19 prevention measures, exposed them to an unconstitutional health risk. A federal judge in Indiana, after finding that BOP had “deliberately chosen not to implement CDC guidance,” sided with the prisoners.

In this case, the judge said the cost to the government of taking these measures could not outweigh the danger to the prisoners’ health: “These additional precautions would not be costless, but any costs to the [government] do not outweigh the risk to the [prisoners] of contracting COVID-19 if executions go forward as scheduled without additional precautions.” On Thursday she ordered the executions to stop unless BOP enforced mask wearing, logged all exposures, tested all impacted staff daily for two weeks and conducted contact tracing for anyone who tested positive.

The prisoners asked the judge to insist that BOP explain in advance what steps it will take to comply with the order before proceeding with the executions. “It is important to review [BOP’s] actions in advance of any further executions, given [BOP’s] prior inconsistent implementation of COVID-19 safety precautions and inaccurate disclosures regarding those precautions,” the prisoners’ lawyers said in a Sunday filing.

But the Justice Department said it will move ahead with the executions and argued it shouldn’t have to spell out its measures for the prisoners. “Now that they have a narrower injunction imposing certain COVID precautions, they should not be permitted to convert it into a court-appointed COVID monitorship,” lawyers led by acting Indiana U.S. attorney John C. Childress said in a Monday court filing.

“Nobody needs to carry out any executions during a pandemic,” said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that tracks executions. “If an execution were lawful, it could be carried out later when it was safe to do so. What we’ve seen here is purely political.”

Separately, Johnson is appealing to stop his execution on the basis that he is intellectually disabled. Johnson was convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death nine years before the Supreme Court held that executing people with intellectual disabilities is unconstitutional. According to Johnson’s lawyers, he could not name the months of the year at age 13, scored an IQ of 69 when he was 16 and has been unable to earn a GED.

In a January 2020 deposition, Associate Deputy Attorney General Brad Weinsheimer said the Justice Department did not consider prisoners’ mental health when choosing whom to execute.

Friday: Dustin Higgs

As for Higgs, he was convicted in 2000 in Maryland, which later abolished the death penalty. Since the Federal Death Penalty Act requires the government to follow the law of the state where the prisoner was sentenced, the Justice Department asked the court to reassign Higgs’ case to Indiana.

Without waiting for a ruling, the Justice Department scheduled Higgs’ execution for Friday. (The announcement incorrectly said that Higgs “murdered three women,” when in fact he did not pull the trigger; his co-defendant, who did, was sentenced to life without parole.)

On Dec. 29, the federal court in Maryland denied the Justice Department’s request to move Higgs’ case to Indiana. The government immediately appealed. The court scheduled a hearing for Jan. 27 — 12 days after Higgs’ execution date (and seven after Biden’s inauguration).

Rather than reschedule the execution to accommodate the court’s timeline, the Justice Department said the court should change its schedule in order to keep the execution date. “In order to meet that deadline,” Maryland U.S. attorney Robert K. Hur said, “the Court should either dispense with oral argument or schedule oral argument on Monday, Jan. 11.” Hur argued that the Supreme Court frowns on “last-minute stays” — but this was not a case of a prisoner’s eleventh-hour claim. It was the government seeking a last-minute emergency order.

Higgs’ lawyers were galled by the government’s “extraordinary demand.”

“The requested rush to decide by an arbitrary date is a situation that the government itself created,” they said in a Friday filing. “When the government set Mr. Higgs’s execution date, it knew that it had no legal authority to execute him. It acted in the hope that the legal authority would appear before the date that it had selected. That its hope has not yet been fulfilled is no reason for this court to dance to the tune played by the government.”

The Justice Department argues that the court lacked the power to refuse its request to reassign Higgs’ case to a state that still has the death penalty. While the government acknowledged that it can’t execute Higgs without a ruling in its favor, the U.S. attorney’s office indicated it will appeal to the Supreme Court if the lower court doesn’t agree by Tuesday.

“[Higgs] is just making a ‘gotcha’ argument, but the loophole he tries to create does not exist,” Hur’s team said in a Saturday filing. The U.S. attorney’s office said allowing the court’s decision to stand would amount to “nullification of the executive branch’s sovereign authority.”

Do you have access to information about federal executions that should be public? Email Isaac at isaac@propublica.org. Here’s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely.

For more coverage, read ProPublica’s previous reporting on the Trump administration.

How the COVID-19 vaccine is distributed determines how the pandemic will end

The news is now full of pictures of the first vaccinations for COVID-19. In the UK, 90-year-old Margaret Keenan was the first to get her “jab,” and in the US, the first vaccines have been given to health care workers including New York nurse Sandra Lindsay

In both the UK and the US, the COVID response over the past nine months has been haphazard, with many failed policies, soaring case numbers and deaths, controversy, and widespread social and economic disruption. The vaccine rollout represents a much needed promise of hope for the future, but it is important to remember that a lot more still needs to happen before the pandemic can be controlled. Not even the vaccine stories for Margaret Keenan and Sandra Lindsay are complete, since for full protection they will both need to take the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine after about three weeks.

On the surface, it may look like an organized global rollout process is getting underway, but there are still many uncertainties surrounding vaccine distribution internationally and within each country. How quickly vaccines can become widely available and who receives early priority are determined by national purchasing power, available supply, logistics, national priorities, and variations in health regulations and laws. 

Countries with national health systems such as the UK and Canada have the opportunity to use existing care provision frameworks and facilities to help organize efficient population-wide vaccine initiatives. The US, on the other hand, does not have the same type of health system infrastructure, which means vaccine distribution may vary wildly from state to state. National priorities also dictate the order in which people will be able to receive the vaccine, and national policymakers must decide whether to focus on direct protection for vulnerable individuals or to prioritize those who are most likely to spread the disease to others. 

The CDC has put out recommendations about which groups should get early vaccine priority. These recommendations were based on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Interim Recommendation for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine. The CDC cites its main goals to be: “Decrease death and serious disease as much as possible,” “Preserve functioning of society,” and “Reduce the extra burden COVID-19 is having on people already facing disparities.” Based on this, the two main groups recommended for early vaccination are Healthcare Personnel and residents of nursing homes (“Long Term Care Facilities“). After that, an approximate sense of where others may be in the queue can be calculated here. Nevertheless, recent history has shown that public health recommendations are not always followed in the US, and individual states may choose to allocate differently from ACIP recommendations. 

Finally, as is typical for new pharmaceutical products, safety monitoring must continue after its rollout. This is even more important for COVID vaccines, because they were developed rapidly under atypical circumstances, and problems of public trust remainACIP and the CDC also recommend that any adverse events should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), even if it is not clear that a vaccine caused the event. Vaccine data is difficult to track in the US due to its uneven health practices and regulations, so a new nationwide system is starting up to aid in that effort. 

