Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The key to a successful “Dry January”

People participate in Dry January, the one-month sobriety campaign, for many reasons. For some, it’s a way to reconcile with overindulging in too much alcohol during the holiday season. For others, it forms part of a bigger New Year goal to choose healthier lifestyle habits, or improve one’s mental health. Over the last few years, it’s become more than a stern prohibitionist campaign, but rather a fun health trend that commences the start of each year.

But giving up drinking alcohol, in a culture that’s centered around it, is no easy feat. It takes support from friends and family, discipline, and focus on the benefits, which often extend beyond the sober month, to succeed. One U.K. study showed that the simple act of not drinking for a month made people drink less the following year when they started casually drinking again.

The pandemic has changed people’s drinking habits, as I’ve written about before, for better and worse. Regardless of your habits, you’re likely to find ways to make a sober month a fun challenge with friends, rather than a slog, after reading journalist Hilary Sheinbaum’s new book, “The Dry Challenge.” Here, you’ll find prompts, checklists, mocktail recipes, and more to keep you motivated during a sober month.

I spoke with Sheinbaum about her book and the lessons imparted. As always, this interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. 

What inspired you to write this book?

About four years ago, in December 2016, I went to dinner with a friend in New York City. We caught up about everything — work, family and dating — and because New Years was coming up, we stumbled upon the topic of New Year’s resolutions. My friend brought up this idea of Dry January. He explained the benefits and all of those things, but I changed the subject. It didn’t appeal to me at all at first. At the time, I was a red carpet reporter and so at night, I would go to the red carpet and I would go to afterparties. Then, during the day, I was primarily freelancing within the food and beverage category.

Although I wasn’t drinking at every after party or every night, my nights certainly had an alcohol element to them. My days included research about cocktails, beer and wine. On top of it, I was in my late 20s, in New York City and dating and single. There were just a lot of opportunities to enjoy a glass of wine or a cocktail. A week later, it’s New Year’s Eve. I’m wishing all of my friends via text, Happy New Years, unless they’re with me in the room because I was at a party. I wished my friend, Alejandro, a Happy New Year, and I actually initiated a Dry January bet.

The premise of that was that we both would give up wine, beer and alcohol for 31 days, and whoever won the bet would get to basically be taken to dinner by the person who did not succeed. There were no restaurants that were off limits. Long story short at the end of the month, I won the bet. My friend lost. I ended up winning a fancy dinner at a restaurant called Momofuku Ko in New York City’s East Village.

Ultimately though, I really won so much more than that, because I realized after 31 days that my skin was clear, and my sleep was infinitely better. I had a lot less anxiety. I was just this ball of energy during the most gloomy, cold, rainy month of the year.

That’s amazing.

So I went through this Dry January without a guidebook. I really had no plan either because I made this bet just moments before the ball dropped. But that first Dry January, I learned so much about how to talk to people about what I was doing and answer their sometimes invasive questions. I learned how to schedule events with friends, as silly as it sounds, that didn’t involve alcohol, especially in a city like New York. The book is really a guide of how to do a Dry January. Certainly, it answers a lot of questions that were brought up and things that I experienced firsthand and even more, because I’ve now repeated the same challenge four times and I’ve done a ton of other sober months in between.

I love how part of your book provides a framework to succeed. I’m curious if you could share more about how you developed it and why this framework will help people have a successful Dry January.

Right. There are a lot of different elements of the book. There are definitely tips and there are worksheets, guides to help people see the differences because I think that on a day to day basis, you might not necessarily, for example, lose five pounds, but over the course of an entire month of not consuming alcoholic beverages, that can range from 105 calories each to 450 each, you’re going to see a significant drop if weight lost, for example, is your goal. With that said, there are a number of different tests. For example, you can hide your alcohol, you can give it to a friend to hold onto, or you can literally pour it down the drain if that’s going to help you succeed in a sober month.

Obviously, the last one is a bit more controversial. Depending on your other goals, there are statistics and tidbits that I think are very helpful too. For example, I know a lot of the times, especially being a working professional who’s super ambitious, I often feel like I don’t have enough time to accomplish everything that I want to in a day. One of the statistics that I use is that there’s a UK survey that indicates the average adult spends about two years of their lives hung over. That’s just the aftermath of drinking.

That’s not even the hours that you spend sitting at a bar or sipping a cocktail or transporting to and from where you are, if you’re traveling to a destination, it doesn’t involve getting ready for a big event or even just to throw on some clothes and go meet your friends. That’s literally just the recovery process. When I heard that, for example, I mean, two years of your life, you could get a master’s degree, you could run so many marathons, you know what I mean? It just really puts things in perspective. I think that there’s a lot of different information and depending on, I think whatever your current lifestyle is and what your goals are in life, there’s really an argument for a lot of different people.

I love the worksheets. I thought those were really helpful. It’s really powerful pointing out the economic impact of regularly drinking as well, specifically how you talk about even just drinking two or three nights a week for a decade can cost almost between $40,000 and $50,000.

Yeah, which is so much money.

Was it surprising to you to find these surveys and reframe what you lose when you spend all that time drinking?

On one hand, it’s just so overwhelming to see it all in one place.

Right.

I think that it’s no surprise, it’s everywhere. We know what the risks of alcohol consumption are between health risks to potential accidents, et cetera, but I think when you see all of these things in one place and it connects with you as a being. If you have student debt that you’re trying to pay off and you see a big number like that, you realize that that’s where your money is going as well. I just think that all of these things in one place, it’s really a powerful thing.

Definitely. I’m curious why you think Dry January has become so popular in the US. As we know, it started in the UK.

Yeah. I think that from my perspective, I feel like Americans are really for New Year’s resolutions. I think that we as a country and a culture, get really amped up about upcoming years and making big plans — New Year, new you, starting over. I think that Dry January really embodies a lot of the usual goals that people set for themselves. For example, your Dry January can certainly contribute to losing weight. It can contribute to saving money. It can contribute to living a healthier life and really prioritizing, like I said, the time that you spend doing whatever it is that you want to do, but I also think that… I don’t know. It rolls off the tongue too.

It’s catchy.

Yes, and the same thing with Sober October, which is gaining in popularity. It might. It’s too perfect to be true, but I think that that’s a really big reason. I also think that for a variety of reasons, Millennials and Gen Z are certainly consuming less alcohol than previous generations. It makes it easier to give up alcohol for a month.

It seems there’s a cultural shift happening around drinking, especially like you said, with Millennials and Gen Z and the younger generations. Do you think that this Dry January will be different because of the year we’ve had with the pandemic?

It’s a great question. I think it’s two-fold because on one hand, I’ve talked to a lot of people who have certainly increased their consumption over the past many months during the pandemic. I think a lot of people are now looking for a resolution that maybe they’re not looking to 100-percent give up alcohol for the rest of their lives, but they want to wheel it back to a comfortable place. I think that Dry January is definitely an option to help people do that. I think that in past years, there were definitely more options for activities and things that people could get involved in that weren’t based at home and certainly there were just more things that people can do to occupy their time rather than drink.

Then, also on the other hand, while people are consuming more in general, I think that there is a population of people who actually have drank significantly less since the onset of COVID-19 because there are fewer social opportunities.

I don’t know what the demographic of this Dry January will be or how many participants, but I think that people are definitely aware of their alcohol consumption, especially this time of year going into the New Year. I hope that my book can serve as a resource and a reference for anybody who’s trying it for the first time.

What do you think are the three most important pillars to having a successful Dry January?

Having any kind of support is really helpful. I think it’s most helpful if you have somebody who is doing the challenge along with you. Now only can they offer you support, but they can be somebody who can relate to what you’re going through— the ups, the downs, the goods. They are also there to plan activities with you if you’re sheltering a place with them. Certainly, you can still communicate with them if they aren’t within your COVID safe pod.

On that note for me, I really feel like I benefited from having a Dry January that was going on with a friend because it kept me motivated and it kept them motivated. I had something to look forward to at the end, besides all the physical and mental benefits that I reaped. It was certainly a nice little treat at the end. You want to make it fun, right? You want to make this successful for you. Dry January is not here to torture you or make you feel bad, or that sort of thing. It’s really about now having a lot of time to wake up on a Sunday morning without a hangover and pursue your to-do list that you’ve wanted to do, whether that’s going on a hike or catching up on a novel that you’ve been meaning to read or whatever it is. Dry January is really about repurposing the time that you would have spent drinking and certainly all over. That’s my second one.

My third, I think I would say is maybe exploring other beverage options. If you find yourself with a full calendar of Zoom happy hours, or even real life events, for whatever reason, obviously at a socially distant and safe proximity, I think it’s a wonderful opportunity to really expand your palate and see what else you like. If you’re a beer drinker, I would definitely research non-alcoholic beers. They come in a variety of different styles and flavors and the same goes for non-alcoholic wines and non-alcoholic spirits. Even if you’re not super crafty in your own kitchen, you don’t want to mix your non-alcoholic cocktail. You can opt for ones that are already pre-made.

Certainly now more than ever, there are so many bars and restaurants that have non-alcoholic drinks, mixed drinks, not a tea or a soda, but actual bartender crafted, non-alcoholic cocktails on their menus and is different to non-alcoholic wines and non-alcoholic beers. Younger generations are adapting alcohol-free or alcohol-light lifestyles. I think that businesses are really adapting to those needs and to those customers, and Dry January is a great opportunity to try all of the different things and products out there.

This has happened to me before, while doing Dry January, where it’s the middle of the month and I want to cafe or feel peer pressure at an event like a wedding where it’s hard to be sober. What’s your advice on how to overcome that moment?

I think this is really when your sober-month support squad can be very helpful — chime in and be your cheerleaders. You’ve basically made it halfway. It’s almost over. The other part is that, for me at least, around week two, if not, a little bit sooner is when I already was starting to see some of the really positive changes and that was really motivating to me. Historically, I was a terrible sleeper and living in New York and just having an immense amount of anxiety, I just thought that that was my natural state, like sleeping five hours a night and just waking up in the middle of the night. As it turns out, that is not true. During my first Dry January and ever since, I sleep an average of seven to eight hours a night, which as you know when you get a full night’s rest, you feel so much more energetic and positive and happy and everything just is a lot easier.

Obviously, we’ve had a very difficult and tragic year. If you’re having a really terrible day and you slip up and you have a drink or alternatively, if you’re celebrating something amazing like a once in a lifetime thing, like an engagement or a wedding, and you decide to have a drink, that is totally 100% okay. My suggestion would just be to call it a one-drink January, and the next day just start again, and end your month as you did the previous 14 days or 13 days or whatever date you’re on.

I don’t think that one drink is going to completely derail any progress you’ve made. Certainly having one drink within 31 days is an accomplishment too. I wouldn’t freak out about it. I certainly wouldn’t say that it’s all over, but just keep in mind, you’ve made it really far. I would say in the worst case scenario, you can always start again, say, on February 1st. Anyway, my point is just don’t get down about it. Just pick yourself up and start again. It’s totally fine.

Correction: In a previous version, Salon misquoted Sheinbaum. She said “I wouldn’t freak out about it” instead of “I wouldn’t geek out about it.” 

America’s essential connection to cornbread

I always say, “If you want to truly know a culture . . . eat their bread.” In France, it could be the baguette; in Ethiopia, you’ll have injera; if you travel to parts of India, you’ll enjoy chapati; Italy will provide focaccia; in West Africa, you can sample a lovely flatbread called ngome. Here in America, there is cornbread.

Some would almost immediately think that this bread has no place on a world stage with other “celebrated” breads. Cornbread tells the story of lack and can get caught up in the stigma of shame and class. For whatever reason, some might refuse to let their brains show love to this bread without realizing that cornbread and its variations were here in the Americas with the Indians, prepared by white folks living in the Appalachian Mountains and put together by Black folks before, during and after slavery. Knowing how we think about cornbread shows a path of overlooking or turning a blind eye to how racism exists even in the foods that we perceive to have “importance” on the global scale.

Another angle of looking at it is that cornbread is the product of making something beautiful out of humble ingredients. In ancient times, having corn was like having gold. Native Americans used corn to prepare other dishes, everything from grits to alcoholic beverages. African-Americans would make unleavened pone, corn fritters or even hoecakes. For some, even the mention of cornbread creates spontaneous exclamations and smiles of recognition followed by stories usually involving a family member.

Most American families, regardless of background, have a recipe for cornbread. It’s normally one that’s been passed down from aunts and grandmothers, scribbled on the back of a postcard or an old tattered napkin. To me, those are the love letters of generations past that tell a defined story of who we are and speak to our culture in little ways. For example, if you’re from the north, then your cornbread recipe probably has sugar or honey in it. If you’re from the south there is most likely no sweetener. If you are from the Appalachians, then you might tend to prepare your cornbread in a very old-fashioned manner with no leaveners, using simply ground corn, hot water and lard. The luxury of having butter, buttermilk, sugar, honey, baking powder or baking soda usually indicated that you had money. Decoding a simple family cornbread recipe can tell the underlying story of where you come from.

You can see what I mean when I say, “If you want to know about a group of people or their culture: Eat their bread.” No American food has more historical and cultural connections than corn, from Native Americans to the Pilgrims to us today. No single food native to America has become more essential to the survival of so many different nationalities around the globe.

My aunt Sarah Mae was the baker in the family. Her cakes and pies were to-die-for. In the summertime after dinner, she’d prepare some of the absolute best milkshakes made with ice cream, one egg, one banana, milk and a little vanilla extract. She had four children and was a housewife, so she was always in the kitchen preparing something. Many of the deepest kitchen conversations I’ve held onto come from my experiences with her. She was a walking, talking instructional YouTube video when it came to baking technique, never giving you exact measurements, but instead, giving you the play by play of how an ingredient needed to be dealt with in order to gain the best result.

One Sunday, after hours of baking cornbread, I was assisting her in wrapping up loaves of cornbread for a church function (in aluminum foil, of course), and my job was to wrap each loaf and write the names of the recipients. For one of the loaves, I asked her, “Aunt Sarah Mae, whose cornbread is this?” She replied by saying, “This cornbread is ours, sweetheart.” And that’s how I feel about us as a culture of human beings when it comes to this delicious American staple.

Whether it’s made in a cast-iron skillet or the end of a hoe, mashed into a paste and fried in lard or all gussied up with leaveners and sweeteners, this cornbread is ours.

By Institute of Culinary Education Chef Chris Scott

GOP Gov. Kristi Noem called out by federal judge for having “done little” to stop COVID-19 spread

On Friday, The Daily Beast reported that a federal judge in South Dakota slammed Republican Gov. Kristi Noem in an order directing a state court to stop delaying a defendant’s trial.

The state court had argued the trial needed to be put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But Judge Charles Kornmann pointed out that the state’s pandemic response has been far too incompetent and disengaged for them to use it as an excuse to deprive people of their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial.

“South Dakota has done little, if anything, to curtail the spread of the virus,” wrote Kornmann, adding of Noem specifically, “Her example significantly encourages South Dakotans to not wear masks … South Dakota is now a very dangerous place in which to live due to the spread of COVID-19.”

Noem has proudly boasted that her state will not infringe on residents’ liberty with public health restrictions, even as her state reports over 500 new cases a day and a test positivity rate of 42.3 percent — one of the worst rates in the nation. She has frequently preoccupied herself with other matters, including a trip to Georgia to campaign for Republicans in the Senate runoff.

Yet another audit of Georgia’s election fails to find evidence of fraud

After President-elect Joe Biden won Georgia in the 2020 presidential election, two recounts in that state confirmed Biden as the winner — and now, with an audit of more than 15,000 voter signatures, President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud have once again been debunked in the Peach State.

On Tuesday, December 29, the office of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger released a report on that audit — which, according to Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter Mark Niesse, “contradicted allegations that absentee ballots were rife with fraud.” Niesse notes that “there were 10 absentee ballots that had been accepted, but voter signatures didn’t match or signatures were missing” — and when Raffensperger’s office contacted those voters, they confirmed that they had, in fact, submitted the ballots.

“Eight voters had mismatched signatures, but the voters told investigators the signatures were legitimate,” Niesse explains. “Raffensperger, a Republican, said the audit results confirmed the election outcome again after two recounts — both by hand and machine — of all 5 million ballots cast in Georgia’s presidential election.”

Raffensperger’s office said that “no fraudulent absentee ballots were identified during the audit.”

According to Raffensperger, “The secretary of state’s office has always been focused on calling balls and strikes in elections — and in this case, three strikes against the voter claims, and they’re out. This audit disproves the only credible allegations the Trump campaign had against the strength of Georgia’s signature match process.”

Although Raffensperger and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp are both right-wing Republicans, Trump has been furious with them for acknowledging that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the Peach State and that Biden won Georgia’s electoral votes fairly.

On December 29, Trump tweeted:

Twitter, however, flagged Trump’s tweet as misleading and noted, “Election officials have certified Joe Biden as the winner of the U.S. presidential election.”

Ro Khanna applauds 19 House Democrats who joined him in voting no on “bloated” $740B military budget

Just 20 House Democrats opted to break with their party and their Republican counterparts late Monday to vote against overriding President Donald Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act, a sprawling bill that greenlights over $740 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2021.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one the few House Democrats who voted against overriding the president’s NDAA veto, applauded his colleagues for having “the courage tonight to vote no on the bloated defense budget.”

“They are changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people,” said Khanna.

The veto override ultimately succeeded in the House by a 322-87 margin and now heads to the Senate, where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other members of the Democratic caucus are threatening to hold up the NDAA in an effort to force a vote on $2,000 direct payments.

Here are the 20 Democrats who voted against overriding Trump’s NDAA veto: Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Mark DeSaulnier (Calif.), Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), Jesús García (Ill.), Jimmy Gomez (Calif.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Joe Kennedy (Mass.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Grace Meng (N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).

Nearly 70 House Republicans also voted against the veto override, but more out of allegiance to the president than opposition to out-of-control military spending.

Trump vetoed the NDAA last week not because of the bloated military budget, but rather because he objected to the exclusion of a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and inclusion of a provision ordering the Pentagon to rename military installations named after Confederate generals.

In an interview on Democracy Now! ahead of Monday’s vote, Khanna said that while Trump’s reasons for opposing the NDAA don’t align with progressive objections, “the bottom line is, $740 billion is way too much defense spending.”