In the UK, a more comprehensive plan for allocation has been released, with the explicit intent to inform future policy. These recommendations also prioritize older adults and healthcare providers, but they go on to elaborate on many subsequent priority categories based on age and risk due to underlying health conditions. The UK, due to its existing national health infrastructure and decision to purchase sufficient vaccine doses for its population, is starting its rollout efficiently so far. 

In the US, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci, predicts that a return to something close to normal can be achieved by the end of 2021, as long as the vaccination rollout goes well and 75-80% of the population are vaccinated by that time. There are a number of issues that may complicate this optimistic timeline including past health communication missteps, public mistrust, and vaccine hesitancystates receiving fewer doses than promised, problems with Pfizer vaccine cold storage requirements in rural areas, and confusion over packaging leading to wasted doses. If these limitations cannot be overcome, the process will take longer than hoped. 

There are also tensions between implementing some numerically sound strategies for stopping the spread of disease and the need to increase public trust. For example, some health economists and policy experts argue that people most likely to become “superspreaders” be prioritized over the more vulnerable, but this would mean that young people who are more likely to have asymptomatic or mild cases would be vaccinated before the elderly, those with preexisting health risks, and other vulnerable and underserved populations. It is important to remember that health policy must account for human behavior in addition to the predictions of epidemiological models; for communities at high risk whose members have disproportionately become infected and died, watching healthy college students at spring break parties after getting their vaccines first would likely further diminish trust in the public health system and its recommendations.

One main lesson that should be permanently learned from COVID is that infectious diseases that start anywhere across the globe can fast become global pandemics. It is a priority of ethics and justice that humans should have access to vaccines regardless of whether they live in economically powerful countries. Right now, wealthy countries are buying up most of the available doses, meaning that “nine out of 10 people in 70 low-income countries are unlikely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 next year.” Many people in low-income countries might have to wait until 2023 or 2024 for vaccination. In an attempt to counter this trend towards severe inequality, WHO has a plan to ensure equitable allocation, but it faces many implementation challenges. The arrival of vaccines from additional manufacturers is also promising for fairness in distribution because they have fewer technical limitations. The impending release of the Moderna vaccine is notable because it has less stringent cold chain requirements, and the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine is specifically aiming for “global supply, equity, and commitment to low-income and middle-income countries” and should be ready for use in 2021.

Finally, a second important lesson that must be learned is that for public health plans to succeed, it is not sufficient for scientists to work fast. Countries must design and implement sound public health policies, people must follow these policies, and the idea of vaccine as “magic bullet” must be replaced with a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of Covid and its spread. This means that preventative public health practices like social distancing and mask wearing must be continued throughout the vaccine process. Some of these health behaviors might even be here to stay within certain risky contexts, since coronaviruses may continue as seasonal outbreaks like influenzas, and new infections will continue to emerge into the human population.

Liz Cheney becomes highest-ranking Republican to support a second impeachment of Donald Trump

On Tuesday, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), the third-highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, announced she would vote to impeach outgoing President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution,” said Cheney in a statement.

Cheney’s move comes after she reportedly told members of her caucus that the impeachment vote will be a “vote of conscience.” It also follows new reporting that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) approves of House Democrats’ efforts to impeach Trump, because it will make it easier to “purge” him from the party.

 

What we’ve lost: the species declared extinct in 2020

A few months ago a group of scientists warned about the rise of “extinction denial,” an effort much like climate denial to mischaracterize the extinction crisis and suggest that human activity isn’t really having a damaging effect on ecosystems and the whole planet.

That damaging effect is, in reality, impossible to deny.

This past year scientists and conservation organizations declared that a long list of species may have gone extinct, including dozens of frogs, orchids and fish. Most of these species haven’t been seen in decades, despite frequent and regular expeditions to find out if they still exist. The causes of these extinctions range from diseases to invasive species to habitat loss, but most boil down to human behavior.

Of course, proving a negative is always hard, and scientists are often cautious about declaring species truly lost. Do it too soon, they warn, and the last conservation efforts necessary to save a species could evaporate, a problem known as the Romeo and Juliet Effect. Because of that, and because many of these species live in hard-to-survey regions, many of the announcements this past year declared species possibly or probably lost, a sign that hope springs eternal.

And there’s reason for that hope: When we devote energy and resources to saving species, it often works. A study published in 2019 found that conservation efforts have reduced bird extinction rates by 40%. Another recent paper found that conservation actions have prevented dozens of bird and mammal extinctions over just the past few decades. The new paper warns that many of the species remain critically endangered, or could still go extinct, but we can at least stop the bleeding.

And sometimes we can do better than that. This year the IUCN — the organization that tracks the extinction risk of species around the world — announced several conservation victories, including the previously critically endangered Oaxaca treefrog (Sarcohyla celata), which is now considered “near threatened” due to protective actions taken by the people who live near it.

“We can turn things around. We don’t just have to sit there and cry,” says conservation scientist Stuart Pimm, founder of the organization Saving Nature.

But at the same time, we need to recognize what we’ve lost, or potentially lost. We can mourn them and vow to prevent as many others as possible from joining their ranks.

With that in mind, here are the species that scientists and the conservation community declared lost in 2020, culled from media reports, scientific papers, the IUCN Red List and my own reporting.

32 orchid species in Bangladesh — One of the first papers of 2020 to report any extinctions announced the probable loss of 17% of Bangladesh’s 187 known orchid species. Some of these still exist in other countries, but even regional extinctions (or extirpations, as they’re called) tell us that we’ve taken a toll on our ecological habitats. A similar paper published just days later suggested that nine more orchid species from Madagascar may have also gone extinct.

Smooth handfish (Sympterichthys unipennis) — One of the few extinctions of 2020 that received much media attention, and it’s easy to see why. Handfish are an unusual group of species whose front fins look somewhat like human appendages, which they use to walk around the ocean floor. The smooth species, which hasn’t been seen since 1802, lived off the coast of Tasmania and was probably common when it was first collected by naturalists. Bottom fishing, pollution, habitat destruction, bycatch and other threats are all listed as among the probable reasons for its extinction. Even though the local fishery collapsed more than 50 years ago, the remaining handfish species are still critically endangered, so this extinction should serve as an important wake-up call to save them.

65 North American plants — This past year researchers set out to determine how many plants in the continental United States had been lost. They catalogued 65, including five small trees, eight shrubs, 37 perennial herbs and 15 annual herbs. Some of these had been reported before, but for most this is the first time they’ve been declared extinct. The list includes Marshallia grandiflora, a large flowing plant from the American Southeast that was declared its own species this past year. Too bad it was last seen in 1919 (and has been confused with other species for even longer).