“We’re spending money on the modernization of nuclear weapons. And we can’t find money to get food in to people who need it?” Khanna said. “We can’t find money to get more rental assistance for folks who are going to face evictions? We can’t find money to get $2,000 into the pockets of Americans? The priorities are wrong, and so I’m not going to vote to override his veto.”

Like 2020, “Revolution of the Daleks” is dark. The heroic Captain Jack insists “hope is still there”

“Revolution of the Daleks” is one the darker “Doctor Who” festive specials in recent memory, for reasons that become apparent soon after it begins. This grimness is separate from the Thirteenth Doctor’s current conundrum, by the way – when last we saw Thirteen (Jodie Whittaker), she was being locked away in an intergalactic prison with slim to no chance of escape. A terrible circumstance, to be sure.

In the meantime Thirteen’s loyal “fam” Yaz (Mandip Gill), Ryan (Tosin Cole) and Graham (Bradley Walsh) have been waiting for her on Earth with no word of where she’s gone or when she’s coming back. This separation has taken its toll on each of them, some more than others. Soon enough their loneliness takes a back seat to the much larger threat involving the discovery of yet another insidious Dalek plan.

On the flipside, hope for salvation also arrives in the form of Whovian favorite Captain Jack Harkness, the dashing timeline-tripping rogue played by John Barrowman.

“Sometimes Jack comes back because Jack –  if I  may be so blunt, not that I’m an advocate – but Jack is the gunslinger that The Doctor can rely on to do some of the dirty work,” Barrowman told Salon in a recent conversation. “It’s almost like Jack’s like a guilty pleasure, I think, to The Doctor, because although there was a period where she didn’t like him, as one of the previous carnations, she has come to love him in a sense. But she also uses him as a guilty pleasure, and Jack’s quite happy with that. So that’s the other little naughty side to it.”

That affection doesn’t end with The Doctor. Barrowman is beloved among sci-fi fans in general and Whovians in particular, and based upon the expressive excitement the actor exuded during a Zoom interview he conducted from his Palm Springs home the feeling is more than mutual. At that point, which was days before Thanksgiving, I hadn’t yet seen “Revolution of the Daleks,” so when Barrowman observed, “Everything always seems to relate to what’s happening in ‘Doctor Who’ to what’s happening in society,” there was no way to know how true that observation turned out to be.

“Doctor Who” has danced with the Daleks many times over the decades, including in Thirteen’s first festive special, 2019’s “Resolution.” But this apocalyptic battle begins as the product of a sinister marriage of draconian politics, corporate greed and the Faustian bargain hidden within promises of “security.” BBC America has asked previewers to reveal as few specifics about it as possible.

Indeed, the plotline’s accidental relevance to 2020’s ground-shifting events is mind-reeling, especially when one considers that production on this special wrapped in late 2019. That’s before the pandemic, before the worldwide marches for civil rights and justice, before a highly toxic presidential election in America. “Revolution of the Daleks” would seem to be a response to all that if we didn’t know that series creator Chris Chibnall wrote the script more than a year ago.

Gill, who chatted with Salon in a separate interview, said she looked back on the script from the perspective of having lived through 2020 with a bit of shock. If we were only to consider the plot point regarding The Doctor’s imprisonment being viewed by an audience that has been self-quarantining, “they’re going to relate to this episode way more than they would have done prior to this pandemic,” she says. “We’ve spent so long away from families and friend because everyone’s had to. If we spent two months away from our families in everyday life prior to the pandemic, it was because everyone was busy.”

“Now,” she adds, “we’re being told to stay inside, we’re wanting to see people, which is not unlike having things taken away from us. Which is what’s happened to Yaz. Like everyone now, Yaz has had her life taken away from her.”

Barrowman’s been with the franchise since the Chris Eccleston era, and for him the story’s coincidental relevance is nothing new. “A lot of things that have happened within ‘Doctor Who’ and also with ‘Torchwood,’ I have to say, in a way predicts something that’s coming.  When [Russell T. Davies] was showrunner, I’m like, ‘How do you know this?’ Also with Chibnall: ‘How do you guys know this s**t’s going to happen?’  We had no idea any of it was going to happen because obviously this was filmed pre-COVID.”

Even so, “Doctor Who” is considered family entertainment, which may be one of the reasons that the series is not often granted the same of gravitas as other genre TV titles. When I bring that up to Barrowman, citing “Star Trek” and the Ronald Moore revival of “Battlestar Galactica as examples, he points out a key difference between those shows and “Doctor Who.” “They all have political and social stuff that they write into their storylines, but you know what? All of that stuff’s already happened.” He then jokes, “Maybe someone in the show actually can go to the future. I’m being silly, but you know what I mean? I agree with you on that. It doesn’t get the credit that it should.”

One element that’s not up for debate is the show’s deft way of appealing to how its audience is feeling in the here and now, in a year that has left millions around the world feeling psychologically taxed and emotionally exhausted. “Revolution of the Daleks” brings Yaz together with Jack, and in one remarkable scene he helps her deal with her overwhelming anxiety –  something she has in common with many of us. Yaz lives with mental health issues, and The Doctor’s disappearance affects her acutely. “I feel like it’s Jack’s character that gives her hope and reassurance that it’s okay not to be okay,” Gill said.

Ultimately the objective of any “Doctor Who” holiday special is to entertain and in some way leave viewers feeling a bit better. Many of them mark significant change in the Time Lord’s universe; the same is true of this one. Barrowman hopes that this episode reminds people about what believes is extraordinary about “Doctor Who,” that its hero accepts strong-willed and good misfits into their life without question.

“I want you to make sure that this is presented as a positive word, misfits,” he said. “People who are different and people who are unique, The Doctor brings them into the TARDIS with open arms. And that was why the show means so much to me. That’s why there’s a joy behind it, because we’re all part of something that is greater than ourselves.”

Barrowman added, “I hope that by the time this comes, people have learned that we have to make certain sacrifices to move forward, to make things better. Because again, when people see this episode, they’ll see that when they come onto the TARDIS, it’s not about self. It’s about family and unity. It’s about protection and helping others. And I hope that when they see this episode, they’ll see the sacrifices that these characters are making, but yet the love is still there. The strength is still there. The hope is still there.”

“Revolution of the Daleks” airs Friday, January 1, 2021 at 8pm on BBC America.

In its third season, “Cobra Kai’s” one-note villain knocks it off its game

At Cobra Kai, students learn The Way of the Fist, a karate style described in the dojo’s motto of “Strike First, Strike Hard, No Mercy.”

In the latest episodes of “Cobra Kai” viewers learn the way of third season mediocrity and the merciless lesson of nostalgia’s diminishing returns.

As with many TV shows, these latest episodes of “Cobra Kai” are as worthwhile a viewing experience as you deem them be — and yes, that is faint praise. It’s also a painful admission on the part of someone who adored the first season of the show and applauded the raucous, operatic escalations of the second, only to walk away from the third thinking…why? Just that – why.

This is particularly sad given the way “Cobra Kai” initially transforms William Zabka’s Johnny Lawrence into a flawed but somehow lovable anti-hero striving for redemption, while making Ralph Macchio’s Daniel LaRusso not bad, but not great either.

Importantly, we should also remember that despite all the fond memories that we may hold for “The Karate Kid” and its related adventures, this is a deeply silly story about a pair of middle-aged men obsessed with kicking each other in the face.

Any streamer realizes the power franchise titles hold over viewers who love them, and “The Karate Kid” still has plenty of pull among children of the ’80s and their kids.  For super-fans, these new rounds at least provide a walk down memory lane by retracing Daniel’s steps through “The Karate Kid II,” where he journeys to Okinawa, Japan with his mentor and father figure Mr. Miyagi (the late Pat Morita) and “The Karate Kid III,” which is basically a re-do of “The Karate Kid” except with a whole lot more rotten shenanigans from Johnny’s eeeeevil master Kreese (Martin Kove) and a buddy from the ‘Nam.

In its best episodes the show challenges the common entertainment dualism delineating good and evil and heroes and villains, leading one to ponder which lessons parents should pass down to their kids. Johnny messes up throughout the series, and at the end of the second season his noble effort to steer his students away from his malevolent sensei’s poisonous teachings ends in tragedy.

His students tear apart their high school by brawling with Daniel’s, and in the end Daniel’s star student Robby (Tanner Buchanan) – who’s also Johnny’s son – has put Johnny’s star student Miguel Diaz (Xolo Maridueña) in the hospital.  Adding some soapy antics to the whole mess is a love triangle between Robby, Miguel and Daniel’s daughter Sam (Mary Mouser).

These kids never would have been tossing one another into walls if they weren’t acting as proxies in Johnny and Daniel’s ceaseless rivalry. The hatred these two men have for one another can go on for decades, but in serialized entertainment terms focusing the story on that and little else is a swift journey to pointlessness.

This is the valley through which the third season travels, albeit with a brief business-related stop in Tokyo and Okinawa – a necessity, you see, given the series’ devotion to resurfacing characters from the movies. For instance, Daniel happens to run into his summer fling Kumiko (Tamlyn Naomi Tomita). Unplanned and unannounced!

Johnny, meanwhile, struggles to regain Robby’s trust and return to Miguel’s good graces while also battling to understand social media, which sounds funnier than it actually plays out — and mainly serves the purpose of reminding us that Ali (original “Karate Kid” love interest Elisabeth Shue) reconnected with him on Facebook.

Separately each man takes steps to defend themselves and their students from Kreese, who makes it his mission to destroy Daniel-san because that’s what Kreese does.

Kreese is a simple creature, see? He glowers, he growls, he snips at his cigars menacingly and keeps a venomous snake as the dojo’s pet. His way involves bullying his students psychologically and encouraging them to bully each other. No mercy! Also, no point.

As the season progresses, Kreese becomes bolder and more aggressive, ordering his students to attack their rivals at Miyagi-Do at every given opportunity. Eventually it gets worse, with Kreese threatening Daniel and his wife Amanda (Courtney Henggeler) at their business, all in the name of … securing Cobra Kai’s reputation for being “bad ass”? I guess? Cobra Kai teenage bullies run wild, attacking other kids, goading them into fights and even seriously injuring one of them, for no good reason. Characters who were once lovable are now awful. 

Resurfacing Kove was a fun trick at the end of Season 1, and it also set up Johnny Lawrence’s inevitable reversal of fortune in the show’s second round. But “Cobra Kai” creators Josh Heald, Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg and their writers fail to tease out Kreese’s motivation for wanting to destroy the LaRussos and Johnny.

The third season dives into his backstory via flashbacks, for what it’s worth. Still, even that doesn’t explain why an old guy running a karate studio out of a strip mall in the San Fernando Valley – not exactly the makings of an up-and-coming kingpin – makes training armies of rampaging teenagers the driving mission of this retirement years.

Less forgivable is the shoddy squandering of one of the show’s more interesting figures, who transformed from a mistreated geek into a ferocious but still somewhat likable beast. Season 3 makes him into a psychopath – and although the writers eventually resolve this heel turn, it is not believably earned. All of it culminates in a predictable ending, albeit with a touch of “Star Wars“-style daddy drama. This is what happens when a show based on a movie becomes tangled up in the net of its thin mythology.

“Cobra Kai” will move beyond this, never fear. Netflix acquired this season from YouTube after it decided not to continue developing scripted originals. A fourth has already gotten the green light; based on how this season ends, it promises to return to familiar territory. Circling back to the beginning is a trusted method of finding one way after getting lost. That could work.

Either way, nobody can be blamed for wanting to simply kick back, watch the new episodes and, despite their shortcomings, do as Kreese is fond of saying and “finish it.” The third season isn’t a knock-out, but if all you want is cheap excitement, it’ll do.

Season 3 of “Cobra Kai” is currently streaming on Netflix.

The sustainability challenges that threaten the agave industry

For many Americans, the word “agave” conjures up thoughts of tequila. And for some, it’s not a pleasant association — even the good stuff can be a little too reminiscent of low-grade party fuel and terrible hangovers. Even as artisanal and celebrity-made tequilas become more popular (aided by at-home pandemic drinking), the unfortunate reputation persists.

Beyond cheap liquor, however, agaves are a source of many products: You may have experimented with agave nectar in baked goods or had the pleasure of sipping a complex and smoky mezcal. Agaves are also strikingly beautiful plants with a complex life cycle and an intricate relationship with some unexpected pollinators. If you live in a warm part of the country, you may even have a plant growing in your yard.

Between a growing interest in nectar and a booming artisanal spirits market, demand for agave products is at an all-time high. Unfortunately, this growing demand has led some farmers to turn to environmentally taxing production methods which have stressed the already volatile agave market, threatening the agave industry’s survival.

From sap to syrup and spirits

Agaves are spiny desert plants native to Mexico that grow slowly, storing sap in their core for years until blooming a single, towering stalk of flowers before death. Typically, agaves are harvested right before they flower, the point when the plants have stored the most sap. It’s the sugar-rich cores – called piñas for their resemblance to pineapples — that are harvested, cooked and pressed to release a rich syrup that is processed into nectar or fermented into alcohol.

Purified syrup from the agave sap is sold in the US as agave nectar, even though it doesn’t come from agave flowers like the name might suggest. Agave nectar has gained popularity as an alternative sweetener, specifically as a vegan alternative to honey, as it has a similar ratio of fructose, glucose and other sugars. Experts debate whether it has health benefits above other sugars — it’s naturally high in fructose, which makes it sweeter than other sugars per calorie, so people might use slightly less of it than other sweeteners. Food companies tout the fructans in the nectar as a natural source of fiber, but some nutritionists warn agave nectar is nearly identical to the much-maligned high fructose corn syrup. Regardless of its health effects, the market for agave nectar is projected to keep growing.

However, the main driver of agave demand is alcohol. The Aztecs fermented agave sap into a milky alcoholic beverage called pulque. It’s still consumed in Mexico but has limited appeal abroad. It’s unclear whether distillation was practiced by ancient Mesoamericans or if it was introduced by Spanish colonists, but distilled agave spirits are now consumed worldwide. Tequila, which is made only from the blue agave, is the most popular. A smokier kind of agave spirit, mezcal, is made from a wider range of agave varieties, some wild-collected and some cultivated.

Tequila consumption outside of Mexico has traditionally been driven by lower-quality spirits used in cocktails like the margarita, but artisanal and high-quality tequilas have become far more widespread in recent years. The explosion of artisanal tequilas has contributed to rapid growth in the tequila market, with sales nearly quadrupling since 2002. Mezcal is also booming in popularity: Imports to the US surged 50% in 2019, overtaking consumption in Mexico itself.

Boom and bust cycles

The dramatic rise in demand for agave products of all kinds has significant consequences for the farmers who grow it. Because the agave plant matures so slowly — seven years in the case of the blue agave, and more for many others — prices are prone to natural boom and bust cycles.In years when many plants mature at the same time, prices have fallen as low as two pesos per kilo of agave. When demand is high but there are few mature plants on the market, however, they can rise to 25 pesos per kilo or higher. At the moment, the market appears to be heading out of a high-demand, high-price period so severe that many agave industry analysts sounded the alarm over a potential tequila shortage.

These spikes might sound lucrative, but it’s hard to take advantage of this cycle; consumer demand is constantly shifting, and agave growers can’t change what they’re planting as quickly as farmers who grow annual crops like corn. Planting more agaves in a year when prices are high might only make a future glut that much worse. Some turn to harvesting immature plants, which contain far less sugar. Not only does this early harvesting mean lower-quality syrup, it also prolongs shortages and leaves farmers worse off, since it’s effectively borrowing plants from the future. These market disturbances can ultimately force farmers off the land: The number of agave farmers went from 15,000 in 2000 to 8,000 after a particularly dramatic cycle in 2007.

The booming market for agave products and the accompanying price roller coaster have serious environmental consequences. Mezcal makers have responded to the drink’s meteoric rise by ramping up their collection of the wild agaves, alarming environmentalists who fear the slow-growing populations may not be able to recover. This isn’t an issue for tequila or the majority of commercially available agave nectars because they use only cultivated blue agaves, but those growers have ramped up chemical use on the farm to keep up. The practice of early harvesting has also become more common, and this presents another challenge by removing a critical food source from the desert: the agave’s flowers.

Bats: A critical pollinator

To protect against the drying effects of the sun, many desert plants open their flowers only at night. This makes bats an important pollinator in the desert, and plants often have special pollinator relationships with only one species of bat. This is true for agaves, which rely almost entirely on long-nosed bats for pollination. With their long tongues, the bats are one of the few animals that can access nectar from the agave’s tubular flowers.In return, they spread the agave’s pollen from flower to flower. Bats are one of the only ways wild agaves can reproduce — plants exposed to bats produce nearly 3,000 viable seeds for every seed made by a plant that wasn’t.

Cultivated agaves don’t technically need pollination; most are grown from small offsets off a mother plant. But these offsets are technically clones, and while this ensures a field of plants that all have the same characteristics which will produce an even and predictable product, the technique comes at the cost of genetic diversity. When bats are allowed to pollinate plants, genes combine in unique ways, and many beneficial traits — like disease resistance or drought tolerance — can emerge. Large, genetically identical fields are potentially vulnerable to being wiped out all at once by pests or disease. This has already happened in the past: a wave of fungal infections in the mid-1990s swept through cloned blue agave fields and sent prices skyrocketing. Ironically, the subsequent push to replant all the lost crop at once sparked an oversupply of agave years later and sent prices toppling.

Because they are so interconnected, any disturbance to the bats can impact the entire agave industry: wild plants are important to mezcal producers who use them directly, and cultivated agaves ultimately come from wild sources, so bat pollination is one of the agave industry’s only sources of genetic diversity. Removing the bats’ main food sources by harvesting immature agaves in the field and overharvesting immature wild agaves ultimately shortchanges the agave industry’s long term survival.

Unfortunately, early harvesting isn’t the only threat facing the bats: Drug traffickers along the US-Mexico border use the caves where bats roost as hideouts and caches for shipments, disturbing the animals’ nesting. Ranchers trying to eliminate vampire bats, which nest in the same caves as long-nosed bats, also intentionally destroy the nesting habitat.

Preserving bats and safeguarding livelihoods

So far, efforts to preserve the bats have seen some success. Careful coordination between US and Mexican governments has helped to protect their remaining nesting sites, and the long-nosed bat is now the only bat species to ever be removed from the US endangered species list.

Some agave producers are also taking action. It turns out that preserving enough agaves to feed the bats doesn’t take a huge shift: Allowing just 5% of the agaves used in tequila production to fully mature and flower could support more than 2 million bats. A number of growers and distillers have signed on to do this through the Tequila Interchange Project, producing spirits under the Bat Friendly label. It’s been a success so far, with bats returning to the field and pollinated plants producing viable, genetically variable seedings.

The project is an encouraging start for the bats and biodiversity, but it’s limited in scope: It’s hard to convince growers to sacrifice a little sap by harvesting plants past their prime, so most haven’t joined. It also doesn’t address other agave products like nectar. And while the project successfully resolves some of the issues of early and overharvesting, it doesn’t solve the boom and bust cycles that they’re rooted in. That’s a more complicated problem, and one that agave growers have tried to find their way around for some time.

A few of the major distilleries like Patrón have started to issue price guaranteed contracts to producers, but these are still rare and tend to go to larger farms. Although most farmers don’t make their own tequila, those that do have the option to hold on to the spirit when prices are low — a strategy aided by a push from distillers to label highly aged tequilas as extra añejo and sell them at a higher price, even if extensive aging isn’t traditional for most agave spirits.

For smaller growers who don’t distill their own agave, however, these options are out of reach. They’re left to diversify their income stream with a wider range of crops and livestock, planting agave when they can afford to and hoping it matures in a year where prices are good. This kind of approach may ultimately be the most sustainable for smallholders, and it creates a more biodiverse farm ecosystem that’s both more resilient to harsh, dry conditions and better for wildlife.

So what does this mean for people who want to buy sustainable agave products? USDA organic is a good place to start for avoiding chemical use and associated environmental problems, but it doesn’t address pollinator issues or help farmers weather periods of low prices. Fair Trade certification, which is available for some agave nectars and spirits, carries better guarantees about farmer compensation, and the bat-friendly spirits recommended by the Tequila Interchange Project are a good way to invest in conservation. Ultimately, it’s important to recognize that the issues of the agave industry are broad and interconnected enough that shoppers can’t solve them just by choosing a particular label or product. While customers demanding sustainability guarantees may help push producers in the right direction, the agave industry’s own survival depends on finding a sustainable way to meet demand.

“Those of us who don’t die are going to quit”: Overwhelmed hospitals and the nurse who lost hope

Nurse Kristen Cline was working a 12-hour shift in October at the Royal C. Johnson Veterans Memorial Hospital in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, when a code blue rang through the halls. A patient in an isolation room was dying of a coronavirus that had raged for eight months across the country before it made the state the brightest red dot in a nation of hot spots.

Cline knew she needed to protect herself before entering the room, where a second COVID-19 patient was trembling under the covers, sobbing. She reached for the crinkled and dirty N95 mask she had reused for days.

In her post-death report, Cline described how the patient fell victim to a hospital in chaos. The crash cart and breathing bag that should have been in the room were missing. The patient wasn’t tethered to monitors that could have alerted nurses sooner. He had cried out for help, but the duty nurse was busy with other patients, packed two to a room meant for one.

“He died scared and alone. It didn’t have to be that way. We failed him — not the staff, we did everything we could,” she said. “The system failed him.”

The system also failed her. Since the pandemic’s early weeks, Cline had complained that the Department of Veterans Affairs, which runs the nation’s largest hospital system, wasn’t doing enough to protect its front-line health care workers. She had filed complaints about inadequate personal protective equipment with the agency’s inspector general and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, but they had done nothing. Many months into a pandemic, they were still having to ration masks and being asked to reuse them for as many as five shifts.

From Cline’s perspective and that of other health care workers I spoke with from the VA hospital in Sioux Falls, the lack of masks was a symptom of larger failures at the agency overseeing the medical care of 9 million veterans. The hospitals lacked staff and scrounged to find gowns, medical supplies, ventilators — everything needed to battle COVID-19.

While every American hospital was stretched by the pandemic, the VA’s lack of an effective system for tracking and delivering supplies made it particularly vulnerable, according to a recent examination by the federal Government Accountability Office. When the pandemic hit, the agency relied on a few big contractors to supply everything from N95 masks to needles to isolation gowns. Those few big contractors fell victim to a global shortage of masks. And the VA had no reliable tracking system to tell officials what hospitals have, what they need or what was expired. At the Sioux Falls facility, things got so desperate, the supply chain for masks relied on a guy named Steve who gave them out one at time from a nearby warehouse, employees said.

As COVID-19 overwhelmed the antiquated system, VA leadership asked employees at more than 170 hospitals to enter inventory by hand into spreadsheets every day and did “not have insight” into how resources were being deployed, the report said. In other words, the local Best Buy or Walgreen’s had more efficient ways of managing inventory to get supplies to the right place.

The resulting scramble, which ProPublica has investigated over the past eight months, was a disorganized, poorly overseen effort to buy masks and other supplies from just about anyone who said they could deliver. Hoping to compensate for a disastrous lack of preparation, the VA awarded more than 100 contracts worth over $120 million to vendors with whom it had never done business.

The COVID-19 pandemic came at a tough moment for the agency, which was more than a year into a massive reorganization by the administration of President Donald Trump that left hundreds of jobs empty and sent the VA scrambling to hire contract positions to help with, among other things, procurement of supplies.

Kevin Lyons, an associate professor and supply chain expert at Rutgers Business School, said nothing the VA did before or during the pandemic showed it had a handle on its own purchase and delivery of supplies, let alone prepare for a global shortage. His research is exploring how the Trump administration’s purge of hundreds of VA staff members created a path to disaster.

VA Secretary Robert Wilkie had boasted about across-the-board staff cutbacks in November 2019, just weeks before the first confirmed U.S. COVID-19 case, noting that he had “relieved people as high as network directors to people at the other end of our employee chain.”

Lyons, an Air Force veteran, told me top VA officials have been able to claim all’s well — even as nurses and doctors describe continued shortages and rationing — because bureaucrats who awarded contracts did little or nothing to track how they worked out. He said the rapid-fire approval of contracts gave “the appearance that we’re doing something. But there was no connection between the nurses and the doctors who actually need it.”

“All they really care about is, you know, signing a contract, and then crossing your fingers and hoping that stuff comes,” Lyons said. “And that’s just not the way that supply chain is supposed to happen.”

Wilkie had acknowledged at one point early in the pandemic that COVID-19 had dried up the agency’s supply chain and forced hospitals to ration critical supplies. The agency has acknowledged the need for improvements to its procurement system. But the VA, which has lost more than 90 staff members to COVID-19, denies that it ever left nurses like Cline with inadequate personal protection. “All VA medical centers have adequate capacity, PPE and supplies to meet current demand, and at no point has a VA facility run out of PPE,” said Jamie Maxymuik, a spokeswoman for the VA Sioux Falls health system, in an email.

Yet Cline and other hospital workers had felt increasingly vulnerable as the raging virus revealed the government’s failure to adequately prepare or to fight back. In late April and May, emails that Cline shared show the VA instructing nurses to stitch together their own fabric masks at home to get through the crisis. The message coming from managers, Cline said, was to be patriotic and do more with less.

“My first reaction was, ‘Which desk jockey sitting at home came up with this nonsense?'” Cline remembered. “And then I thought, ‘Well, at least they are openly acknowledging that they aren’t providing enough protection.'”

In May, Cline had reached out to me, describing the plight of hospital staff dealing with unresponsive VA management. “They have been rationing masks for weeks now, but sending emails daily saying we have plenty of PPE and that rumors of a shortage are completely false. We have suspected for a few days now that they are lying about this,” Cline, 38, wrote.

Her outrage intensified when she read a story I wrote about how the VA awarded a $34.5 million contract to a random mask broker, who then rented a private jet to locate N95s that never existed from suppliers he didn’t know with money from investors he’d never met.

It was just a glimpse at the chaos disrupting the crucial supply chain on which Cline’s existence depended.

States, cities, hospitals and various federal agencies competed against one another for increasingly scarce masks, many held up in Chinese factories or customs. Health care workers like Cline were captive to the machinations transpiring overhead, unsure why they didn’t have the protection they needed.

In this frenzy, masks typically went to the highest bidder. And out of the woodwork came opportunists, counterfeiters, fakes and well-intentioned but clueless mask brokers trying to make a quick buck.

“The incompetence was just stunning to me,” Cline remembers thinking. “If they had just told us what was going on I would have felt better. But instead they just kept saying we have enough masks.”

Through the summer and fall, as I followed a bizarre trail of mask profiteers, Cline kept me aware of the consequences of an unregulated mask market, a situation that might have been comical if it weren’t so crucial to fighting the spread of COVID-19. Cline did not end up contracting COVID-19 but said the months of chaos and collective failure had left its mark.

“When this is over,” Cline told me. “Those of us who don’t die are going to quit.”

Anatomy of a Disaster

How does one account for the incompetence and greed, the poor planning, and the judgment failures at the government’s highest levels that led us into the worst public health crisis in at least a century?

Even if the Trump administration had empowered civil servants to wrangle supply chain logistics immediately — it didn’t. Even if his administration had dusted off and heeded a pandemic response playbook left behind by the Obama administration — it didn’t. Even if Trump had invoked the Defense Production Act to boost domestic mask manufacturing at the first sign of the crisis — it didn’t. Even if everything had gone right, we were in deep trouble before the first American travelers brought back a mysterious respiratory virus from Wuhan, China, and Europe.

The nation had spent years building up emergency medical supplies in a Strategic National Stockpile that was supposed to help us weather a national crisis. But after long stretches of inactivity and inadequate funding, it turns out it wasn’t all that strategic. Jared Kushner, the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, made it clear that the federal stockpile was not intended to serve the states, leaving them to fend for themselves in the quest for lifesaving supplies.

Retired Navy Rear Adm. John Polowczyk got plucked from the Defense Department in mid-March to lead the White House’s fledgling Coronavirus Task Force. “I walked in,” he told me, “and the National Stockpile had been given out. I did not have a single — really — I didn’t have a single N95 mask, surgical mask, isolation gown, nitrile glove. It had been issued.”

Polowczyk had spent 30 years mastering the complex logistics of getting supplies from manufacturer to user. But the Trump White House, he said, had “no bench depth” of experts to manage purchasing and distributing vital supplies.

It’s exactly as bad as it sounds, said Robert Handfield, a professor at North Carolina State University who interviewed officials who were working inside the federal effort to supply PPE. He detailed his findings in the Harvard Business Review, but early this month, he boiled it all down for me in a quick summary:

“It was a shit show. They had no idea what was going on.”

The VA embarked on a haphazard buying spree through its procurement system, but by the spring, it had to turn for help from FEMA and draw supplies from the stockpile, a “short-term stop-gap buffer” when critical items are not available, according to the GAO. Along with gloves, gowns, swabs and test kits, the VA received more than 8.2 million respirators, and 2.4 million masks.

Despite dire warnings and lessons learned from the SARS outbreak in 2003 and the H1N1 swine flu in 2009, elected officials and administrations led by both parties simply didn’t prepare for what scientists warned was not just a probability but an eventuality.

A 2010 study commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention following the swine flu outbreak warned that we needed to stock up on masks or face devastating consequences. The study made sweeping observations about existing and potential breakdowns between the local, state and federal governments.

Today, that report reads like prophecy:

“Delays and conflicts in federal guidance on respiratory protection (N95) led to confusion . . .” scientists wrote more than a decade ago.

“States experienced significant challenges with the N95 supply chain . . .”

“There should be a central repository of N95s which is replenished for future events. Federal contracts with N95 and PPE manufacturers generally should be strengthened . . .”

By February 2020, as the first U.S. outbreaks began, the stockpile housed just 12 million N95 masks, a fraction of what was needed. That same month, Dr. Robert Kadlec, the emergency preparedness czar in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told Congress that the country needed 3.5 billion N95 masks, itself probably an underestimate. In other words, the country’s stockpile had less than one half of one percent of the masks we needed.

The stockpile was so depleted, that the moment the spread began, the country needed new production inputs, most of which were in China and would take 60 to 90 days to reach U.S. hospitals by traditional export. If we measure the stockpile in time, the U.S. was several months behind before this even started.

By the time the Trump administration pressured domestic manufacturers to ramp up supply and unleashed $17 billion to source supplies in April, it was far too late.

What that eerily prophetic CDC-commissioned study didn’t predict was the beneficiaries of such chaos, of shortages and desperation, and of exceptionally weak government contracting oversight: mask brokers.

We’re so far into this pandemic now that it’s easy to forget just how absurd the notion of a mask broker truly is. In normal times, masks aren’t all that profitable; an N95 should run about a dollar for anyone working on a dusty home improvement project. They’re a cheap widget in a broad catalog of bigger widgets offered by medical supply giants like 3M, Honeywell and Cardinal Health.

Yet the federal government found itself desperate enough to shell out a fortune to unknown people and companies that hadn’t existed just days before.

The gang brought in to help with PPE and other medical equipment included the inexperienced federal contractor whose private jet ride and failed mask adventure inspired Cline to reach out to me; a former NASCAR driver who allegedly tried to sell a trillion N95 masks that didn’t exist; a wealthy tech investor who used the Task Rabbit contractor-for-hire app to pay people to repackage ineffective Chinese masks so they could pass muster with hospitals.

Just to name a few.

As of December, the federal government spent about $8.5 billion to outfit front-line workers with PPE, medical instruments and various other supplies, according to a ProPublica analysis of spending data. It was not all bad. Some brokers delivered a sorely needed product while making a nice profit. And to be fair to the federal government, many states made the same mistakes.

As brokers made their bets, some making a fortune, some making fools of themselves, others making their criminal defense cases, Cline and millions of other health care workers just prayed there would be enough supplies tomorrow.

“Eye of the Hurricane”

I flew out to meet Cline a few days before Thanksgiving, when South Dakota was reporting the nation’s worst COVID-19 infection numbers and nearing 1 in 700 residents dead. While I had only traveled to the Upper Midwest, it felt as though I’d beamed straight into one of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s nightmares.

“If you want to tell the story of why COVID is so bad in America, I think South Dakota is the perfect microcosm of it all,” Cline told me as we met outdoors for coffee.

Just around the corner from the VA hospital where Cline worked, families huddled maskless and gabbed over heaps of pasta at the local Olive Garden. Gov. Kristi Noem had defied calls from public health experts to issue a state mask mandate, and a local one, recently passed by the Sioux Falls City Council, was, in my observation, scarcely observed.

At my hotel, which was connected by a footbridge to the state’s largest hospital, the nonprofit Sanford Medical Center, young people mingled mask-free in the lobby, shouting gleefully over a case of Bud Lights. Around the corner, the hot tub was bubbling, the first I’d seen since March, and was packed with members of two families. It looked . . . fun. Like the sort of thing seen in photos coming in lately from Australia, which is averaging zero COVID-19 deaths a day compared with more than 2,000 a day in the U.S.

Cline described a huge disconnect between the devil-may-care attitude of local residents and the reality she was seeing every day. In this alternate universe, she said, there was a “false sense of calm” even as the city moved into the “eye of the hurricane.”

“I had a colleague who went to Sturgis,” Cline said of the August biker rally in South Dakota that may have led to 266,000 new COVID-19 cases. “She said, ‘Well, I drank so much alcohol it probably killed any virus.’ This was a nurse!”

Cline had joined the VA in 2019 after 11 years at Sanford, where her friends kept her posted on their COVID-19 battle. More than 150 COVID-19 patients were filling beds at Sanford, with 27 in the ICU and eight on ventilators, according to state statistics.

Yet the CEO of Sanford, the largest hospital system in the Dakotas, had just days before told thousands of health care workers he’d survived COVID-19 and would not wear a mask because he had “no interest in using masks as a symbolic gesture.” The hospital’s leadership team forced that CEO to retire and sent an email to employees rebutting his comments about masks.

As we sat in the still cold, the city was under silent siege.

Cline and three other VA health care workers I spoke to saw another disconnect between what the VA was saying publicly and conditions on the ground.

“We just had like one surgical face mask for the whole shift,” one VA nurse said, describing a stretch of weeks early in the pandemic when even three-ply blue paper masks were hard to find. “And we were even told to use it for the whole week, which these surgical masks are supposed to just be thrown after single use.”

She said the PPE situation has improved in recent months, but only after the hospital logged 60 COVID-19 deaths. A VA summary of employee deaths shows no medical personnel at the Sioux Falls hospital have died of COVID.

N95 masks, the critical supplies that the CDC recommended for health care workers, were sitting unused in a Sioux Falls warehouse until Cline complained to the VA director. After that, “we magically got fitted for N95s,” this nurse said. “We get it and we stick it in a paper bag, and we use it for five different” shifts.

Such personal accounts were denied by the VA, which signaled to its employees that public comments about hospital conditions would not be tolerated. “In the Spring, Sioux Falls VA Health Care System maintained sufficient PPE for its employees,” the Sioux Falls VA spokeswoman said, noting the agency followed loosened CDC guidelines that allowed for nurses to reuse their masks for several shifts.

The agency was sending mixed messages publicly. Trump had claimed in January that everything was “under control,” but federal contract data showed erratic and desperate purchases with delivery dates for essential hospital purchases that spanned months. Costly supplies sometimes never made it to hospitals, like an order for 5 million masks that in April was diverted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Cline is an outspoken member of the Emergency Nurses Association, an Illinois-based advocacy group, which asked that I point out she’s not speaking on the group’s behalf and offered its own statement:

“When nurses fall ill because of inadequate PPE or other factors in their emergency department, patient care suffers — and that cannot be tolerated. Neither can the ongoing mental stress and burnout . . . nurses are suffering because of their daily concern for their personal safety,” ENA President Mike Hastings said.

I expressed amazement to Cline that after spending most of a year tracking mask brokers, watching billions in federal dollars spent to get supplies for hospitals like hers, that PPE was still scarce, rationed or nonexistent in many hospital settings. I had traveled into various outbreaks in Chicago, Los Angeles, three cities in Texas, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, New York and New Haven, Connecticut. Yet nearing the end of this most terrible year, the nation was facing its biggest spike in cases and deaths.