22 frog species — The IUCN this year declared nearly two dozen long-unseen Central and South American frog species as “critically endangered (possibly extinct)” — victims of the amphibian-killing chytrid fungus. They include the Aragua robber frog (Pristimantis anotis), which hasn’t been observed in 46 years, and the Piñango stubfoot toad (Atelopus pinangoi), which mostly disappeared in the 1980s. A single juvenile toad observed in 2008 leads scientists to say this species “is either possibly extinct or if there is still an extant population, that it is very small (<50 mature individuals)."

Chiriqui harlequin frog (Atelopus chiriquiensis) and splendid poison frog (Oophaga speciosa) — Last seen in 1996 and 1992, these frogs from Costa Rica and Panama fell victim to the chytrid fungus and were declared extinct in December.

15% of mite species — This requires a lot more research, but a paper published this past August announced “evidence of widespread mite extinctions” following similar disappearances of plants and vertebrates. Mites may not look or sound important, but they play key roles in their native ecosystems. If 15% of the world’s 1.25 million mite species were lost by the year 200, we’re talking tens to hundreds of thousands of extinctions — a number the researchers predict will continue to rise.

Simeulue Hill mynas — An alarming paper called this an “extinction-in-process” of a previously undescribed bird that probably went extinct in the wild in the past two to three years due to overcollection for the songbird trade. A few may still exist in captivity — for now.

17 freshwater fish from Lake Lanao, Mindanao, the Philippines — A combination of predatory invasive species, overharvesting and destructing fishing methods (such as dynamite fishing) wiped these lost species out. The IUCN this year listed 15 of the species as “extinct” following extensive searches and surveys; the remaining two as “critically endangered (possibly extinct).” The predators, by the way, are still doing just fine. Here are the 15 extinct species:

Bonin pipistrelle (Pipistrellus sturdeei) — Scientists only recorded this Japanese bat one time, back in the 19th century. The IUCN listed it as “data deficient” from 2006 to 2020, a period during which its taxonomy was under debate, but a paper published in March settled that issue, and the latest Red List update placed the species in the the extinct category. The Japanese government itself has listed the bat as extinct since 2014.

Pseudoyersinia brevipennis — This praying mantis from France hasn’t been seen since 1860. Its declared extinction comes after some extended (and still unresolved) debate over its validity as a unique species.

Agave lurida — Last seen in Oaxaca, Mexico, in 2001, this succulent was finally declared extinct in the wild this year after numerous expeditions searching for remaining plants. As the IUCN Red List notes, “There are only a few specimens left in ex-situ collections, which is a concern for the extinction of the species in the near future.”

Falso Maguey Grande (Furcraea macdougallii) — Another Oaxacan succulent that’s extinct in the wild but still exists in cultivated form (you can buy these plants online today for as little as $15). Last seen growing naturally in 1973, the plant’s main habitat was degraded in 1953 to make way for agave plantations for mezcal production. Wildfires may have also played a role, but the species’ limited distribution also made it easier to kill it off: “The restricted range of the species also made it very vulnerable to small local disturbances, and hence the last few individuals were easily destroyed,” according to the IUCN.

Eriocaulon inundatum — Last scientifically collected in Senegal in 1943, this pipewort’s only know habitat has since been destroyed by salt mining.

Persoonia laxa — This shrub from New South Wales, Australia, was collected just two times — in 1907 and 1908 — in habitats that have since become “highly urbanized.” The NSW government still lists it as “presumed extinct,” but the IUCN placed it fully in the “extinct” category in 2020.

Nazareno (Monteverdia lineata) — Scientific papers declared this Cuban flowing plant species extinct in 2010 and 2015, although it wasn’t catalogued in the IUCN Red List until this year. It grew in a habitat now severely degraded by agriculture and livestock farming.

Wynberg conebush (Leucadendron grandiflorum) — This South African plant hasn’t been seen in more than 200 years and was long considered the earliest documented extinction from that country, although it only made it to the IUCN Red List recently. Its sole habitat “was the location of the earliest colonial farms,” including vineyards.

Wolseley conebush (Leucadendron spirale) — Another South African plant, this one last seen in 1933 and since extensively sought after, including high rewards for its rediscovery. The IUCN says the cause of its extinction is unknown “but is likely the result of habitat loss to crop cultivation, alien plant invasion and afforestation.” Oh yeah, and it probably didn’t help that in 1809 a scientist wrote that the species possessed “little beauty” and discouraged it from further collection.

Schizothorax saltans — This fish from Kazakhstan was last seen in 1953, around the time the rivers feeding its lake habitats were drained for irrigation. The IUCN did not assess the species before this past year.

Alphonsea hortensis — Declared “extinct in the wild” this year after no observations since 1969, the last specimens of this Sri Lankan tree species now grow at Peradeniya Royal Botanic Garden.

Lord Howe long-eared bat (Nyctophilus howensis) — This island species is known from a single skull discovered in 1972. Conservationists held out hope that it still existed following several possible sightings, but those hopes have now been dashed.

Deppea splendens — This IUCN declared this beautiful plant species “extinct in the wild” this year. All living specimens exist only because botanist Dennis Breedlove, who discovered the species in 1973, collected seeds before the plant’s sole habitat in Mexico was plowed over to make way for farmland. Now known as a “holy grail” for some gardeners, cultivated plants descended from Breedlove’s seeds can be purchased online for as little as $16.95.

Pass stubfoot toad (Atelopus senex) — Another Costa Rican chytrid victim, last seen in 1986.

Craugastor myllomyllon — A Guatemalan frog that never had a common name and hasn’t been seen since 1978 (although it wasn’t declared a species until 2000). Unlike the other frogs on this year’s list, this one disappeared before the chytrid fungus arrived; it was likely wiped out when agriculture destroyed its only habitat.

Spined dwarf mantis (Ameles fasciipennis) — This Italian praying mantis was only scientifically collected once, in or around 1871, and never seen again. The IUCN says the genus’s taxonomy is “rather confusing and further analysis need to be done to confirm the validity of this species.” Here’s what we do know, though: There are none to be found today, despite extensive surveys.

Scleria chevalieri — This Senagalese plant, last seen in 1929, once grew in swamps that have since been drained to irrigate local gardens.

Hawai’i yellowwood (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) — This tree hasn’t been seen since 1927. Its rainforest habitat has been severely degraded by invasive plants and goats, as well as fires. It’s currently listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, but the IUCN declared it extinct this past year.

Roystonea stellate — Scientists only collected this Cuban palm tree a single time, back in 1939. Several searches have failed to uncover evidence of its continued existence, probably due to conversion of its only habitats to coffee plantations.