Back in Washington the next day, I opened a sobering email from Cline. Her VA shift had stretched to 15 hours so she could watch over a COVID-19 patient in crisis. No one was available to relieve her. He was delirious, so she and another nurse sedated him and tied him down, which kept him alive.

“It’s like this everywhere,” she wrote. “It just got here later. And the shameful thing is we had 8 months to prepare, and we have made a disaster of it.”

“The Bottom Line”

When Cline first said to me, “The bottom line is it was too expensive to protect us,” I thought she was referring specifically to the VA. This didn’t seem right. The VA alone shelled out at least $77.6 million to get PPE, according to our data analysis, so I asked what she meant.

She said she was making a larger point about politics and economics. The depleted stockpile, the brokers and scams, the open bars and sports stadiums, the insistence on ignoring science, the resistance to wearing masks showed the limits of what Americans would sacrifice to protect themselves and each other.

Those of us lucky enough to be spared the sharp hurt of losing a loved one to this virus, or the palpable loss of a job and income, may still be feeling pressed ourselves under the dull weight of this year and what the virus has done to our way of life.

But for Cline, and many health care workers, that nebulous anxiety comes into high definition every time she puts on a used mask to treat someone who got sick because they or someone they cherish didn’t wear theirs.

It was too expensive to beef up the national stockpile. Too expensive to keep mask manufacturing in the U.S. Too expensive to keep bars closed. The personal cost was too high to stay home or sacrifice rugged individualism for an anonymizing face covering.

And yet as Christmas approached, the early results of Sioux Falls’ mask mandate showed that even the simplest effort could pay off. Cases were trending down.

But Cline had been worn out for weeks, and she wanted to spend time with her boyfriend and her daughter. When I relayed that the VA had categorically denied that nurses were being asked to ration PPE, or that there were shortages early on, she said she was done torturing herself.

The day before Christmas Eve, she told her bosses she was quitting and left her keycard with security.

“Being faceless under PPE for nine months,” she said, “has a way of making you feel inconsequential.”

Top 10 reasons why making year-end lists won’t save America

As always, the end of one year and the beginning of another is a time of lists.

There are “best of” lists for music, film, books, TV shows, video games and other aspects of popular culture “that mattered” in 2020, as deemed by the professional critics and others who supposedly have the elevated taste and habitus to make such pronouncements.

Other prominent voices, the gatekeepers, will proclaim that “these are the moments that mattered” in the year 2020 as they create a narrative for the year that was. Lists of that sort are a type of status-signaling — an exercise in social capital in which the truth rains down from the chorus of the elect onto the regular people below.

And of course, with Joe Biden (in all likelihood) being inaugurated on Jan. 20 and the Age of Trump in its present form mutating into some new monstrosity, there are lists of Donald Trump’s foibles, most embarrassing moments and other low points. For those Americans and others smothered by Trumpism, in some cases literally, such lists are a way of celebrating his defeat. They function as a form of symbolic and temporary catharsis.

Ultimately, in this new year 2021, lists are being made by people everywhere. In their various forms they embody people’s hopes, desires, promises, dreams, regrets and disappointments. Lists are also a way of maintaining control of one’s life and destiny in the face of uncertainty.

The Age of Trump, with its resurgent fascism, white supremacy, violence, plague, death, attacks on democracy and civil rights and other forms of evil — and the larger social and political conditions that made Trumpism possible — is a world-historical event. There was a time before Trump and there will be a time after Trump, but Trumpism will be more than a footnote in modern American history. It will be the moment of a great pivot toward either the worst (another version of American fascism) or something much better (the beginning of a project of American renewal).

Whichever the outcome, lists collapse against the weight and meaning of world-historical events. How does one rank Trump and his regime’s crimes against democracy, humanity, the environment and overall human decency?

Is the worst crime the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are dead because of the Trump regime’s sabotage of coronavirus relief efforts? What of the many lives ruined and lifespans shortened, both directly and indirectly, through the resulting economic destruction and the Trump regime’s willful negligence? How do we rank those horrors against the thousands of nonwhite migrants and refugees brutalized in Trump’s concentration camps? What of the children stolen from their families (and likely to never be reunited with them) by Border Patrol and ICE agents? Where do we rank the Trump regime’s empowerment of white supremacist and other right-wing extremists and their acts of political terrorism? Where on a list should we put Trump and his movement’s undermining of American democracy and the common good? What of Trump and his inner circle’s treasonous and seditious behavior, such as their ongoing coup attempt against the democratically expressed will of the American people? Should ranking the Trump regime’s turpitude focus on the defamation done to the country’s ideals and values, or the literal number of dead bodies and treasure lost and stolen?

Lists and other such heuristic devices are an attempt to assert one’s agency, an effort to impose order or disorder. But the Age of Trump is not just one horrible thing, but many horrible things both overlapping and simultaneous.

At the Columbia Journalism Review, Jon Allsop writes: “History will surely view Trump’s COVID fecklessness as among his very worst disgraces, if not his worst — yet for now, the suffering is so vast that it’s hard to keep it adequately in perspective at all, let alone in terms of clear political accountability.”

Quoted in a new essay at The Atlantic, sociologist Arlie Hochshild, author of “Strangers in Their Own Land,” offers cautionary words about the true dimensions of Trumpism and the challenge ahead:

But the UC Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild believes that Trumpism is intimately tied — for now at least — to its namesake, because it exists beyond the logic of policy. It exists in the dreampolitik realm of feelings. “If there’s one thing I think the mainstream press still gets wrong about Trump, it’s that they are comfortable talking about economics and personality, but they don’t give a primacy to feelings,” Hochschild told me. “To understand the future of the Republican Party, we have to act like political psychiatrists.”…

Hochschild is telling us that Trumpism is not just a garland of public-policy proposals that any other Republican can drape around his or her neck. And it is more complex than a personality trait, or a talent for saying mean stuff on Twitter. Rather, Trumpism is an emotional planet that orbits around Trump’s star. Breaking the connection between Trump and the better part of the GOP will require either that Trump disappears (an unlikely proposition) or that a larger star emerges from the Republican backbench (also unlikely).

At the end of our conversation, I asked Hochschild what she’s learned from the past four years. “I used to think of political identity as something more solid,” she said. “I now think of political identity as like water that’s always going somewhere, that needs to go somewhere, but where it goes depends on the lay of the land, the rock formations that stand in its way,” she told me. She’s still waiting to see where Trump moves the mountain.

To begin to properly make sense of the Age of Trump and its true dimensions will require critical distance and deep, slow thinking. This moment also demands that the full truth be revealed through public hearings, committees and other investigations.

To move forward properly, and to prevent another fascist authoritarian such as Donald Trump from taking power, the American people, in conjunction with responsible elites, must wring out every possible bit of truth from the soiled rag that is the Age of Trump.

Of course, some already want to cast that rag into the abyss of a memory well, never to be seen or discussed again. There will be many voices declaring that we must “let the past go,” “heal and unify,” resist “hysteria” or “forgive and forget.” We will be told that President Biden is here to restore normalcy and it’s time to “focus on the future.”

At some point very soon and perhaps even on Inauguration Day, some pundit or other professional smart person who is a member of the “Church of the Savvy” will begin the work of “organized forgetting” by cannibalizing Abraham Lincoln’s famous words: “With malice toward none, with charity for all.”

That will not do. America needs a great reckoning to heal the damage caused by Trumpism and its followers, acolytes and leaders. That process will be time consuming. It will not be neat. In a country and society obsessed with speed, where selective forgetting and grand myths are core to the nation’s character and political culture, there will be an enormous temptation to forget the Age of Trump almost immediately.

Thus, the compulsion by many Americans — especially those who are privileged because of their skin color and other identities — towards simple stories and superficial understandings of the country’s past, present and future. Some future historian or other observer may well look back at these years and conclude that America’s embrace of simple and easy solutions, in the service of organized forgetting, blinded it to the complex problems that would lead to the final downfall of a once-great democracy.

“Routine” Electoral College session in Congress next week promises loads of fireworks

Next week’s vote by the incoming Congress on the Electoral College roll-up of November election results will be anything but routine.

But, as has become the usual way, too much attention is focused on the personalities involved and not enough on the effects on the country.

Indeed, it feels much more depressingly usual that we could have more debate to resolve a fantasy election challenge than we can have to settle the recent impasse over a presidential hissy-fit over signing an overdue coronavirus aid bill — a signing that came without explanation last week.

The cast of the Jan. 6. drama includes Donald Trump, of course, whose obsession with the fantasy of a Congress overturning reality is center stage; Sen. Mitch McConnell and his apparently doomed hopes for a unified Republican caucus; the puppetry of Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and incoming Sen. Tommy Tuberville R-Ala., acting on behalf of Trump; and the spinelessness of Vice President Mike Pence, who is caught in the unfortunate speaking role of recognizing (or not) the vocal attempts of a few Trump loyalists in both houses to float the required objections to the Electoral College results.

Oh yeah, there also is a president-elect-in-waiting expecting to move into the White House on Jan. 20.

From a point removed enough from the scuffling to take a deep breath, the question is why so little concern in this dust-up is about the well-being of the country rather than calming the insistent demands of the Trump personal tantrum.

For Trump, like a perceived Louis XIV from another era, the state actually is him, and, in his delusion, Trump must think what he is doing is toward Making America Great.

Actually, what an arbitrarily disruptive Jan. 6 vote is doing is to continue and, in fact, accelerate Trump’s attacks on trust in American institutions. A final showdown to attempt to overturn an American election will make this country weaker in the eyes of adversaries, invite more chaos at a time already fraught with illness and economic disruption and make it tons more difficult to move ahead with the many aspects of governance that require actual review — and change.

Avoiding a fight

Multiple news articles are reflecting similar themes about this pending last-ditch election challenge, even amid a few hints from pundits that perhaps Trump had been holding back on signing the coronavirus bill in return for promised Republican leadership help on contesting the election.

The set-up: A single objection from both a House and Senate member to the presentation of Electoral College results kicks off a two-hour debate and vote in each house on the objection.

Here’s TheHill.com: “National Republicans are desperate to avoid a floor fight in Congress over the certification of the Electoral College vote next month, believing it would be horrible politics to continue waging what most recognize to be a hopeless battle to overturn the outcome of the election.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Deputy Leader John Thune, R-S.D., have asked their Republican Senate colleagues not to join Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, or other House members looking to object to the election results. Hawley and Tuberville say they may heed Trump’s urge for Republicans to revolt. Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are wild cards.

Trump this week threatened to primary Thune in the next election, showing what he believes to be his iron fist.

On top of all else, the two runoff races on Jan. 5 in Georgia are so close that the seat now held by Sen. David Perdue will likely be vacant until a winner can be sworn in. (Sen. Kelly Loeffler will remain in office until a winner is declared, since she occupies an unexpired term.)

Those who follow these procedural issues closely say any revolt will not be effective. Already too many Republican senators say they will oppose any effort to overturn the election, starting with Mitt Romney, R-Utah, but also including Mike Lee, R-Utah, Mike Braun, R-Ind., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. Others will almost certainly join them.

And Trump’s inner circle of lawyers still have one last case pending before the Supreme Court, which has already has shot down the appeal from Texas to overturn, without evidence, the elections in four contested states. Trump has been waving a 36-page document assembled by Trade Representative and non-lawyer Peter Navarro compiling unverified affidavits and complaints as if they are evidence.

What’s the alternative?

Pence is in a strange position, among the last of the Trump defenders. As vice president, it is he who presides over the joint meeting of Congress that day and it is he who must accept or reject the objections from the floor. My bet is that he accepts the objection and allows the votes to shoot down the objection, before slinking out of town on a previously set foreign trip he announced for cover.

Off to the side, Trump’s armies of white supremacists and loyalists seem to care little about either the realities of the election nor the actual rules for such affirmation of Electoral College outcomes. They want only what they want — Dear Leader for another four years and the ouster of Joe Biden as an imposter president-elect.

They are making clear to anyone who stands in the way — including Fox News, Newsmax, now-former Attorney General William P. Barr, governors and state legislators — that they will have their way, even threatening violence to get it.

So, a congressional procedural floor fight is just symbolic.

Trump just wants chaos that continues to keep him in the limelight, and puts himself in the position of aggrieved candidate from whom re-election was stolen. That allows him to continue collecting tons of unrestricted money from supporters, to threaten a new election try in four years and to seek to establish himself as shadow president-in-exile, whose tweets and opinions he thinks will matter.

Of course, instead, Trump could stand on principle here — for elections not his own. If he truly thinks there was fraud, he could ask for a full review and evaluation of the things that he thinks the states should change — from procedures governing mail ballots and authentication to a required mechanical review of voting machines.

We know Trump cares only about his own political fortunes, however, and believes that he gains by causing agità for the country.

He already has his 2024 would-be red hat: Make America Chaotic.

Kelly Loeffler’s extensive ties to the energy sector suggest major conflict of interest

In August 2019, just weeks before Sen. Johnny Isakson, a third-term Georgia Republican, announced his surprise retirement following a kidney cancer diagnosis, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp shared the head table at a 4H fundraiser gala with two titans of Atlanta’s finance scene: Jeffrey Sprecher, whose company, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), owns the New York Stock Exchange; and Sprecher’s wife, Kelly Loeffler, at the time the CEO of a cryptocurrency joint venture between ICE, Microsoft and Starbucks.

The fundraiser pulled in $200,000, and Kemp himself scored $18,100 from Loeffler. A few months later, Kemp would appoint Loeffler, a lifelong executive with no previous political experience, to fill Isakson’s seat, passing over numerous other Republicans, incluidng insiders from his own administration, former national officials and President Trump’s personal favorite, Rep. Doug Collins. The decision raised eyebrows at the time, and still does today: In bypassing Collins, who went on to challenge Loeffler in November’s Georgia “jungle primary,” Kemp not only alienated Trump, but created a tight special-election race that may well determine which party controls the U.S. Senate. That showdown — in which Loeffler faces Democratic opponent Rev. Raphael Warnock — culminates next Tuesday.

Even the most innocuous explanation for Loeffler’s appointment hinges on the advantages of her tremendous wealth: She promised Kemp she would pour $20 million into her own 2020 campaign, and would not require outside fundraising efforts. Kemp was also apparently attracted by a perceived appeal to suburban white women in his rapidly changing state. Even so, the appointment is difficult to understand, taken on Loeffler’s merits, biography, talents and expertise: She’s a onetime Mitt Romney Republican who, faced with the era of Trump and its hyper-partisan division, was forced to run so far to the right that she hit the road with a QAnon candidate and, more recently, posed for a campaign selfie with a former Klansman.

Even Loeffler appears to have believed she was a long shot: A month after Isakson announced his retirement last August, she was elected to the board of directors at Georgia Power, the premier electricity provider for the state and largest subsidiary of the Southern Company — a position her Senate appointment would force her to abandon only two months later.

That brief chapter of Loeffler’s pre-government life, however, opens the door to a deeper history and a new and complex set of unexplored ethical questions for a senator whose sprawling corporate ties overlap with an industry she is charged with overseeing, making it impossible to avoid conflicts of interest and accusations (fair or otherwise) of insider dealings.

While Sprecher’s involvement with the New York Stock Exchange grabs headlines as a familiar reference, his company is mainly grounded in the energy sector, which also provides much of the weight behind Loeffler’s résumé. Despite this background — or perhaps because of it — she has never articulated exactly where she stands on energy policy.

Intercontinental Exchange underpins an astounding array of energy futures exchanges both in the United States and globally. Well before Sprecher started the company, he was developing power plants. After the fall of Enron, ICE took its place, a position Sprecher leveraged cannily, gradually making his company one of the most influential financial firms in the world.

ICE’s subsidy, the NYSE, is itself home to more than 90% of all publicly traded utilities and pipeline companies in the U.S., and many of those use ICE markets to trade and hedge against their energy investments. To that point, ICE’s website claims that “more electric power is traded on ICE than any other electronic marketplace in the world.”

The southeastern U.S. — the second-largest energy market in the country, and, coincidentally, home to ICE and Loeffler — is one of the few regions that does not have a unified power exchange, and thus, no derivatives.

Around the time Loeffler was elected to the board of Georgia Power, the major utility companies in the Southeast secretly began engaging in talks about uniting the region into a single exchange. The exchange would include Southern Company (the parent of Georgia Power), as well as major players Duke Energy, Dominion and the government-run Tennessee Valley Authority.

The move, according to the larger companies involved, would benefit renewables and wholesale power sellers through a trading mechanism that more readily distributes excess energy capacity across a wider market, which they say will boost renewables and nuclear power. Detractors are skeptical — especially clean energy advocates. Jeff Dennis, general counsel at Advanced Energy Economy, told Salon that the new exchange, called the Southeastern Energy Market (SEEM), would mainly benefit the larger utilities, eclipsing the concerns of smaller companies, renewables and consumers.

“In general, while the SEEM mechanism might help the sponsoring utilities capture additional revenues for their own largely fossil-fuel-generating plants and squeeze some marginal savings for customers out of the existing system, it accomplishes little else,” Dennis said. While SEEM’s sponsor companies claim that the exchange will save customers $40 million to $50 million annually, he said, that amount is small when spread across the entire region and the 50 million people it serves.

“Compare that to the benefits customers would get from a more integrated and competitive wholesale power market in the region, which one recent study showed could generate $19.2 billion in annual regional savings, reducing customer bills by 23% and lowering carbon emissions by 37%, all while creating at least 285,000 new jobs by 2040,” Dennis said.

“Customers and clean energy developers are concerned that SEEM will not be a stepping stone to a true regional competitive wholesale market and integrated transmission grid in the region,” he added, “and could lock in the region’s reliance on existing natural gas and coal-fired power plants instead of serving to help the region transition to lower cost and cleaner renewable and advanced energy resources.”

Because SEEM’s first iteration will not be as consolidated as other independent energy networks in different parts of the U.S., which trade on ICE’s exchanges, the system will not support futures trading. An ICE spokesperson told Salon that the company has not been involved.

“The utilities did this among themselves — no consumer advocates, and no regulators,” the lawyer continued. “There is no effective independent oversight. It’s governed by a board, run by the utilities. We need public interest stakeholders, and government structure, so that companies aren’t the only ones making decisions.”

But the proposal is far from a done deal. The companies, which want to open the exchange sometime next year, must first get the go-ahead from federal and state regulators. Last week North Carolina authorities put a hold on their goal of filing with the federal government by Dec. 28. A Biden administration will likely prove a harder sell. 

That might help explain why Thomas Farrell, CEO of Dominion Power, made a maximum donation to the Loeffler campaign last week. Thomas Fanning, CEO of Southern Company, contributed to Loeffler last February, and along with his wife made a maximum donation at the end of November, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. While Loeffler might not have direct oversight over this issue, she can act as an ambassador for their industry, and a GOP-controlled Senate would be able to check the Biden administration.

The Georgia Power board found Loeffler’s background attractive as an ambassador and inside eye for the financial side of the business. Paul Bowers, company president and CEO, said the board had picked Loeffler not only because of her knowledge about energy markets and European carbon trading markets, in which Georgia Power deals heavily, but her knowledge of cryptocurrency — Loeffler was at the time CEO of Bakkt, the aforementioned joint venture between ICE, Microsoft and Starbucks.

“This insight into the global energy market and her unique digital experience will provide an extremely valuable perspective as we evolve as an energy industry and as a business to build a sustainable energy future for our customers and state,” Bowers said in a press release at the time.

Cryptocurrency is also tied into energy markets in more than one way. First, blockchain technology, on which cryptocurrency is based, has several actual or potential applications in energy and power exchanges, particularly for new and renewable technologies. But it’s also true that the industry itself uses a lot of energy: Bitcoin, in which Bakkt deals, consumes more energy annually than the entire country of Switzerland.

Loeffler’s project with Bakkt was to develop what the company called a “regulated global ecosystem” designed to enable payments, markets and “new use cases” for cryptocurrency — including launching a Bitcoin futures exchange with ICE.

When Loeffler joined the Senate, she was named to the subcommittee that oversaw that very industry: Futures trading. She only stepped down from that post after widespread backlash to her remarkably well-timed stock trades ahead of the coronavirus pandemic — including in shares of her own company. She still sits on the broader Agriculture Committee, however, which has overall oversight of the industry. And she still holds shares of Bakkt, which has performed increasingly and surprisingly well this year.

Tim Echols, a Republican member of the Georgia Public Service Commission, which regulates electricity in the state and sets statewide energy policies, told Inside Climate News earlier this year that Loeffler’s experience as CEO of Bakkt would be a political asset, specifically when it comes to energy regulation and market design.

“For me as a conservative Republican, Kelly has the full package,” Echols said. “She is right on the social issues, she knows business and she understands energy minutiae.” He predicted she would favor tax credits for electric vehicles and solar investments, while supporting nuclear energy, but to this point Loeffler appears only to have made one limited public statement about electric vehicles.

Georgia Power’s mix includes coal, natural gas, renewables and nuclear power. Recent reporting from ProPublica revealed that following the enactment of a new rule mandating environmental disclosures for coal ash, Georgia Power paid millions of dollars to buy land near its coal ash ponds, often paying above market values, before later disclosing evidence of groundwater contamination around those sites.

“In the nearly six years since the coal ash rule was finalized, Georgia Power bought about 75 properties for an average price of $8,800 per acre — outpacing the growth of average real estate values in rural areas of the state. The company purchased a third of those properties for over $30,000 an acre — and a handful for over $100,000 an acre,” ProPublica reported.

Loeffler does not sit on the Senate Energy Committee, but as mentioned above she sits on the Agriculture Committee, whose oversight includes issues regarding rural energy development.

Georgia Power has also been trying for years to finish construction on the Vogtle nuclear plant, near Atlanta. The construction project has been a money pit to this point, however, running billions of dollars over budget.

In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar bought between $100,000 and $250,000 in futures for the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, a nonprofit municipal energy company with a significant stake in Plant Vogtle, according to his mandatory federal financial disclosures. In that same period of time, Azar had briefed Loeffler, among other senators, on the looming coronavirus pandemic.

The Loeffler campaign did not reply to Salon’s request for comment.

In a last-minute rule change, the Trump admin rolls back water-saving standards for showerheads

For more than 25 years, Congress has directed U.S. government agencies to set energy and water efficiency standards for many new products. These measures conserve resources and save consumers a lot of money. Until recently, they had bipartisan support.

But President Trump has turned efficiency standards into symbols of intrusive government. His administration has opposed many of these rules, including standards for light bulbs, commercial boilers, portable air conditioners and low-flow toilets. His latest target: showerheads.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992, passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Republican President George H.W. Bush, set the maximum flow rate for showers at 2.5 gallons per minute. Now the Trump administration has increased that rate, which Trump calls inadequate to wash his “beautiful hair.”

It may sound funny, but it’s not. As someone who writes and teaches about water law and policy, I know that the U.S. water supply is finite and exhaustible. Most Americans take water for granted, but as population growth and climate change exacerbate water shortages, experts increasingly argue that water policy should promote conservation.

EPA graphic describing water and energy savings from efficient showerheads.

The Trump administration is rolling back a regulation that has spurred manufacturers to produce high-efficiency showerheads. EPA

When is a showerhead not a showerhead?

On Aug. 13, 2020, the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the existing standard for showerheads. The document’s definition of showerheads exemplified the byzantine logic behind this policy shift.

For example, it provided three images of fixtures with between three and eight heads attached to a single pipe coming out of the wall. So long as none of the individual heads had a flow greater than 2.5 gallons per minute, the measure asserted that each fixture satisfied Congress’ quest for water and energy conservation.

Images of shower outlets with multiple heads.

Under the Trump administration’s rule, each of these fixtures can produce up to 2.5 gallons of water per minute from each separate nozzle. Prior law limited the entire device to 2.5 gallons per minute. DOE

How can the Energy Department allow shower fixtures with as many as eight heads, each emitting 2.5 gallons per minute? For context, Webster’s dictionary defines a showerhead as a “fixture for directing the spray of water in a bathroom shower.”

But the Trump rule interpreted “showerhead” to mean “an accessory to a supply fitting for spraying water onto a bather.” With this sleight of hand, a congressional rule limiting showerhead flows can be deftly avoided by installing a hydra-headed fixture with multiple “showerheads,” each flowing at 2.5 gallons per minute.

Vertical column with seven nozzles.

The new rule classifies this device as a ‘body spray,’ not a showerhead. DOE

The agency also released a fourth image of a wall fixture with seven nozzles, which the new rule would not subject to the 2.5 gallons per minute maximum. The Energy Department deemed these fixtures a “body spray” rather than a showerhead because they are “usually located” below the bather’s head. (Of course, the person showering may be short, or the plumber may install the fixture high on the shower wall.) Body sprays may have six or eight nozzles with no flow limits.

The sad part of this foolishness is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense program, which identifies water-efficient projects and promotes water conservation, has been spectacularly successful, at virtually no cost to consumers or the regulated community. Showers constitute 17% of residential water use. That’s 40 gallons per day for the average family, or 1.2 trillion gallons annually in the United States.

WaterSense fixtures and appliances have saved Americans more than 4.4 trillion gallons of water and US$87 billion in water and energy expenses since the program began in 2006. Low-water-use fixtures – including showerheads, toilets and washing machines – are now the accepted norm across the United States.

Some early products, such as the first high-efficiency toilets, had some hiccups. But that was 20 years ago. Today, notwithstanding President Trump’s declaration that “people are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once,” consumers embrace low water-use fixtures because they work well, save money and reduce water and energy consumption.

Tapped out

Today the United States faces serious water problems. Georgia and Florida are fighting a prolonged battle over flows in the Apalachicola River, which the two states share. Excessive groundwater pumping is causing water levels in wells to plummet and springs to dry up. As I explain in my book, “Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What To Do About It,” farmers are competing with cities for water.

COVID-19 has helped to make the affordability of water a national issue. Some rural areas, such as the Navajo Nation, where many people need to haul water to their homes and villages, have higher rates of coronavirus infection. People who have lost their jobs find themselves unable to pay their water bills, which in turn compromises the financial stability of water providers.

More than 2 million Americans don’t have running water in their homes, according to a 2019 report.

Allowing showers to use more water will have several unfortunate consequences for cities across the country. It will increase the amount of water cities must treat; raise the chances of raw sewage overflows at water treatment plants – especially in cities such as Washington, D.C. that combine storm and sewer water; and increase the amount of energy used to pump and treat water.

Disrupting low-flow fixture rules will create special hardships for western cities, such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas, that have struggled with water shortages for decades. Both cities remarkably reduced their total water use between the 1980s and 2020, despite rapid population growth, partly by converting residences to low water-use fixtures.

Water is not just another natural resource. Without it our bodies cease to function, our crops dry up, and our economy grinds to a halt. We can’t make any more water, so it makes sense to use the water we have wisely.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on September 1, 2020.

Robert Glennon, Regents Professor and Morris K. Udall Professor of Law & Public Policy, University of Arizona

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

How to outsmart your COVID-19 fears and boost your mood in 2021

After a year of toxic stress ignited by so much fear and uncertainty, now is a good time to reset, pay attention to your mental health and develop some healthy ways to manage the pressures going forward.

Brain science has led to some drug-free techniques that you can put to use right now.

I am health psychologist who developed a method that harnesses our rip-roaring emotions to rapidly switch off stress and activate positive emotions instead. This technique from emotional brain training is not perfect for everyone, but it can help many people break free of stress when they get stuck on negative thoughts.

Why the stress response is so hard to turn off

Three key things make it hard to turn off stress-activated negative emotions:

  • First, our genes make us worrywarts. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors survived by assuming every rustle in the grasses was a lurking hungry lion, not harmless birds hunting for seeds. We’re essentially programmed to be hyperaware of threats, and our brains rapidly launch stress chemicals and negative emotions in response.
  • Second, the chemical cascade of stress hormones in the brain associated with negative emotions impairs cognitive flexibility, goal-directed behavior and self-control.
  • Third, our tendency to avoid dealing with negative emotions puts people in a perpetual cycle of ignoring unpleasant feelings, which amplifies stress and the risk of emotional health problems.

Brain illustration

Thought vs. emotion in the brain. Laurel Mellin, CC BY-ND

Traditional approaches for coping with stress were based on cognitive-behavioral therapy, which focuses on modifying patterns of thinking and behavior. It was developed before our modern understanding of stress overload.

Researchers at New York University discovered a paradox: Although cognitive methods were effective in low-stress situations, they were less effective when dealing with the high stress of modern life.

Emotional brain training works with these high-stress emotions in an effort to tame them, releasing negative emotions as the first of two steps in preventing stress overload.

Step 1: Release negative emotions

The only negative emotion in the brain that supports taking action rather than avoidance and passivity is anger.

Studies have shown that the suppression of anger is associated with depression and that suppressing anger doesn’t reduce the emotion. Healthy release of anger instead has been found to reduce other stress-related health risks.

Our technique is to switch off stress overload by using a controlled burst of anger to help the brain exert better emotional control and allow emotions to flow rather than become chronic and toxic. After that first short burst, other feelings can flow, starting with sadness to grieve the loss of safety, then fear and regret, or what we would do differently next time.

You can talk yourself through the stages. To experiment with the process, use these simple phrases to express the negative feelings and release your stress: “I feel angry that . . .”; “I feel sad that . . .”; “I feel afraid that . . .”; and “I feel guilty that . . .”

Step 2. Express positive emotions

After releasing negative emotions, positive emotions can naturally arise. Express these feelings using the same approach: “I feel grateful that . . .”; “I feel happy that . . .”; “I feel secure that . . .”; and “I feel proud that . . .”

Your mindset can quickly change, a phenomenon that has many potential explanations. One explanation is that in positive states, your brain’s neural circuits that store memories from when you were in the same positive state in the past can be spontaneously activated. Another is that the switch from negative to positive emotions quiets your sympathetic nervous system — which triggers the fight-or-flight response — and activates the parasympathetic system, which acts more like a brake on strong emotions.

Here’s what the whole stress relief process might look like like for me right now:

  • I feel angry that we’re all isolated and I can’t see my new grandson Henry.
  • I hate it that everything is so messed up! I HATE THAT!!!
  • I feel sad that I am alone right now.
  • I feel afraid that this will never end.
  • I feel guilty that I am complaining!
  • I am lucky to be alive and have shelter and love in my life.

Then the positive:

  • I feel grateful that my daughter-in-law sends me photos of Henry.
  • I feel happy that my husband and I laughed together this morning.
  • I feel secure that this will eventually pass.
  • I feel proud that I am doing the best I can to cope.

After a daunting year, and with more challenges ahead in 2021, upgrading your approach to emotions can be a drug-free mood booster. Our COVID-19 fears need not consume us. We can outsmart the brain’s fear response and find moments that sparkle with promise.

Laurel Mellin, Associate Professor Emeritus of Family & Community Medicine and Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco

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

Brexit deal done: What’s in it and where next for the UK and EU?

To misquote Shakespeare, our Brexit negotiating revels now are ended. The tempestuous talks did not lead to a dramatic walkout, even if at times the U.K. government gave the impression this was a feud worthy of the Montagues against the Capulets. The negotiators ignored the background noise and succeeded in drafting a dense legal document on which the future of U.K.-EU relations now hangs.

How the deal came together

The U.K. was adamant throughout the negotiations that it be treated as a sovereign equal of the EU and have its independence respected. This was particularly important when it came to fishing rights — one of the last issues to be resolved.

There were always two problems with this argument. Firstly, as explained by the Spanish foreign minister — a veteran trade negotiator — a trade agreement is designed to establish interdependence rather than being an exercise in asserting independence.

Secondly, the EU is simply a bigger beast economically speaking than the U.K. This meant Brussels was confident it could weather the disruption of a no-deal separation better than the U.K. By refusing to extend the transition period despite the pandemic, prime minister Boris Johnson ensured both parties faced the same time pressure. But they did not face the same level of risk if no agreement was reached. Hence the real ringmaster of the Brexit deal was Father Time, not Johnson or Angela Merkel, as U.K. newspapers often reported.

Nevertheless, it looks like the U.K. government will claim victory by arguing that it is now able to escape the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice while getting tariff and quota-free access for goods exported to the EU. In a statement immediately following the announcement of the deal, the U.K. government did just that:

The deal . . .  guarantees that we are no longer in the lunar pull of the EU, we are not bound by EU rules, there is no role for the European Court of Justice and all of our key red lines about returning sovereignty have been achieved. It means that we will have full political and economic independence on 1st January 2021.

The reality though — as with everything Brexit-related since 2016 — is far more complex.

In the deal

Johnson’s negotiator David Frost liked to argue that the U.K. just wanted a standard free-trade deal like that between Canada and the EU. In reality, the U.K. was asking for extras, such as mutual recognition of conformity assessment for goods and mutual recognition of professional qualifications. The EU does not appear to have budged on those.

Brussels was also adamant that the deal required legal guarantees to prevent the U.K. from undercutting the single market by using its new regulatory autonomy to lower environmental standards or employment rights. Johnson agreed in principle to this level playing field idea in the political declaration that accompanied the 2019 withdrawal agreement he got through parliament. Then, later in negotiations, he tried to renege on this pledge. In the end he u-turned again. The deal states that divergence from EU standards would lead to potentially restricted access to the single market.

In a press conference on the deal, Johnson reassured “fish fanatics” there would be plenty for their dinner plates, but the deal means that for the next five and a half years EU-based vessels will continue to enjoy significant access to British waters, during the transition to a final arrangement.

It’s clear that free movement of people has ended, while goods will face customs and regulatory checks. Transport chaos around the port at Dover is therefore still a distinct possibility after Jan. 1 if exporters fail to have the proper paperwork to cross the Channel. Given they have not done this in a generation, there are bound to be difficulties. EU-based hauliers might also opt for caution and in the short–term avoid the risk of getting their lorries stuck in the U.K. The U.K. will also leave the Erasmus higher education exchange programme, which will come as a blow to many students — although the U.K. now plans to launch its own “Turing” scheme to offer placements at universities around the world.

Much less clear is the future of the U.K.’s key export industry: financial services. Outside the single market, the City of London relies on the EU to grant permission to service EU-based clients and sell them banking, accounting, and associated legal products. This “equivalence” arrangement is reviewed on an ongoing basis, depending on the U.K. approach to financial regulation and data protection. That puts the sector on a much less firm footing than, say, manufacturing.

Selling the deal

The dance is over but now comes the hard sell. Credit claiming and blame avoidance will be the twin priorities for the U.K. government. Johnson is bound to play up the sovereignty angle by highlighting the ability to avoid the intrusion of EU law.

The blame game is where things are likely to get more interesting. This is because the deal requires a constant dialogue with the EU over things that can affect the terms of the agreement, such as government subsidies. This is the position Switzerland constantly finds itself in. The Brexit deal requires both sides to submit to a general review after four years to make sure both sides are meeting the requirements. Hard eurosceptic Conservative backbenchers, who pushed for a no deal, may see this as a concession too far.

What can Boris Johnson do to overcome internal opposition? His parliamentary majority is sufficient to overcome anything short of a major revolt. But his strongest card might be to simply shift the blame to his predecessor, Theresa May, for triggering Brexit without a plan. Meanwhile, Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted immediately after the deal was announced that “no deal that will ever make up for what Brexit takes away from us. It’s time to chart our own future as an independent, European nation.” So, while one episode in this long drama may be drawing to a close, it seems that others, relating to the very future of the U.K., are far from over.

Andrew Glencross, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, Aston University

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

Best of 2020: My houseplant garden is a tiny national park Donald Trump can never destroy

I write this from a rented cabin in rural Montana; it is February and the snow falls quietly, constantly. A hope philodendron stands in the window of the loft bedroom, the largest and healthiest I have ever seen in real life, almost five feet tall. The leaves are long, rippled hands grasping at an invisible sun, so enormous that they seem almost alien. The plant is beautiful, but it is more than that: its presence here in Montana, in the middle of winter, feels incongruous, inexplicable, and therefore magical. The hope philodendron, or Philodendron bipinnatifidum, is native to the hot, damp rainforests of South America, not to the cold, dry mountains of Montana. It is warm in the cabin, thanks to the wood-burning stove, but it is far from equatorial and anything but humid. I am reminded of the cliché “bloom where you are planted” that I’ve seen emblazoned on kitschy wooden signs in garden stores and I can’t help but see the philodendron as both a miracle and a metaphor.