Jalpa false brook salamander (Pseudoeurycea exspectata) — Small farms, cattle grazing and logging appear to have wiped out this once-common Guatemalan amphibian, last seen in 1976. At least 16 surveys since 1985 did not find any evidence of the species’ continued existence.

Faramea chiapensis — Only collected once in 1953, this Mexican plant lost its cloud-forest habitat to colonialism and deforestation.

Euchorium cubense — Last seen in 1924, this Cuban flowing plant — the only member of its genus — has long been assumed lost. The IUCN characterized it as extinct in 2020 along with Banara wilsonii, another Cuban plant last seen in 1938 before its habitat was cleared for a sugarcane plantation.

Aloe silicicola — Last seen in 1920, this plant from the mountains of Madagascar enters the IUCN Red List as “extinct in the wild” due to a vague reference that it still exists in a botanical garden. Its previous habitat has been the site of frequent fires.

Chitala lopis — A large fish from the island of Java, this species hasn’t been seen since 1851 (although many online sources use this taxonomic name for other “featherback” fish species that still exist). It was probably wiped out by a wide range of habitat-degrading factors, including pollution, unsustainable fishing and near-complete deforestation around nearby rivers.

Eriocaulon jordanii — This grass species formerly occurred in two known sites in coastal Sierra Leone, where its previous habitats were converted to rice fields in the 1950s.

Amomum sumatranum — A relative of cardamom, this plant from Sumatra was only scientifically collected once, back in 1921, and the forest where that sample originated has now been completely developed. The IUCN says one remaining cultivated population exists, so they’ve declared it “extinct in the wild.”

Lost shark (Carcharhinus obsoletus) — This species makes its second annual appearance on this list. Scientists described this species in 2019 after examining decades-old specimens, noting that it hadn’t been observed since the 1930s. This year the IUCN added the species to the Red List and declared it “critically endangered (possibly extinct).”

Cora timucua — This lichen from Florida was just identified from historical collections through DNA barcoding. Unfortunately no new samples have been collected since the turn of the 19th century. The scientists who named the species this past December call it “potentially extinct” but suggest it be listed as critically endangered in case it still hangs on in remote parts of the highly developed state. They caution, however, that it hasn’t turned up in any recent surveys.

Dama gazelle (Nanger dama) in Tunisia — This critically endangered species still hangs on in a few other countries, and in captivity, but the death of the last individual in Tunisia marked one more country in which the gazelle has now been extirpated and serves as a stark reminder to keep the rest from fading away.

Following Biden’s lead, Trump administration rolls out new vaccine distribution guidelines

President Donald Trump’s administration announced on Tuesday that they are accelerating the release of vaccines to the American public, altering guidelines in ways similar to those proposed by President-elect Joe Biden.

The new federal guidelines will urge states to open up the process of receiving vaccines to everyone over the age of 65, according to a report by Axios. The guidelines also recommend that any adult with a pre-existing condition that would put them at greater risk of serious infection be able to receive one of the COVID-19 vaccines manufactured by Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna.

In addition, the government is urging states to give people their second shots now — both vaccines require two shots — instead of holding back doses for the second shot, in order to give the initial inoculation to as many people as possible.

Finally, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar announced on Tuesday that he is assisting the states in setting up mass vaccination sites.

Trump’s administration is not taking the lead on any of these policies. Biden already announced last week that he plans on releasing almost every available dose of the coronavirus vaccine once he takes office, a position that put him in opposition to Trump’s previous policy of holding on to half of the vaccines to make sure that second doses are available. Eight Democratic governors also wrote a letter to the Trump administration urging them to release all of the vaccines as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage throughout the states.

Up to this point the federal government has merely asked states to follow guidelines established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) via a panel that provides them with advice known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). ACIP recommended that health care workers and residents of retirement homes should have initial access to the vaccines because they are most vulnerable to being exposed to the disease and there are limited supplies of the vaccines. The panel voted nearly unanimously on these recommendations, with 13 scientists supporting it and only one opposing it.

As of Jan. 4, only slightly more than 4.5 million Americans have received either the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine or Moderna vaccine and only 15.4 million doses were distributed across the country. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine alone was supposed to have 25 million doses ready for across the country by the end of December. There are stories of vaccines being wasted for reasons ranging from the need for very cold storage conditions and properly trained technical support staff to figuring out the best facilities at which to distribute the vaccine.

“A desperate President in his final days promises a new vaccine policy,” Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, told Salon by email. “This admits that the old policy was a failure (20 million vaccinations promised by 2020’s end but only 2 million actually occurred). Trump wants us to forget that the system (not just him) failed to be prepared for the virus and failed to contain it (unlike many countries with far fewer resources than the US). What appears underway now is failure too with the vaccination program.”

Dr. Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus and professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, echoed Wolff’s frustration in an email to Salon.

“I no longer have any idea what and why new ‘plans’ are being directed!” Sommer wrote to Salon.

He noted that “local distribution (actually getting vaccine into people) is a huge mess, and clearly a major obstacle. . . All levels of government have had 10 months to plan and to run practice organizing and immunizing and few have done so.”

Sommer pointed out that the government has not only failed on a number of levels to vaccinate millions of people, they have also fallen short when deciding who would do the vaccinating and where. “That has meant huge stocks at the Federal level can’t be distributed because the government doesn’t where they are ultimately be sent — the need for ultra-cold storage facilities has meant only a limited number of sites could accept large amounts of vaccine, but their access to and ability to reach those who need vaccination are not well-matched.”

Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, described Trump’s new policy as “sound.” Gandhi noted how the initial vaccine rollout “justifiably advocated for a tiered approach to COVID-19 vaccination, prioritizing high risk groups and essential workers first.” She added, “although we agree prioritization initially made sense, a rigid approach to offering vaccination in a tiered approach has led to slow rollout of vaccinations.”

The new plan drops the age definition of an “older” individual, putting it at 65 years old, Dr. Gandhi said, meaning the vaccine can roll out “more quickly to vulnerable groups.”

Dr. Russell Medford, Chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, said Trump’s new policy could save lives “if all the elements of the new policy described by Secretary Azar are effectively implemented.”

“These policies are similar to those proposed by President-elect Biden so I am hopeful that the implementation of these changes will be rapid, effective and based on a coordinated, national plan under Federal leadership, such as the Centers for Disease Control, in the new administration,” Medford added.

Capitol riot moms stand behind — or alongside — their sons

Our culture has terms for all kinds of mom archetypes: working moms, stay-at-home moms, soccer moms, wine moms and “cool” moms. But have you ever met a helicopter riot mom?