In Donald Trump’s America, where we wake up to a new assault on human rights, the environment, and the constitution every day, the simple fact that a rainforest plant can still grow beautiful and strong in the middle of winter becomes soaked with meaning. In the strange, hallucinogenic days after Trump’s inauguration, it was something of a shock that life went on. And in the midst of the daily catastrophes since then, life has continued to go on for those of us privileged enough to escape experiencing firsthand the effects of his harmful policies. We have kept about the business of growing our small lives, maintaining our small universes, reaching for the light, rooting into parched, hardened earth. The world is on fire, but we tend to the small infernos of our personal realities because most of us can do little about global warming or the children in cages at the border. We can renounce single-use plastics, we can donate to or even canvass for our representatives, we can rant about the world on social media, we can march, but these actions seem to do little to tip the scales in favor of human decency. We are powerless.

A few years ago, the hope philodendron in the cabin in Montana where I have come to escape the world would be nothing more than a well-placed item of decor to me. I fell in love with houseplants recently, along with many of my generation. Thirty-seven percent of millennials grow plants indoors, and they made up eighty percent of the five million people who took up gardening in 2015. Many have offered valid reasons for this: Jazmine Hughes wrote in the New York Times of houseplants as “fertile ground” for practicing adulting, even for finding yourself. Plants are inherently photogenic, and therefore fruitful fodder for social media posts. They have become symbols that we are on top of everything, that we are grown up, that we can keep something alive, that we care about our homes and our health, that we are going to be alright. There is also the high concentration of millennial populations in urban areas, where lives carved out of windowless shoebox apartments provide little opportunity for exposure to nature, which no doubt drives some of the attraction to houseplants. There is also the well-documented millennial obsession with wellness and self-improvement and the emerging science proving the benefits of growing plants on mental health.

These are all legitimate reasons, but the hope philodendron in the cold Montana window whispers another truth. It holds a lesson within the tumescent cells of its graceful leaves and thick stems, secrets in its soil. I think of the final scene of Voltaire’s “Candide,” where Candide has ended his philosophical quest at the home of Martin, a farmer who prides himself on a simple life free from vice. Candide’s philosopher companion Pangloss offers an analysis of their odyssey, and Candide responds, “All that is very well, but we must cultivate our gardens.”

Does the hope philodendron know anything of the impeachment trial, of the national monuments in Utah sold off for drilling rights, of the children in cages at the border?

Sometimes, it can feel surprising that any beauty still exists in the world. It can feel wrong to keep cultivating our gardens while the world shatters outside our windows.

I begin each day by taking a mental inventory of whatever horrors Trump has committed since I have been asleep, scrolling through news outlets and social media on my iPhone, even though I know that this probably bad for my mental health. There is evidence that Trump’s presidency has had a negative effect on the mental health of many Democrats, with 72% of those surveyed in one study reporting an increase in anxiety since he has taken office. Sometimes, it’s enough to make me not want to get out of bed. But then I remember my plants.

I have acquired a collection since I first got into houseplants: ten or so succulent cuttings I propagated from my parents’ garden, a proud elephant ear, a stalwart marble queen pothos, a curly variegated spider plant that looks like a bad wig, an adorable variegated string of hearts, a tiny ruby cascade like a bowl of jewels. After reading the news, it is time to attend to my indoor garden, to do the work of keeping my plants alive: the trimming and the watering and the fertilizing. This work is meditation, a way of going on.

My mother told me recently that the only other time in her life when houseplants were this popular was the 1970s. The 1970s saw one of the few other presidential impeachments, as well as economic and cultural upheaval and bloodshed. Young men were sent to die in a war they didn’t believe in, and young women were raped and murdered on silent two-lane highways. Control was hard to come by, power even harder.

My houseplant garden is a tiny national park that Donald Trump can never destroy.

In times of rapid change, destruction and sadness, small things become symbols, microcosms. The home, a nation unto itself, falls easily into the pitfalls of synecdoche. I grew up thinking that a messy home meant a messy mind, a messy life. So often I saw my own failures at housekeeping as a symbol for my failures to get my life together after graduate school. I would be damned if my home took on the state of my broken country. When nowhere feels safe, Maslow’s hierarchy is reorganized and the need for a sanctuary is like food or water or the air we breathe.

* * *

I can do little to change the world, but I can keep most houseplants alive. In my home, I am president, I am god. I wield the power of the thermostat, the humidifier, the suns and moons of my home. I provide the earth beneath my plants. I bring the rains in my watering can. In my home, I have control. I may not be able to save the world from Donald Trump, but I can save my plants from scourges like root rot and spider mites.

Keeping my small, green children alive fills me up after I am emptied by the morning’s news. Like many Democrats, I suffer from bouts of Donald Trump Stress Disorder. There is significant evidence that owning houseplants, and more than that, engaging in the tasks of nurturing plants, has profound benefits for mental health. Exposure to houseplants can be a stand-in for exposure to nature, and numerous studies have noted that respondents reported higher levels of calm and well-being after spending time with plants. Proponents of “earthing,” or skin-to-skin contact with soil argue that this practice reduces anxiety. Touch is often required to take care of plants — the plunging of a finger into soil to ascertain moisture levels, for example, and while there may be scant scientific evidence of the benefits of earthing, I can anecdotally confirm that this contact with foliage and dirt brings me a new kind of peaceful awareness.

Writer and scholar bell hooks famously wrote of “touching the earth” as a means for connecting with her ancestors, for healing from oppression, for correcting the “estrangement between mind and body” that was symptomatic of the Great Migration. As much as the rich soil of the South fed the enslavement of black people and sustained the bloody business of sharecropping, she argues that a return to working the earth is a return to the primordial work of her people before slavery, before generations of pain.

All of us are descended from plant workers. It was the cultivation of plants that turned hunter-gatherers into civilizations. As a white woman, I do not have trauma typed into my DNA. But there is something about growing my plants that just feels right and natural, a return to a purpose more ancient than trees. I research the care of every plant I own, I measure moisture levels with a meter. But it is instinct that drives my hand toward the watering can, or repositions a particular plant to get more sun — a reliance on wisdom that feels more hard-wired, collective, prehistoric than Google-gleaned. There is relief, intoxication, even temporary salvation in this kind of brainwork that so differs from the frontal lobe activities that dominate the rest of my day.

The repetitive, tactile nature of the work of plant care becomes a meditation. The Buddhist creators of Zen gardens in the sixth century knew this. Zen gardens were set up as places for meditation, but nirvana can also be found in the daily tasks of maintenance. As someone who struggles to meditate in the traditional sense, I can fully inhabit the present moment while taking care of my plants in a way that usually escapes my tangled mind that too often insists on rumination. When I water and prune and pluck and plant in the silence of the morning, there is only the feeling of the soil at my fingertips, only the green foliage in my mind’s eye, and my worries are contained to the small pots I care for.

I have spent hours staring at the hope philodendron, grazing my fingers along its tendrils, awestruck as a child. Environmental psychologist Stephen Kaplan identified “fascination” or “involuntary attention” as the driving force behind the human desire to commune with nature. The same force motivates us to care for plants. The hallmark of this fascination is its depth.

Before I became a plant person, I used to walk by plants without even noticing them. They were mere aesthetic items to me, only slightly more alive than the dirt they sat in. Like many of the non-plant loving foil characters in Richard Power’s tree-obsessed epic “The Overstory,” I suffered from the uniquely homo sapien blindness to that which is not like me, not human. I scorned photographs of plants posted on Facebook as trite and basic. Donald Trump wasn’t president then, and I was still in graduate school, and maybe there just wasn’t as much to be saved from.

After my conversion, I observed the painted leaves of my prayer plant for hours, sure I could see them slowly lifting towards the heavens. This level of fascination blocks any competing thoughts or worries from bubbling to the surface and allows for a quiet focus that not only ameliorates anxiety but benefits us cognitively as well.

No longer blind, we come to see ourselves in our plants. The thriving philodendron feels like a prophecy. In its success in less than ideal circumstances, its insistence on growing beautiful and strong, in defying winter, there is hope.

Mathew Page, a psychiatric nurse and proponent of ecotherapy, wrote that “hope is intrinsic to gardening.” It is impossible to grow a plant without possessing some hope that it will thrive, that you can keep it alive through your nurturing. No one plants a seed without imagining that lush beauty, that life itself, will emerge from it.

Plants respond to every action we take on them. They are delicate, thrown easily into fits of illness or even untimely deaths with overwatering, or using non-distilled water, or the wrong levels of sunlight. Calatheas, or prayer plants, actually move their leaves up and down in response to the levels of light. Horticultural therapist Jeff McDonald observed that the responsiveness of the plants we care for reinforces our sense of personal agency. In their flourishing and floundering, they convince us of our long-forgotten power.

In Donald Trump’s America, hope is hard to come by. So is power. The speed at which the environment is deteriorating, at which our citizens are stripped of their fundamental rights, at which democracy is dismantled piece by piece, often makes it seem like any small act of resistance we are able to take will do nothing to tip the scales. It is easy to slip into defeatist pessimism in this kind of political environment, but houseplants require us to be optimists.

Maybe, if the plants are OK, then I will be OK, and the country will be OK. It’s flawed, messy deduction, but I’d be lying if I said that my journey in houseplant ownership hasn’t made me more of an optimist. If we believe that growing a hope philodendron in the middle of winter in Montana is possible, it becomes possible. Had the owner of this cabin thought the task futile, he would have never planted it there, and it would have never found its strength in the dry cold of the mountains. So too must we believe that change is possible if we want to have any hope of righting the wrongs of the Trump administration.

Possessing hope of any kind comes with the risk of losing that hope. What do we do when the hope born from a plant we fussed over like a child is dashed by that plant’s death? This past winter, I killed my beloved calathea by overwatering, the blight of the obsessive mind. The calathea was the object of my adoration, so much so that I named him Jeffrey Garten, because I pampered him with carefully distilled water and expensive fertilizer, much like the Barefoot Contessa feeds her Jeffrey his lemon bars made only from the finest organic curd. My obsession with Jeffrey’s caretaking rotted his roots into a viscous black soup. He stopped worshipping the sun, his leaves turning brown and crisp at the edges, and then yellow, his stems oozing dark oil from bruised wounds until I amputated them with a sterilized blade. He reeked of small death, like a dirty refrigerator. 

There was little hope that day as I ripped Jeffrey’s carcass from his pot and hurled him into the snow outside. Having spent a lifetime imbuing small things with life-and-death significance, I wasn’t surprised that Jeffrey’s death quickly festered into a metaphor for both my personal failures and the destruction of America under Donald Trump. Nothing was right with the world for a few moments. But the feeling quickly passed, even though in the past, it has taken years of therapy for me to disentangle myself from devastating symbology.

As much as hope is intrinsic to gardening, so too is knowledge of the impermanence of all things. The Buddhists know this well, as do the best gardeners. Death is as much a reality of plant life as it is of human life. As Ann Patchett noted in her essay “Tennessee,” plant life, like human life, is in “a constant state of revision.” We are all — plant, animal, human— either growing or dying, or doing both simultaneously. I replaced the dead plants, and found myself hopeful again. It felt like the natural course of things, in the end.

America is also in a constant state of revision. Our constitution was set up to adapt, to grow and change like something living and breathing. Even though we may detest the most recent round of edits, and Trump’s environmental policies, in particular, will cause lasting damage that may be unfixable, the changing face of our nation reminds us that it is still and always will be changeable, and there is just the tiniest shred of hope in this.

Before Donald Trump was president, I didn’t love plants.

I think I got into plants initially because it seemed like something an adult would do. Houseplants were to me like the proverbial bowl of lemons on the table, totems of adulthood, of having one’s shit together. But they quickly became more than just items of decor to me. The metaphor evolved. I became obsessed. The divine state of fascination came upon me quickly, like a cloud of narcotic exaltation.  

I have remained obsessed with plants because they make me feel good. They convince me of my own strength and the strength of others, the strength of a nation. The hope philodendron murmurs that somehow, I will learn to thrive as it has. That the seemingly endless winter of Donald Trump’s presidency will eventually give way to spring. And it tells me that I must keep going, keep cultivating the gardens that fill me and feed me, even when it feels like the world is ending. There is some salvation in surrendering to the small tasks of keeping a houseplant alive. At least it’s a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

New year, higher minimum wages in 24 states and 50 municipalities thanks to Fight for $15

2020 was a devastating year for underpaid frontline workers.

But even in the face of public health and economic crises triggered by Covid-19, the Fight for $15 movement persisted, and now 24 states and 50 municipalities throughout the U.S. are set to raise minimum wages in 2021.

On New Year’s Day, 20 states and 32 cities will increase their minimum wage, with the wage floor in 27 of those jurisdictions reaching or exceeding $15 per hour. The January 1 raises will be followed by another round of wage floor hikes later in 2021, when four additional states and 18 localities will increase their minimum wage, 13 of them to at least $15 per hour.

That’s according to a new report, Raises From Coast to Coast in 2021 (pdf), released Thursday by the National Employment Law Project (NELP), which monitors worker remuneration and advocates for higher minimum wages nationwide.

“Despite the pandemic, the Fight for $15 movement continues to gain strength, with more cities and states than ever before raising their wage floors, including dozens of local jurisdictions raising wages to $15 or more,” said Yannet Lathrop, senior researcher and policy analyst with NELP and author of the report.

Since 2012, when fast-food workers at a McDonald’s in New York City launched the first Fight for $15 and a Union protest and strike, “the movement to raise wages has gained major traction, amassing a series of victories that have yielded more than $68 billion in raises for workers nationwide,” according to NELP. “These raises are the result of years of advocacy by frontline workers, who fought for and won these wage increases by going on strikes, organizing their coworkers and communities, and demanding to be heard by their elected officials.”

“These increases are a testament to the power of workers coming together and fighting for what real people and families need,” said Lathrop. She added that while “the victories this movement has amassed are mounmental… the work of winning higher wages is far from over.”

Twenty states remain “stuck at the federal floor of $7.25 per hour—with state legislators who refuse to hear their constituents’ pleas,” Lathrop said. “Meanwhile, Congress has refused to raise the federal minimum wage for more than 10 years.”

Lathrop told USA Today that “all workers should be able to make ends meet. They’re not earning enough, especially when they’re exposing themselves to a deadly virus,” as frontline employees in healthcare, food service, and other essential industries have been doing for months.

All low-income workers benefit from minimum wage increases, and workers of color, who are overrepresented in poorly paid jobs, benefit disproportionately, noted NELP.

The worker advocacy organization explained how “occupational segregation” has contributed to the racialization of inequality, evident throughout the coronavirus crisis. “Black and brown workers, who continue to face systemic barriers to higher-paying occupations” have historically been pushed “into the lowest-paying jobs with the least protections,” and these labor market dynamics have worsened “yawning wage and wealth gaps.”

According to research (pdf) by UC Berkeley scholars Ellora Derenoncourt and Claire Montialoux, raising the minimum wage helps narrow the earnings gap between white and nonwhite workers. Citing its capacity to reduce racial economic inequality, the pair has described minimum wage policy “a remarkably effective tool for racial justice.”

Along the same lines, political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. has also written that in a society characterized by the intensifying concentration of economic power at the top, policies that redistribute income downward can contribute most effectively to reducing wealth inequality across the board, which “not only would benefit all working- and middle-class Americans but also would be especially beneficial to African Americans hoping at long last to overcome the economic legacies of discrimination.”

Lathrop, in her statement, noted that “as the cost of living and inequality continue to rise, it’s become clear that the wage floor needs to move above $15. Policymakers at the state and local levels can respond by adopting wage floors that move beyond a bare minimum and come closer to a living wage.”

Despite strong opposition from business groups, workers in dozens of cities, counties, and states will benefit from higher wages beginning Friday. While states like Florida are on pace to reach a $15 minimum wage by 2026, NELP is advocating for action to be taken at the national level.

“We call on the incoming Biden-Harris administration and Congress to really listen and respond to workers’ demands,” Lathrop concluded. “We are counting on Biden-Harris to deliver a just recovery from this Covid crisis—including finally passing a federal wage floor of $15 or higher.”

Salon Food’s top 10 recipes of 2020 all have one thing in common: comfort

Salon launched Salon Food in 2019. How much can change in a year? In a nutshell, everything.

Including our relationship with food. Together, the Salon Food editorial team and our readers turned to baking our way through survival. For us, food provided certainty in an otherwise uncertain world. 

Salon’s own Ashlie Stevens captured our return to the kitchen early on in the pandemic. It was back to the basics, including bread making: 

I ask a friend who has picked up baking again since working from home about why she’s turning to it now. She gives an answer that is consistent with what other people have told me, and with what I feel. What we lack in stability right now, we have in extra time. While we may desire more certainty about the world around us, we can at least be nurtured by the belief that we’ll be eating dinner at home tomorrow night. 

“So the effort and the time won’t go to waste,” she says. 

Right now, we’re baking to remind ourselves that there are things to look forward to — we’re baking our way through survival. 

Salon Food readers again found solace in the dessert makeovers of our resident pastry chef Meghan McGarry, whose Spiked Apple Crisp Cheesecake Bars finished as our third most popular recipe of 2019. As we baked more than ever before, we turned to McGarry’s reinventions of classics time and time again like her smash-hit Meyer Lemon Blueberry Loaf.

At the same time, we warmly welcomed Salon’s own Mary Elizabeth Williams to the Salon Food fold. Williams took us along for the ride of her year of obsessive, indifferent baking. It included low-ingredient recipes that don’t sacrifice on flavor, such as Two-Ingredient Brownies, Three-Ingredient Peanut Butter Cookies, and Three-Ingredient Frozen Yogurt. Williams reflected on her journey earlier this month:

For me, cooking is now equal parts tyranny and therapy. It’s obligation and expression. Whatever it was I needed this year, I knew I couldn’t just buy it all wrapped up and ready to go. I also knew I couldn’t be that person with the Instagram perfect focaccia. So I’ve searched to find my place in the liminal space, settling somewhere that our Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s ex-girlfriend Sandra Lee somewhat infamously calls “semi-homemade.” I’ve embraced the messy half-assedness of it all, the work shirt on top and sweatpants on the bottom approach which encapsulates this entire year of doing our best and lowering the bar.

But even as our readers doubled down on desserts, which overwhelmingly round out our top 10 recipes of the year, the theme of our top recipes remained unchanged from 2019: Our readers love comfort. Look no further than Steven’s own DIY version of Taco Bell’s discontinued Mexican Pizza, which is keeping fans of the iconic fast-food menu item satisfied. 

Speaking of pizza, a classic Italian recipe ended up on our list for the second year in a row. Last year, Salon Food readers found comfort in Michael Symon’s adaption of his Mom’s Lasagna. This time, it was Ragù alla Bolognese from chef Lidia Bastianich

As another successful year comes to a close, it’s time to pause for a moment to look back at the recipes our readers read the most:

1. These two-ingredient brownies are one baking hack that doesn’t sacrifice on flavor 

You heard us right: Two-Ingredient Brownies. More specifically, you need eggs and Nutella to whip up this easy recipe from Williams. Here’s the important thing: Done correctly, this is not some chocolate omelette, some tragic struggle brownie. This is not a brownie you stumble drunk into the kitchen and make because you’ve overridden your facility for choosing ingredients. This is a very good brownie. Right now, you deserve it.

2. You can bake this quick loaf with ingredients on hand in your pantry, because substitutions are easy

Salon Food asked McGarry about the recipe that kept her baking through it. She shared her Meyer Lemon Blueberry Loaf, a versatile quick loaf you can easily make from the ingredients already on hand in your pantry, plus possible substitutions for missing items just in case. 

“This is a recipe I return to time and time again,” McGarry said. “It’s not a trend. It’s not an involved project that takes a whole day. It’s simple, and it’s good.”

This loaf is super adaptable, and not only in terms of ingredients. It’s a multi-functional crowd pleaser that’s great for breakfast with a cup of coffee, in the afternoon with tea or as a snack all on its own. Eat half of this loaf and freeze the rest, or double the recipe and freeze an entire loaf for a day when the therapist isn’t in session. 

3. Taco Bell is ditching the Mexican Pizza soon, but here’s an easy homemade recipe

In a Sept. 3 press release, Taco Bell announced that it would be discontinuing some of its most beloved items, including the iconic Mexican Pizza. Even though the fast-food chain discontinued the iconic menu item, you can still make a DIY-version at home thanks to Stevens. It’s simple and probably healthier than what you’d get in the drive-through (but don’t let that stop you from slathering it with any lingering packets of Taco Bell Fire Sauce you have stashed in your kitchen). 

4. These three-ingredient peanut butter cookies are hands-down the best cookies in the world

You can make these Three-Ingredient Peanut Butter Cookies from stuff you have in your kitchen right now and eat them within half an hour of getting a notion to bake something. What you’ll wind up with are the sort of elevated treats hungry Manhattanites used to pay good money for, but with an undeniably homey touch. They are luscious when sprinkled with a bit of sea salt, but Williams encourages you to restrain yourself here from adding a lot of modifications and additions. Just let them be, plain and simple. Bake these when you depleted and tired and need a bit of sweetness and comfort, and let them make you feel cared for and a little more fortified.

5. This addictive soft-serve ice cream has only three ingredients, one of which is optional

Let us put it this way: You could be eating something really delicious (Three-Ingredient Frozen Yogurt) and relatively soon without feeling like you’ve been spiritually broken by a small kitchen appliance. You could even be a person who uses their ice cream maker. As with almost any minimalist recipe, ingredients and technique matter. Don’t even think about doing this with anything other than full-fat Greek yogurt or thick, well-strained regular yogurt.

6. Depression cake is the all-star chocolate cake you can make with pantry staples

Because of its austere ingredient list, Depression Cake is also vegan and egg-allergy friendly. You can dollop it with sweetened whipped cream, chocolate ganache, jam (very sophisticated) or just a puff of confectioner’s sugar. It’s even perfect entirely unadorned. What comes out of your oven will be so good, you won’t need an excuse to make it. We encourage you to bake one tonight, for yourself and whomever else is under your roof. And when you dig in, celebrate all those who’ve come through lean and sad times before us. Who still never stopped baking. Who never stopped finding clever ways to share, to celebrate and to create sweetness.

7. These cozy apple crisp bars redefine a classic fall dessert

This is the traditional fruit crisp you know and love, except once again in bar form. These bars from McGarry are three layers of fall bliss, each of which magnifies the flavor of the apples as they bake. Yes, this technically is a dessert. But you can have a little piece for breakfast or a square for a snack. It’s totally acceptable to eat dessert all day if it’s in bar form, right? While these bars taste perfect on their own, they’re also excellent served warm with a scoop of ice cream or dollop of fresh whipped cream on top. 

8. This four-ingredient chocolate fridge cake is fit for a king, and no baking is required

Guess what Prince William had as his groom’s cake when he married the former Kate Middleton? Any way you make it, it’s the contrast — along with the fact that it is legitimately delectable — that always makes fridge cake a winner. It’s velvety and crumbly. It’s salty and sweet. It’s a snack whose main ingredients you can pick up at the checkout aisle and a cake that’s truly fit for a king.

9. How to make an excellent bolognese sauce, revealed

When Bastianich appeared on “Salon Talks,” she also revealed the secret to elevating bolognese at home. Salon Food readers went wild over her recipe for the perfect homemade sauce, every time. Bastianich recommends serving your pasta with grated Grana Padano in a bowl for the dinner table.

The question of a good bolognese is the steps: the onions, the soffriggere, the little bit of carrots, little bay leaves, rosemary, cloves and so on down the line. You build the layers. And the slow cooking — two and a half hours, three hours for a good bolognese until the meat has sort of given all. And you’ll have this kind of velvety sauce and these morsels of delicious meat. That used to be Sunday for us, and it was delicious.

10. This nostalgic apple crumb cake is the ultimate no-fuss dessert to bake at home

Cinnamon, ground cloves, light brown sugar and freshly-grated nutmeg work together to create a depth of warmth and flavor. This is another cozy apple bake from McGarry, and it’s guaranteed to deliver a satisfying crumb every single time. You’ll want to bake it immediately, but also file it away to make again for years to come. This crumb cake makes for a good brunch bake or Sunday bake. It’s not too sweet, because McGarry allows the fruit to shine. If you’re serving it after dinner, you may want to add a scoop of ice cream or a dollop of fresh whipped cream for a little à la mode journey.

Wait, that happened this year? A reminder of the TV events that 2020 erased from our memories

Quick, can you remember who won Best Picture at the 2020 Oscars?

If not, no one will blame you. The memory-wiping experience of 2020 actually had a neurological explanation. 

The end of every year necessitates a survey of all that happened, but this year the view is heavily obstructed with detritus and horror. Poisonous political corruption dominated the conversation as the year began with tensions surrounding impeachment. Yet much of that is a dim memory all but whited out by the pandemic’s onset and the never-ending agita associated with it.

It goes without saying that 2020 is a year most of us would rather forget. And yet, there are many things that we should remember because they mark real cultural shifts.

Still other entertainment industry developments should be remembered for what they gifted to viewers, or the demonstrative hubris they exemplify, or any number of reasons. Such a list could go on forever, but since I lack the memory, time and energy to create an exhaustive accounting of the forgotten or barely remembered in television, here are five things – several of them good! – that happened in 2020.

Quibi arrived…and departed, quite dearly. Arguably, one isn’t obligated to remember something they probably never knew much about in the first place, but here’s a fine example of an obscenely funded concept that marketed itself as a game changer. To be fair it arrived in the midst of a massive evolution in the media landscape catalyzed by the streaming content wars that began escalating in late 2019 when Disney+ and Apple TV+ debuted, joining Hulu, Netflix and Amazon. But hit full fury this year with the arrivals of HBO Max, flexing the full force of the Warner Bros. library, and to a lesser degree, Peacock, NBC Universal’s addition to the fracas.

Along with other network-affiliated video-on-demand services such as AMC+ and Discovery+, Peacock seems like smaller fry in an expanding multi-way frenzy between existing services backed by huge media giants. Compared to Quibi, the DOA creation of DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg and steered by CEO Meg Whitman, they’re downright muscular.

Quibi was supposed to win over commuters and mobile phone users with minuscule attention space by offering “quick bite” content consisting of series with episodes clocking in at less than 10 minutes apiece. But aside from the various problems associated with this concept (beginning with the fact that people have been getting that content for years on YouTube, and for free), it debuted in April – right when stay-at-home orders placed commuting on hold for millions, a fair number of whom spent they time that would have been taken up by bus and train rides gorging themselves on “Tiger King.”

Quibi took in $1.75 billion from investors and lasted for all of eight months, making it one of the costliest “grand opening/grand closing” events in our lifetimes. Yeah…that happened in 2020.

Shakira and Jennifer Lopez ‘s Super Bowl Halftime Performance. For music aficionados, 2020 is the year clubs, concert halls and stadiums went silent and artist took their live acts online in an effort to soothe their fans. Before all that, however, these Shakira and Jennifer Lopez women made history as the first Latin superstars to headline what is typically the most-viewed live performance of any year.

J. Lo and Shakira have incredibly powerful crossover appeal, making their electrifying critiques of the current administration’s cruel immigration policies particularly memorable even though most Americans probably didn’t notice their significance.

From Shakira flashing a joyful zaghrouta at the camera (and scandalizing Middle America) to Lopez belting out the refrain of Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” while wearing a cape resembling Puerto Rican flag, this was a show reminding the audience that America is a place made up of many peoples. And within that celebration Lopez also reminded the folks watching at home that the U.S. is still locking children in cages…or maybe those kids singing from behind bars shaped into spheres were simply stage props.

One truth we’ve learned in 2020 is that reality and fact is all in how a person chooses to see it, after all.

Sarah Cooper conquers social media. It makes sense that a year in which Black women drew focus for their role in political mobilization (and conversely, for the mistreatment and neglect we face when it comes to the criminal justice system, health care, job opportunities and education, for starters) that one would win the Internet.

Cooper, a comedian who has been plowing along on her own for years now, soared to fame on the success of her viral video lip syncs to Donald Trump’s most ridiculous moments. It isn’t just that Cooper excels at physical comedy, it’s that she quickly turned around her own versions of Trump’s nonsensical speeches, relieving our horror by highlighting his idiocy via her interpretative impersonations.

Given how widely her work has spread across various platforms it’s easy to forget that before April 2020, most people had no clue as to who Sarah Cooper is. Here we are at the end of 2020 and she’s already secured a sitcom deal with CBS and helmed a Netflix special. How’s that for remaining productive during a pandemic?

Runner-up: Dionne Warwick. The 79-year-old Warwick has been around for decades and joined Twitter in 2012, but this was the year that she blossomed into a witticism machine. Whether she’s the one tweeting or it’s actually her niece tapping those bon mots into her phone, who care? Warwick brought joy out a miserable span of existence, and for that we bow down to a true queen.

Renewals reversed: the cruelest cuts. Every TV season is marked by cancellations, but the pandemic led to the untimely deaths of TV series that deserved better, or at least a chance to provide an ending for their fans.

Among the most tragic? The stunning cancellation of “GLOW,” which was renewed for a final season before Netflix reversed that decision. The women’s wrestling dramedy always seemed to be fighting for its life, but those who watched knew each struggle to survive was worth it.

But it wasn’t the only critically beloved series felled by pandemic-related shutdowns. “On Becoming a God in Central Florida” was only beginning to come into its greatness on Showtime. Alas, its second season was yanked. ABC’s “Stumptown” (starring Cobie Smulders) is a solid action treat; its second season renewal also disappeared. Andrea Savage’s wry comedy series “I’m Sorry” was supposed to get a third season on TruTV, but that was also rescinded. (Notice that all of these series are about women, although only two of the four had female creators.)

2020 unexpectedly closed the book on many other series,  including Jim Carrey’s Showtime series “Kidding.” Three I’ll miss more than most are Comedy Central’s “Drunk History,” Netflix’s “Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj,” and the fabulous revival of “One Day at a Time,” each of which enjoyed passionate audiences, although “ODAAT” also fought for its life at the end of each season.

Fates willing, all of these shows can and will be appreciated by new fans for years to come. It’s still unfortunate that this year’s circumstances led to their too-early demises, especially given how essential each of them were in helping us to grapple with who we are as Americans.

There were good endings, too. Celebrations of beloved series’ finales were relatively muted this year, but we said goodbye to some big ones: “Supernatural” ended its decade-and-a-half run. “The Magicians” had a shorter life, relatively speaking, but its finale left us heartbroken. “Homeland”…also ended.

However, it was my struggle to remember the wondrous finale of “The Good Place” that first took me down this fractured memory lane – it felt like a lifetime passed since I watched it, but that was only last January.

The same can be said about the ending of “Brockmire,” which bunted America’s favorite baseball announcer into a future where the world is burning to a crisp, baseball is dying – and he’s sober as a judge and raising a college-aged daughter. Odd as it was to see a comedy version of dystopia while we’re living in one it was also somehow comforting to see some reliable souls remain cantankerous, hilarious and heartwarming even at the bitter end of it all.

With that, here’s to making better and more lasting memories in 2021.

(Oh, and for the record: “Parasite” won the Best Picture Oscar in 2020.)

Kelly Loeffler makes mysterious last-minute donation to her own campaign

Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., the unelected multimillionaire facing a tight runoff against Democratic rival Rev. Raphael Warnock next week, has submitted a number of irregular last-minute contribution reports with the Federal Election Commission, failing to disclose employment information for hundreds of donors in the final weeks of the campaign. For some donors, the reports show what appears to be misleading information about their employer or their position — including lobbyists and executives — some of them with notable names or corporate or personal ties to the appointed senator.

One of the more glaring irregularities is a last-minute donation from Loeffler herself, in the amount of $67,200. While the wealthy former financial exec has made a public show of funding her own campaign, those donations have so far come in injections of millions of dollars. This $67,200 contribution is notable in that it parcels out to 24 donations of exactly $2,800 — the maximum allowable amount. Because the candidate is by default an agent of the campaign, Loeffler can match donor contributions and can accept checks from donors on behalf of the campaign. However, if she does accept checks on someone’s behalf, the campaign must still report the donor’s identity to the FEC. And if those donors have already given the maximum $2,800, their donations would be illegal. If Loeffler were knowingly acting as a fence for those donors, that too would be illegal.

The Loeffler campaign did not respond to Salon’s request for comment.

Loeffler’s conflicts of interest are inescapable: She worked for more than a decade at a top global financial firm, Intercontinental Exchange, which was founded by her husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, and owns the New York Stock Exchange; now Loeffler sits on the Senate committee that has direct oversight of that business. A number of donors this year have raised eyebrows, including several million dollars from billionaire Ken Griffin, whose company closed a major deal in November that required NYSE approval.

Salon recently reported that among the donors Loeffler failed to identify were several members of the Asplundh family, owners of the eponymous multibillion-dollar infrastructure clearing company, which one of Loeffler’s committees oversees, and who have properly identified their employer in other FEC reports this election cycle.

This week, Karl and Randall Meyers, listing themselves as CEO and CFO at XPO Last Mile — a subsidiary of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s former supply chain and delivery company XPO Logistics — made Christmas Eve donations to Loeffler. The Meyers brothers also gave this month to the other multimillionaire Republican Senator under federal scrutiny while facing a runoff in the Peach State, David Perdue, as well as the Senate Battleground Georgia fund, but neither brother appears to have made any donations to any other candidate or committee this year. Each appears to have made only three other contributions ever — an amount they doubled this month alone.

Earlier this month, XPO announced plans to separate its global logistics operation from its freight and delivery division, and both companies will be traded on the NYSE — which Loeffler’s husband’s company owns. However, an XPO spokesperson told Salon that the Meyers brothers had not worked for XPO in several years. It is unclear why they listed XPO as their employer, and their specific positions as CEO and CFO.

The irregularities come despite what the Loeffler campaign describes as its “best efforts” — as well as readily available public information, including from the donors’ own recent FEC contribution history — her joint fundraising committee, which shares the same treasurer as the Loeffler campaign, responded just this month to to an FEC notice that it had not reported employer information for dozens of donations over the summer. Indeed, the campaign failed to identify employers for hundreds more donors in several reports filed since responding to that notice — for example, hereherehere; and here.

Recent FEC reports from Perdue are also missing employer information, though not to the same extent as Loeffler (e.g., herehere; and here). By comparison, none of the recent reports for either Democratic candidate in the Georgia runoffs — Loeffler challenger Rev. Raphael Warnock, and Perdue rival Jon Ossoff — are missing any employer information.

An analysis of Loeffler’s three most recent reports reveals a number of significant omissions, and shines a light on who might want to fund her fight from the shadows.

Kirsten Chadwick, of the lobbying firm Fierce Government Relations, gave Loeffler $2,500 on Dec. 27. She is listed as a “consultant” but is in reality the president of the firm, which does about $13 million in lobbying work annually, including for industries under Loeffler’s purview, such as forestry, healthcare and finance. She has also worked as a registered lobbyist for both Facebook and Apple, companies Loeffler has trashed recently when she sided with President Trump against “Big Tech.”

 

A similar story applies to Christopher Bravacos, who gave Loeffler $1,400 on Christmas Eve, and lists his job at Bravo Group as “public relations.” Bravacos’ Wikipedia pages identifies him as the founder and CEO of the prominent communications and lobbying firm, which in 2020 lobbied on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America — an area where Loeffler conducts oversight.

 

Anthony Dinovi, who reports being “investment manager” at Thomas H. Lee Partners, gave a max $2,800 on Christmas Eve as well. Dinovi is in reality the chairman of that Massachusetts firm which focuses “primarily on North America middle-market buyouts” for financial services and healthcare, both of which intersect with Loeffler.

W Russell Carothers, III, chair of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta gave along with his wife a total of $5,000 to Loeffler on Dec. 28, but his employer is not disclosed “per best efforts.” The Director of Corporate Development for Sprecher’s company, Intercontinental Exchange, came there from FHLB Atlanta.

John Pasquesi, whose occupation is listed as “self-employed,” is actually the Chairman of Arch Capital Group, a Bermuda-based global real estate insurance underwriter with about $11 billion in capital. Pasquesi is also the managing member of Otter Capital LLC, a private equity investment firm he founded in 2001, according to the Wall Street Journal. He and his wife, Meredith, each gave Loeffler $2,900 — one hundred dollars more than the legal limit, which the campaign will need to return or redesignate.