By now, you’ve seen the images and videos of a mob of mostly white men violently storming and attacking the Capitol last Wednesday. They broke into the building through windows or forced their way through metal barricades. They bore Trump regalia and urinated on the floors. Some were armed with guns and tasers; one man, whom the internet has dubbed “zip-tie guy,” dressed head-to-toe in paramilitary gear wielding plastic hand restraints. Counter-terrorist experts say this resembled the Michigan plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, suggesting there was likely a desire to “conduct vigilante justice against members of Congress.” Five people are now dead because of Trump’s insurrection, including a police officer and a member of Trump’s mob.

Yet if you look closely at the images from last Wednesday, you’ll notice that behind some of the more-photographed men, there are women lurking in the shadows. Some of them were mothers, who were supporting their insurrectionist sons on the ground.

“Zip-tie guy” was one of these men who brought his mom. Indeed, in the photo of him above, it is believed that his mom is the woman in the background. According to The Tennessean, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently arrested 30-year-old Eric Munchel, the so-called zip-tie guy. He currently faces charges for knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, without lawful authority, and for violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. And according to the affidavit, federal authorities believe the woman he was photographed with in a hotel lobby and at the riot was his mom, Lisa Eisenhart. A Nashville Public Radio report says that his mom even booked the plane tickets for their flight to D.C.

According to The Sunday Times, a British newspaper, Lisa was interviewed expressing her far-right radical views, confirming she was with Eric, her son.

“This country was founded on revolution,” Lisa told the British newspaper. “If they’re going to take every legitimate means from us, and we can’t even express ourselves on the Internet, we won’t even be able to speak freely, what is America for?”

According to the interview, she also said: “I’d rather die as a 57-year-old woman than live under oppression. I’d rather die and would rather fight.”

Eisenhart stressed in the interview that they entered the Capitol as “observers,” and that her son told her not to touch anything.

Then there are the reports of insurrectionist moms swooping in to defend their sons. Jacob Chansley, 33, also known as Jake Angeli or the “QAnon Shaman,” became an iconic symbol of the Capitol riot when he stormed the building donning a Viking-style horned hat, his furry vest open to his tattooed chest; photos of him inside the Capitol plastered the front pages of newspapers worldwide. Angeli was arrested after the riot, and now is being held in an Arizona detention center where he reportedly refuses to eat because he requires organic food. According to ABC 15 in Phoenix, Chansley’s mom, Martha, explained that he gets “very sick if he doesn’t eat organic food.” 

Martha Chansley was reportedly “unapologetic” for her son’s role in the Capitol riot. “It takes a lot of courage to be a patriot, OK, and to stand up for what it is that you believe,” Martha said. “Not everybody wants to be the person up front.” She emphasized her son is trying to get people to “wake up.”

Mom’s support of her son’s behavior is surprising inasmuch as it belies what we usually think of when we think of supportive parents. To most Americans, there’s nothing wholesome about helping your son achieve an undemocratic coup. On a political level, however, the family element to the riot is not at all surprising. Anecdotally, far-right extremism is either breaking apart or uniting American families these days; many have been birthed into it, radical views upheld and passed down from generation to generation. Moms in politics get attention because they defy our wholesome stereotypes around what “mothering” means. 

“There’s the one image of the mother at home, you know, very quiet taking care of her business. And then there’s a woman who gets mad because her child is threatened,” said Katrina Bell McDonald, a retired professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University, in an NPR interview. “And that’s, I think, why people are so interested when they see mothers banding together.”

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, we’ve seen the rise of the “resistance mom” movement over the last four years, mothers fighting for economic justice or civil rights. In Portland, the so-called Wall of Moms — a group of mothers linking arms to protect anti-racism protesters as a response to the federal law enforcement officers who were tear-gassing and beating racial justice protesters — made international news over the summer.

Certainly viewing female activists through the lens of being a mother feeds into the stereotype about what a woman’s worth is. But the women supporting their sons at the Capitol were insurrectionists and accomplices — women who believe they, and their sons, were doing the “right” thing.

New York Magazine writer Rebecca Traister once wrote “women’s anger certainly isn’t always progressive.” “White women, who enjoy proximal power from their association with white men, have often served as the white patriarchy’s most eager foot soldiers,” Traister wrote in her book “Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger.”

We saw the embodiment of this on Wednesday, thanks to the helicopter riot moms.

“MLK/FBI” director: “White men in power are frightened of losing their control of America”

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was called, “the moral leader of our nation.” He was instrumental in mobilizing for civil rights with his participation in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, his nonviolent protest in Selma, Ala., and his speech from his March on Washington.

The compelling new documentary “MLK/FBI” recounts these and other key moments of King’s legacy. However, filmmaker Sam Pollard (“Atlanta’s Missing and Murdered”) puts these events in the context of the FBI’s investigation of King, and director J. Edgar Hoover‘s efforts to expose the civil rights leader’s private life as a way of humiliating and weakening King. 

Pollard cannily uses archival footage to tell this fascinating story, and the film features voiceover commentaries by Clarence Jones, an advisor to and speechwriter for King; Andrew Young, who was executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (King was its first President); author David Garrow; historian Beverly Gage; and former FBI director James Comey, among others.  

The surveillance of King is said to be “the darkest part of the bureau’s history.” Pollard connects the dots as King, deemed “the most dangerous Negro in America,” was scrutinized for his connection with Stanley Levison, a Communist Party member, as well as his extramarital affairs, which were to show he was morally unfit. Hoover, who publicly referred to King as “a notorious liar,” even mailed a tape to the Kings with advice for King to kill himself. 

“MLK/FBI” explains that the FBI surveillance tapes will be released in 2027, and yet, in this era of Black Lives Matter, it is important to show the impact of speaking out — as King did about topics ranging from racial oppression and the Vietnam War

Sam Pollard spoke with Salon about his documentary, Dr. King, and the FBI.

How did you find out about these surveillance tapes and approach the topic, assembling clips and building a narrative of the FBI’s investigation of King? I liked the comment about looking at social movements from the FBI’s perspective, which your film does at times.  

Originally, the producer, Benjamin Hedin, had finished a documentary, “Two Trains Runnin’.” He had read David Garrow’s book about Martin Luther King and how Hoover and the FBI were surveilling him in the late ’50s and early ’60s. He said, “This should be our next film.” I read the book and completely agreed with him. I knew David Garrow, who was a consultant on “Eyes on the Prize.” We met with Garrow in 2017 and spent four hours with him. He gave us the framing of the film — about FBI, Hoover, and why they felt King was one of “the most dangerous Negroes in America.” We dug into it from there.

One of the points raised in your film is, “Should we have this info?” And with the surveillance tapes being released in 2027, there are questions about what we might learn from them. What did you learn about working with declassified files?  

What you learn about declassification is that they are redacted, so you have to surmise what really was there. The other thing that is fascinating from these declassified files — and if these recordings are released in 2027 — is that you hear stuff that is not just considered scandalous about Dr. King’s personal life, but you are going to hear the strategies that King, and Ralph Abernathy, and Clarence Jones, and others, had when they went into cities like Birmingham, Albany, and Chicago, and how they were pushing the envelope and breaking down walls of segregation. 

When we got transcripts, a lot of material that we saw was how the FBI felt that King’s scandalous behavior was the thing they felt could destroy him. Their initial motives were to connect him to the Communist Party and Stanley Levison, who was one of his closest confidants. When that didn’t stick — and they realized he was having these relationships with other women — they thought that could destroy him. He was a minister and a civil rights leader having liaisons with women who weren’t Coretta Scott King. If they passed this info on the press, the press would grab on to it and help destroy King’s reputation. But back in the ’60s, the press didn’t take the bait like the press does today.

How did you want to position King in the film? He always comes across as the smartest man in the room. But in tracing his history, “MLK/FBI” shows things that show him in a conflicted light — his association with Levinson; his remarks about Vietnam, which he was asked to keep silent about after speaking out; and his extramarital affairs, which were meant to discredit him but didn’t. I appreciate that your approach is evenhanded, and the film is not hagiographic. Can you discuss that?

I feel as I evolved as a documentarian over the years, when I dig into subjects like King or Sammy Davis, Jr., or anyone, I want to be able to show all aspects. I want to show they are complicated humans with complicated lives. They were multitasking. When I grew up, I saw King as a civil rights leader who was going from city to city trying to break down the walls of segregation. Who knew how complicated his life was? Who knew he was being monitored 24/7 by the FBI? Who knew that he had all these things on his plate that he had to deal with? — which lots of us have to do. It was important to show that. 

We weren’t trying to create him as a saint, but show him as a human being with flaws. I think it was interesting that he was told by the Kennedys to disassociate from Stanley Levinson, and what did King do? He basically lied. He said absolutely. But does he do it? No. He doesn’t do it. He continues to have this very close relationship with Levison. He did separate himself from other people in the Communist Party, but not Stanley. He was very shrewd in his own way.

When he’s on the talk show and the white lady is asking him if he feels responsible for the riots happening in the city? His response is articulate and right on. He is a very smart, intelligent man. He had to deal with a lot of things. He’s trying to direct his troops in Birmingham and Albany and Chicago, and his extramarital relationships, and he’s being monitored by Hoover and Sullivan, and the FBI. Then he decides — which was pretty bold really — I’m going to stand up against Vietnam and Lyndon Baines Johnson, who supported civil rights. That took a lot of guts because, not only did he not make Johnson happy, there were people in the civil rights movement who felt he had lost his way. Why are you dealing with Vietnam? You should stick with what our agenda is. His agenda was a human agenda. 

What about how you present the FBI? I can’t believe this is, as it’s referred to, “the darkest part of the bureau’s history.”

Remember James Comey is saying this. He’s the ex-FBI director, so for him, that period was the darkest part. You know, and I know, there are other dark parts. We wanted to crack the notion of the mythology of the FBI. I remember growing up in the ’60s being a fervent admirer of the FBI. I had seen all these old movies that we used clips from in “MLK/FBI” — “Big Jim McClain” with John Wayne, “Walk a Crooked Mile,” “I Was a Communist for the F.B.I.,” “The FBI Story,” with Jimmy Stewart, and “The F.B.I” show with Efrem Zimbalist Jr. I bought into the notion these were the good guys. J. Edgar Hoover taking down John Dillinger and all that good stuff.

This was an opportunity to dig into that myth and say, “This is who you thought they were, but this is not who they really were.” They were an organization to undermine Americans. Anybody who was not going to follow the status quo had to be undermined and destroyed if possible. The FBI and COINTELPRO, their agenda was to infiltrate and disrupt anybody or any organization that they felt was a threat to their notion of American democracy. It was not only Dr. King, it went way back to Marcus Garvey, and then in the 1960s it extended to Nation of Islam and Malcolm X, and the Black Panther Party and Angela Davis. Anyone they thought were not toeing the line, they had to monitor and have informants in these organizations — which I think still exists today. 

Hoover is hellbent on stopping King from mobilizing people and is determined to destroy him. He wiretaps and bugs him too, defaming King in print and even sending letters advising King to kill himself are shocking. Is this how a G-man should behave?
[Laughs] If you go back and define what’s a G-man, no. They are supposed to be good upstanding citizens. This is not what I thought when I saw Jimmy Stewart in “The FBI Story” or Jimmy Cagney in “‘G’ Men.” Obviously, they were an intense, underhanded organization, and probably in some ways still are. 

“MLK/FBI” shows how this King was a threat to white men in power with his nonviolent protests and his ability to mobilize a community, especially during a time of social change. What observations do you have about this, and how things have developed in the last 50+ years?

That attitude about white men in power feeling concerned about losing their power still exists today. It’s not King alone; it’s the Black Lives Matter movement, and it’s other movements. There is still that notion that white men in power are frightened of losing their hold on America, their control of America. There have been changes, obviously — I don’t have to sit at the back of the bus anymore if I go down to Mississippi — but as we see daily, Black men are being killed on the street. Breonna Taylor was shot. The notion of white men wanting power, and wanting to stay in power, still exists. The fear of people of color taking over “the notion of America” is still a thing that raises the hackles on many people’s necks. That’s why [Trump] has had such a presence in America the last four years. It was there underneath when Obama became president, and it burst up. It’s amazing that the film, which is a period piece, is still so topical today. The subject matter is still topical today because until America wants to deal with what slavery meant to this country we will keep traveling down this same road.

The film promotes the right to protest, but also states that violence will not succeed in changing a nation. What are your thoughts about fomenting social change, which is what “MLK/FBI” advocates? 

It’s an important thing about democracy in terms of freedom of speech. We all have the right to protest and raise our voices to say, “This is wrong. These things need to be changed.” What happens is that the anger and frustration has built up to such a degree that peaceful protests can turn to violent reactions. Which is, honestly, quite normal. Peaceful protest is part of what makes this country — when it can be — great. The challenge of freedom of speech is that those we don’t want to hear from have the right to talk, too. Peaceful protest is part of the agenda for the civil rights movement of the ’50s and ’60s and up to today. Peaceful protest helps stimulate change, specifically in 1964 and 1965, with the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Had people like Dr. King, and Fred Shuttlesworth, and Dorothy Height, and Fannie Lou Hamer, and Stokely Carmichael had not been out there on the front lines, America would be in a worse place that we think it is today.

“MLK/FBI” in in select theaters and on demand Jan. 15.

Texas city officials say White House never contacted them about Trump’s border wall visit

President Donald Trump on Tuesday has made his first public appearances since a mob of his supporters attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. The president made a trip to Alamo, Texas, to pay tribute to his border wall, a vanity project which today languishes unfinished at great cost to taxpayers.

The outgoing president reportedly agreed to the trip after aides advised him to use the final days of his term to showcase his achievements, a period that Trump has dedicated entirely to a futile quest to undo his election defeat, an effort that has led to a deadly attempted insurrection and most likely an unprecedented second impeachment.

Trump, emerging from White House seclusion to take questions on his way to Marine One, defended his remarks ahead of the Jan. 6 riot as “totally appropriate” and threatened Democratic leaders that the impeachment, formally charged on Monday, was causing “tremendous danger.”

“As far as this is concerned, we want no violence — never violence,” the commander in chief said. “On the impeachment, it’s really a continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics. It’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous. This impeachment is causing tremendous anger, and you’re doing it, and it’s really a terrible thing that they’re doing.”

“For Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to continue on this path, I think it’s causing tremendous danger to our country, and it’s causing tremendous anger,” he added. “I want no violence.”

A Capitol Police officer died after being beaten over the head in the riot, and law enforcement shot one woman dead after she tried to breach the House chamber. Three other people died in what authorities described as medical emergencies, and on Sunday another Capitol Police officer took his own life, allegedly in connection to the violence.

As of the morning of the president’s trip, officials in the small South Texas city of Alamo, just east of McAllen, said they still had not received any information about Trump’s agenda, even though the White House announced the trip last week. City Manager Robert Salinas wrote in a press release that the city still had “no details.”

“Information is being circulated that appears to indicate President Trump will be making his way to the City of Alamo during his visit to the Rio Grande Valley,” Salinas said, adding that the city “has NOT been officially contacted” and has “NO DETAILS regarding his itinerary.”

“As you can see we cannot comment any further,” Salinas added.

The White House said over the weekend that the farewell visit offered Trump the chance to “mark the completion of more than 400 miles of border wall — a promise made, promise kept — and his Administration’s efforts to reform our broken immigration system.”

Those 400 miles include construction where prior presidents had already installed barriers. In some places, border-crossers have entered the country by sawing through the multibillion-dollar structure’s metal bollards, which earlier this year Trump demanded be painted black, an unnecessary measure with an additional cost between $500 million and $3 billion.

The border wall, which Trump repeatedly promised would be funded by Mexico — a lie he told voters as recently as last October — has so far cost taxpayers $11 billion, making it the most expensive such structure in the world. The funding created a political rift that at one point led Trump to shut down the government for a month in 2019, after which he sought to appropriate money from the defense budget, a plan that itself was met with bipartisan backlash. Trump sought earlier this year to divert $3.6 billion to the project from the military construction budget, but in October a federal appeals court ruled against him. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

Last month a federal judge unsealed a court filing in which two whistleblowers accused Pentagon contractors of smuggling armed Mexican guards into the U.S., an operation footed by American taxpayers.

Watchdog: Mitch blocked key aid but pushed tax break for owner of racehorse “Stimulus Check”

A watchdog group called on Congress to refocus its priorities on helping struggling communities after the last round of coronavirus relief included numerous tax breaks for corporations and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “rich, horse racing friends.”

The coronavirus relief and omnibus spending bill passed by Congress in December included dozens of tax-related measures, including an extension of a tax break for racehorse owners that has been a top priority for the racing industry. McConnell represents Kentucky, home to some of the biggest breeders and stables in the business.

The coronavirus relief and omnibus bill included a section regarding the “classification of certain race horses as 3-year property,” (page 4,911) which extended an IRS depreciation tax break for racehorse owners through 2022 after it was set to expire on Dec. 31.

Depreciation allows people to write off their assets’ reduction in value over time. The horse racing tax break allows owners to “depreciate the cost of a racehorse 2 years old or younger over three years, compared to seven years for other types of horses,” Bloomberg explained when the measure was extended in 2019 after a strong push from McConnell and other Republicans.

Some Republicans objected to the measure.

“The COVID relief we’ve all been waiting for: a tax break for racehorse owners,” Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., sarcastically tweeted.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., singled out the provision to criticize the list of “corporate & government giveaways” included in the bill while larger relief checks he and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called for were not.

Accountable.US, a progressive watchdog group, highlighted the tax break to call on Congress to focus on struggling communities rather than wealthy interest groups when it takes up the next round of negotiations after President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

“To see real economic recovery, the new Congress must turn the page on the Trump-McConnell mismanagement of the health crisis that made the rich richer and shortchanged those truly in need,” Kyle Herrig, the president of Accountable.US, said in a statement to Salon. “McConnell has no excuse to obstruct real relief for struggling communities after letting his rich, horse racing friends double down on taxpayer support.”

The measure was a “top legislative priority” for the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, which spent at least $240,000 last year to lobby on, among other things, “general horse racing tax issues,” according to the organization’s lobbying reports. The group backed the extension, arguing that “depreciation is important because it allows racehorse owners to better align the deduction of any yearling purchase with income opportunities when the horse is racing.”

The NTRA has repeatedly praised McConnell for his “continued support” of the industry after Congress extended the tax break in 2018 and singled out the “efforts of Leader McConnell” in extending the provision again last year.

McConnell has also benefited from massive donations from the family of Dick Duchossois, one of the largest shareholders of Churchill Downs, the Louisville racetrack that hosts the Kentucky Derby. His son, Craig Duchossois, has donated at least $4.966 million to McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund since 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records. Members of the Duchossois family have also donated more than $37,000 to McConnell’s campaign since 2005, according to FEC data.

The equine industry has also benefited from other coronavirus relief measures, receiving millions in Paycheck Protection Program loans from the Small Business Administration even though data shows the amount of money spent on horserace betting fell just 1.3% last year despite the coronavirus pandemic.

The beneficiaries included Matties Racing Stable, which received an $80,472 PPP loan in May, according to PPP data. The stable, which is partly owned by professional gambler and horse owner Paul Matties Jr., races a horse named Stimulus Check, which won two prizes for a total of $40,100 last year. Since Stimulus Check was placed into service before this year, the stable can also take advantage of the depreciation tax break.

Matties told Salon that he and his brother sought the loan to keep the stable going after the New York Racing Association canceled races indefinitely and does not think the tax break would help his stable at all.

“It was just timely to choose that name,” he said of the horse. “There was no other motivation. I was actually surprised it hadn’t been taken already.”

The PPP has helped thousands of businesses weather the pandemic and keep their employees on payroll, but has also been widely criticized for favoring larger businesses at the expense of smaller firms and minority-owned companies. More than half of the $522 billion in PPP funding went to just 5% of recipients, including dozens of national chains, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. Some small businesses sued banks that administered the program for favoring big existing clients at the expense of truly small businesses. Minority-owned businesses were particularly impacted by these issues and struggled to find banks that would accept their applications, according to an Associated Press analysis.

The horse racing tax break was one of nearly 80 tax-related provisions in the latest round of relief. The bill also allowed companies to deduct PPP loans from their taxes, extended the “three-martini lunch break” that allows businesses to write off dining expenses, and included additional breaks for auto racing tracks, distillers, and brewers.

Budget watchdogs have long criticized the horse racing tax break for helping the wealthy, but the provision has repeatedly been extended with McConnell’s support.

“It just smacks of a giveaway to the wealthiest of Americans,” Steve Ellis, the vice president of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense, told Bloomberg, adding that the provision doesn’t make “any sense from an economic perspective.”

How to store fresh herbs so they last and last

Ideally, you’d “store” fresh herbs in the garden, never snipping more than you needed. The chives on your scrambled eggs, the cilantro on your tacos, and the basil on your pizza would always be bright, fragrant, and bursting with life. Alas, the real world doesn’t work that way. To avoid wasting nature’s herbaceous gifts, we must use our ingenuity.

There are multiple complex factors influencing produce’s longevity, and most of us don’t have the means, the time, or even the inclination to precisely control for all of them. Conjuring maximum herbal freshness is therefore more art than science. Rather than recommend one approach, let’s discuss the basic elements of freshness, then look at how things can go wrong so that you can respond based on what you observe in your kitchen.

What influences herb freshness?

There are multiple factors that determine how long herbs will stay perky, vibrant, and fresh. These include the date of harvest, cleanliness, the type of herb, and the nature of the storage environment.

Of course, when buying herbs from the grocery store the date of harvest is unknown, and out of our control. However, if you’ve done all you can to keep your parsley lively and it still doesn’t last, it might be time to find a new source. Assuming you trust your supplier, let’s look at the other factors.

Should you wash your herbs?

There’s no debate as to whether you should wash fresh herbs before consumption. But should you wash them before storage? If you think you’ll need to store the herbs for a while, the answer is yes. A bath in cold water will remove some of the bacteria and mold spores that are ubiquitous in a natural environment, and subsequent refrigeration will dramatically slow the growth of any microbes that remain. However, if your refrigerator isn’t clean, or if you just put the washed herbs back into the same bag they came from, you’re simply putting them back into a less-than-ideal environment.

Even if done properly, an initial wash may not be worth the effort. That’s because moisture has a big influence on successful longer-term herb storage. Once you’ve soaked the herbs, you’ll need to return them to an optimal moisture level: dry, but not too dry. If you know you will only need to store your herbs for a couple of days, it might be better to skip the pre-wash.

What types of herbs are you storing?

Herbs are not all created equal. There are two basic categories of herbs: soft herbs and hard herbs. Soft herbs are fine to use on a casual basis, whereas hard herbs should only be used on the weekends, and then only in moderation (just kidding). All jokes aside, soft herbs are the ones with tender green stems and delicate leaves. Herbs like chervil, parsley, tarragon, cilantro, and basil are soft herbs. Hard herbs have hardier leaves and tougher, woody stems. Examples of hard herbs are rosemary, thyme, sage, oregano, and savory.

Because they are less woody and more delicate, soft herbs lose moisture much more easily. Unless you manage this tendency, soft herbs will quickly become tired, limp, and wilted. Hard herbs hold their moisture better, and their ligneous stems and hardy leaves resist wilting. With hard herbs, you still have to manage the moisture level, but it’s not as critical.

Storage environment

The storage environment is the biggest factor under your control, but it may not be as under control as you think. Do you know the exact temperature in different parts of your refrigerator? Do you know the humidity? Do you monitor and account for the levels of oxygen, CO2, and ethylene? We didn’t think so, and neither do we. Worse, because you store many different things in your refrigerator, there’s no way to dial in your conditions. The perfect environment for one food may be suboptimal for another. So rather than talk about perfection, let’s look at what can go wrong and how you might address it.

Herbs turning brown or black?

This problem is due either to excessive oxygen or excessively cold temperatures. Basil, for example, is particularly sensitive to the cold, as well as oxidation. If your basil is turning black, your refrigerator, or the part of the refrigerator where you put the basil, is too cold, usually below 40 degrees F. You can try storing your basil at room temperature in a manner similar to fresh-cut flowers, or try a different spot in your refrigerator.

To reduce browning caused by oxidation, try storing herbs in sealed containers, like plastic tubs, glass jars, zip-top bags, or vacuum sealed containers. You can even experiment with an oxygen absorber made for food storage.

Herbs turning yellow?

Yellowing is a natural part of the aging process in leafy plants. If your herbs turn yellow right away, they simply may not have been very fresh to begin with. It’s also possible that the storage climate is accelerating the aging process. Two things that can do this are higher temperatures and ethylene gas. To keep your herbs green, try moving them to a colder spot, and/or away from ethylene-producing fruits and vegetables. The way your refrigerator is organized plays a significant role in the shelf life of your foods. You can also purchase ethylene gas absorbers.

Wilting herbs

Wilting is drying, which happens when the humidity of the surrounding air is too low, leading to evaporation. To prevent this, keep herbs in a plastic bag or other sealed container. For extra humidity, try wrapping the herbs loosely in lightly dampened paper towels before placing them inside the bag or container.

Some folks like to treat their herbs like cut flowers, keeping them in a jar with the stems submerged in water. If you try this, be sure to trim the stems first; it will improve the capillary action responsible for moving the water through the stem and into the leaves. If the humidity in your refrigerator is very low, you may need a barrier to evaporation as well. Cover the jar with a lid or an upside-down plastic bag.

Slimy herbs

Maintaining a proper moisture level is a balancing act. Not enough moisture leads to wilting, but too much will speed decay. If your herbs get slimy, try taking steps to prevent the build-up of moisture. If washing the herbs, spin them in a salad spinner or lay them out on towels to absorb surface water. Loosen them from tight bunches to allow for more air circulation, and remove twist ties or elastic bands. Package them loosely for storage, perhaps with a dry paper towel to absorb condensation.

There’s no magic bullet! Try as you might, there will be times when herbs spoil sooner than you’d like. It doesn’t mean you’ve failed. Just keep these factors in mind, pay attention, and try different solutions. Odds are you’ll find a method that works for you.

Looking for ways to use fresh herbs?

Recipe: 23 Mediterranean Diet Recipes For A Plate That Pops