Loeffler donor John MacGregor Fox listed his employer as “none,” and occupation as “retired,” but in earlier FEC reports this year he is identified as the Executive Chairman of Trona Energy. He is also Chairman of the Board of Kona Mountain Coffee, the Hawaii-based coffee farm. His $5,000 donation is over the maximum limit.

Melanie Foster gave $1,000 to Loeffler on Dec. 24, and listed her occupation as retired. Foster ran multiple commercial landscaping companies, but currently serves on the financial advisory board of the Michigan State University board of trustees. According to survivors of the sexual assault scandal involving Larry Nassar, the Olympic gymnastics team doctor, Foster worked in her capacity as a trustee to block an independent review of thousands of pages of documents related to sexual assault cases. The survivors allege Foster “continually demonstrated a complete lack of moral conviction to pursue the truth and ensure that what Larry did to hundreds of women and children never happens to anyone again on MSU’s campus.”

Another $2,800 Christmas Eve gift came from James H. Drew III of Augusta, Georgia. Drew says his employer is “Continental GA Corp,” but he is perhaps more well known in Georgia for operating traveling carnival and midway company Drew Expositions, which issued a denial in 2019 after nationwide reports that the company employed a serial killer.

In 2003, Drew pleaded guilty to giving $5,000 in illegal campaign contributions to Georgia’s former agricultural commissioner.

This fall, Loeffler’s husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, completed a major acquisition of a real estate firm that marked the first foray into the mortgage industry for his company, Intercontinental Exchange. A striking number of donations have come to Loeffler from executives that industry.

One max-out donor, Edward Inman, is listed as self-employed, but has worked for more than a decade at Atlanta-area investment firm Ashford Advisers, according to his LinkedIn page. And Lincoln International’s Lawrence Lawson, who contributed $1,700 to Loeffler on Dec. 27, says his occupation is “entrepreneur.” He is the chairman and global co-CEO of the multinational financial firm.

Douglas Neff lists his occupation as “real estate investment” at IHP Capital Partners. He is the chairman and CEO of the prominent real estate equity firm, and gave $1,000 to Loeffler on Dec. 27.

John K. Castle gave Loeffler the maximum allowable $2,800 on Christmas Eve, and lists his occupation as “merchant banker.” He is the billionaire founder and CEO of private equity firm Castle Harlan, according to his own Wikipedia page. In 2016 he sold his Palm Beach estate, once known as the “Winter White House” for former president John F. Kennedy, for $31 million. The buyer was billionaire real estate mogul Jane Goldman, who also gave Loeffler $2,800 on Christmas Eve.

Loeffler also received a Dec. 24 contribution from Pat Deon, who lists Progressive Management as his employer, and his occupation as “real estate.” A 2019 article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about Deon is subtitled, “Meet the most influential man in Pennsylvania you’ve never heard of.”

Loeffler donor Chuck Ames identifies himself as an energy trader at Vitol, a firm whose energy futures business intersects with Loeffler’s government oversight role and the primary functions of her husband’s business at both Intercontinental Exchange and the NYSE. This month, Vitol agreed to pay $163 million to settle civil and criminal charges that employees paid bribes for oil bids in Brazil, Mexico and Ecuador.

Indeed, a great number of last-minute contributions come from wealthy and influential donors with patent conflicts of interests: The CEO of Woodforest Financial; the co-founder of industrial real estate investment firm Black Creek Group; the chief strategy officer of Payroc, an Atlanta-based global payment processing firm whose business overlaps neatly with Loeffler’s crypto payment platform firm, Bakkt; a principal at real estate equity firm Huizenga Capital Management; a partner at venture investment firm Rock Creek Capital; the head of fund and brokerage operations & technology at Fidelity; and a V.P. at NextEra Energy Resources, which uses Sprecher’s ICE platform to handle payment processing.

George Archer Frierson II, who contributed a max donation on Christmas Eve, reports as a “self-employed investor,” but for other donations this election cycle is listed as an agent for Vintage Realty. The Dec. 24 maximum donation from John Ginger lists him as a retiree, but as recently as Dec. 8 he was identified in press as the CEO of J. Ginger Masonry, one of the largest masonry outfits in the Western U.S. Another “retired” West Coast donor, Jim Godfrey, is the founder and CEO of Chateau Retirement Communities, according to the company’s website.

Caroll Neubauer’s $1,000 Christmas Eve contribution says that the longtime CEO of the U.S. branch of the healthcare and pharmaceutical multinational corporation B. Braun is now retired. But a news release this October names him as a new executive advisor at the firm Water Street Healthcare. Loeffler oversees healthcare.

Finally, Loeffler received $1,000 from former U.S. Senator Connie Mack, R-Fla., but the campaign could not seem to retrieve his employment information, “per best efforts.”

From “Hillbilly Elegy” to “The Gentlemen,” here are the worst films of 2020

The worst films are ones that have viewers wondering either how the project in question got made, or why the talent involved made it. Perhaps expectation exceeded outcome. There were plenty of bad films in 2020, but few were more jaw-droppingly awful or as excruciating as these half-dozen clunkers. These films are not even so-bad-they’re-good. They took ambitious risks that not only didn’t deliver but tested the patience and goodwill of most viewers who saw them. 

The Gentlemen

Guy Ritchie wants viewers to appreciate his oh-so-clever style because he simply does not have any substance to back it up. “The Gentlemen” continues to showcase his crass flash, featuring more sophomoric antics than prankish teenage schoolboys. Ritchie creates obvious and lame jokes out of the Vietnamese name, Phuc in one of the film’s many racist moments, and he thinks bestiality is hilarious. Ritchie can’t direct traffic much less an action sequence, because “The Gentlemen” features a truly sluggish chase scene. The violence is nasty, but often played for laughs. Arguably, Ritchie’s gravest mistake is to make the dreamy Henry Golding unappealing. It is fine for star Matthew McConaughey to try to pass off his lazy performance as laid-back, and Hugh Grant can emote like La Streep all he damn well wants. Even Colin Farrell goes for broke for no apparent reason. These performers all seem to be acting in different films. If only Ritchie had made a different film — and a better one. “The Gentlemen” is witless, senseless, and offensive. 

Hillbilly Elegy

One only has to look at the extended sequence of Bev (Amy Adams, challenging fans who will see her in anything) beating on her young son, J.D. (Owen Asztalos) to appreciate all that is wrongheaded with “Hillbilly Elegy.” The episode starts out playfully, with J.D. predictably knocking over a display in a collectable card shop. (J.D.’s clumsiness is telegraphed a few scenes earlier). Bev yells at the justifiably angry store owner and shoplifts in defiance. But the thrill is soon gone when J.D. refers to his mom’s boyfriend as a “flavor of the month” — he’s just repeating what his friend said about her — and calls her “a bitch.” Bev starts to speed up as she has a meltdown, driving recklessly and beating J.D. when he climbs into the backseat. Things escalate into a knock-down, drag-out fight as Bev chases J.D. and breaks into a stranger’s house where he seeks safety before Bev is handcuffed.

It’s outrageously, unintentionally funny, highlighting all the bad behavior J.D. must endure and escape. And it’s a shame that Ron Howard’s stunning (not in a good way) adaptation of J.D. Vance’s bestseller about bootstrapping one’s way out of Appalachia and into Yale Law School didn’t contain a bunch of equally insane moments. Alas, a later scene of young J.D. throwing the expensive calculator Mamaw (Glenn Close) bought him out the car window — after he tried to shoplift it — doesn’t count. Because she has to teach him tough love, and emphasize why J.D. should “keep trying,” unlike his mother. And unlike Ron Howard, who has no grasp of his aspirational material. Had Mamaw thrown J.D. out of the car window, well, that would have made for a better film.

“The Jesus Rolls”

John Turturro wrote, directed, and starred in this misfire, which reprises his bowling ball-licking character, Jesus Quintana, from “The Big Lebowski.” Not really a sequel to the Coen Brother’s cult film, “The Jesus Rolls” is a loose-as-diarrhea American remake of the provocative 1974 French import, “Going Places,” about two horny and delinquent thieves who mostly abuse women. Turturro’s film, however, abuses the viewer. The pacing is deadly, the copious sex and nudity is unerotic, the comedy is unfunny, and the dialogue is insipid. (Sample: “Where you from?” “France.” “So . . . you’re French?”)

Charismatic actors, including Sonia Braga, Bobby Cannavale, and Susan Sarandon give uncharacteristically lifeless performances. A scene where Marie (Audrey Tautou), who can’t achieve orgasm, shrilly cries out for lovemaking while the guys are robbing her ex-boss, is one of the more dreadful scenes — and not just because it ends with her being tied to a chair. Equally bad is a moment when apropos of nothing, Jean (Sarandon) tells a restaurant owner (Gloria Reuben) to “appreciate the bleeding” when she gets her period. Sure, the characters are not meant to be likeable, but there is no pleasure, only pain, in watching them behave badly.  

“Kajillionaire”

Writer/director Miranda July is a polarizing filmmaker. People either hate her — or they really hate her. Her style is best described as “twee-dious.” Her latest piece of twaddle, “Kajillionaire,” tries to force whimsy out of a dysfunctional family of con artists: Robert (Richard Jenkins), Theresa (Debra Winger, in a bad wig), and the pretentiously named Old Dolio (Evan Rachel Wood). When they meet a stranger, Melanie (Gina Rodriguez), and plan a scheme with her, things get awkward.

What they don’t get is interesting or illuminating. The characters are meant to be offbeat, but they are just off-putting with their tics and mannered line deliveries. The talented cast spouts curlicues of flighty dialogue that is meant to contain shrewd observations about social conformity and (dis)connection (the subject of all July’s work), but it rings hollow. As the film lumbers to its climax — a kiss that denotes the long-denied love for a character — it feels unearned. “Kajillionaire” has no real payoff. The only relief is knowing that it is the longest possible time before July’s next film. 

“Resistance”

Oy vey! There is a moment in this well-meaning (read: botched) film where Jesse Eisenberg — playing famed mime Marcel Marceau — is on a train trying to save Jewish orphans from the Nazis. He tells a little girl, “There are lots of beautiful things in life,” which echoes the title of Roberto Benigni’s Oscar-winning Holocaust comedy-drama. (Others may prefer to flash on Jerry Lewis’s “The Day the Clown Cried.”) This inspirational film’s earnestness is as faulty as Eisenberg’s French accent. The actor may have really learned the miming but watching him perform — as he does frequently here — is cringe-inducing. (Even Marcel’s father (Karl Markovics) complains about seeing his son’s Chaplin routine in a cabaret: “You’re a clown dressed as Hitler in a whorehouse!”)

Director Jonathan Jakubowicz is never subtle. He crosscuts between Jewish children singing “Ave Maria” and Klaus Barbie (Matthias Schweighöfer) executing non-Aryans in an empty swimming pool. The “action” scenes are especially clunky, as when Marcel uses his miming skills to free his captured brother, Alain (Féliz Moati). Set to a maudlin score, and featuring Eisenberg wearing “female undergarments” in one extended scene, “Resistance” is exasperating to watch. But never more so than when Emma (Clémence Poésy), distressed about having to relocate the orphans to avoid death by Nazis, says to Marcel, “I don’t know how to tell the children!” And then adds, “Are you not going to say anything?” 

Stardust

Gabriel Range shot himself in both feet when he thought he could make a David Bowie biopic without featuring any of Ziggy Stardust’s music. Moreover, he took a tone-deaf approach to telling Bowie’s story of his 1971 American tour and the development of his titular alter ego. This woefully inept biopic spends most of its endless running time having Bowie (Johnny Flynn, trying far too hard) fighting with his publicist Rob Oberman (Marc Maron) or worrying about being schizophrenic, like his brother Terry (Derek Moran). Neither storyline reveals anything significant about its subject. Range’s dubious achievement with “Stardust” is that he made David Bowie boring.

Ben Sasse calls fellow Republicans “institutional arsonists” for Electoral College stunt

Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska called on his fellow GOP colleagues to “reject” any attempts to derail the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, writing in a Wednesday night Facebook post that Republican plans to overturn the Electoral College were a “dangerous ploy” pushed by “institutional arsonists.”

“Having been in private conversation with two dozen of my colleagues over the past few weeks, it seems useful to explain in public why I will not be participating in a project to overturn the election — and why I have been urging my colleagues also to reject this dangerous ploy,” Sasse wrote in the lengthy post.

“It seems to me that the best way we can serve our constituents is to tell the truth as we see it, and explain why. And in my view, President-Elect Biden didn’t simply win the election; President Trump couldn’t persuade even his own lawyers to argue anything different than that in U.S. federal courts,” Sasse said. He added that the Republicans now crying foul on the outgoing president’s behalf are only pretending, acting out of fear of the president’s core voters: “When we talk in private, I haven’t heard a single Congressional Republican allege that the election results were fraudulent — not one. Instead, I hear them talk about their worries about how they will ‘look’ to President Trump’s most ardent supporters.”

But without evidence to support their claims, Sasse said, these “institutional arsonist members of Congress” are only “playing with fire.”

“Let’s be clear what is happening here: We have a bunch of ambitious politicians who think there’s a quick way to tap into the president’s populist base without doing any real, long-term damage. But they’re wrong — and this issue is bigger than anyone’s personal ambitions,” Sasse wrote. “Adults don’t point a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government.

The comments came hours after Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, a Trump ally, became the first GOP senator to join the effort by a group of House Republicans to contest the results of the election. Hawley’s formal objection will precipitate a debate about the votes — only the third one since 1887 — but will not change the election’s outcome.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine wondered why Hawley was launching the doomed crusade, especially in light of dozens of recent court decisions. “I do not think that he will prevail in his quest,” she told The Washington Post. “And I question why he is doing it when the courts have unanimously thrown out the suits that the President’s team have filed for lack of credible evidence.”

It’s a question that the Majority Leader attempted to ask Hawley himself during a conference call with Senate Republicans on Thursday, however, the freshman senator was not on the line. Hawley later sent an email to his fellow Republicans attempting to explain his rationale and calling out “the unprecedented failure of states like Pennsylvania to follow their own election laws.” 

But as Sasse’s post also highlighted, the dozens of failed post-election lawsuits filed on Trump’s behalf, which Sasse dismissed as a “fundraising strategy,” never provided evidence of widespread election systems failures. 

“It’s swampy politics,” Sasse wrote, “and it shows very little respect for the sincere people in my state who are writing these checks.”

After the election, the Trump campaign blasted supporters with emails asking for money to fund legal challenges to the results. The first wave of those donations went mostly to paying down the campaign’s existing debt, but within days the majority of new contributions were soon redirected to Trump’s new leadership PAC, Save America.

After coasting through Nebraska’s GOP primary this summer, Sasse, at times among the more vocal of Trump’s Republican dissenters, ramped up his sporadic criticism. In a private call with constituents, he ripped Trump as a failed leader who “sells out our allies,” “kisses dictators’ butts,” “mocks evangelicals” behind their backs and mistreats women. In the future, Sasse said on the call, voters will look back and wonder why Republicans ever thought that “selling a TV-obsessed narcissistic individual to the American people was a good idea.”

“It was not a good idea,” he declared. 

Stimulus standoff ends in “Democratic surrender”: After McConnell blocks $2,000 checks, Dems move on

After Senate Republicans repeatedly stymied a Sen. Bernie Sanders-led effort to force a clean up-or-down vote on $2,000 direct payments, dozens of Democrats late Wednesday joined Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in allowing the chamber to move ahead with the process of overriding President Donald Trump’s veto of the $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act.

The vote on the motion to proceed to the NDAA veto override came after Sanders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and others denied McConnell unanimous consent this week to speedily advance the behemoth military spending bill, a tactic aimed at securing a clean vote on House-passed legislation that would deliver $2,000 payments to most Americans.

But McConnell, joined by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), rejected the push for a vote on the direct payments once again on Wednesday, declaring that the checks would benefit “millionaires and billionaires”—a complaint that was both false and shamelessly hypocritical, given that the same Republicans had no issue with passing President Donald Trump’s $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy in 2017.

Thanks to the delay tactics that Sanders spearheaded, McConnell was forced to hold a vote Wednesday on a formal motion to proceed to the NDAA. But ultimately, Sanders was one of just six members of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote against the motion, which succeeded by an overwhelming margin of 80-12.

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) joined the Vermont senator in opposing the motion. Six Republicans also voted no.

In total, 41 Democrats—including Schumer and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris—voted for the motion, paving the way for an override of Trump’s NDAA veto and effectively killing the prospect of a vote on $2,000 direct payments before the next Congress. View the full roll call here.

A final vote on the NDAA veto override is expected by January 2. Sanders made clear following the motion’s passage Wednesday that he plans to continue pushing for a vote on the direct payments.

“The sheer scale of Wednesday’s Democratic surrender was truly a sight to behold,” wrote The Daily Poster‘s David Sirota and Andrew Perez. “And it probably ended the chance for more immediate aid to millions of Americans facing eviction, starvation, and bankruptcy… Democratic senators in fact provided the majority of the votes for the measure that lets the defense bill proceed without a vote on the $2,000 checks.”

Ahead of Wednesday’s vote, Sanders took Republican senators to task for standing in the way of robust direct relief for their constituents amid widespread hunger, surging poverty, and a looming eviction crisis. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said during his floor remarks that the Senate is “not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats’ rich friends who don’t need the help.”

“Let me just make it clear for the Majority Leader that 10 out of the poorest 25 counties in the United States of America are located in Kentucky,” Sanders said in response. “So maybe my colleague, the Majority Leader, might want to get on the phone and start talking to working families in Kentucky and find out how they feel about the need for immediate help in terms of a $2,000 check per adult. And I have the strong feeling that the people of Kentucky will respond no differently than the people of Vermont or New York.”

Sen. Ed Markey joined Sanders in demanding a vote on the $2,000 checks, declaring, “He is right. The Republicans are wrong on this issue, on every single part of this debate. Senator Sanders is right. The Republicans are wrong.”

“We’re in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country,” Markey said. “We have a healthcare crisis. We have an unemployment crisis. We have a hunger crisis. We have a housing crisis. We have an addiction crisis. We have a moral crisis in this country. The United States government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation, of families in our country at this time.”

15 New Year’s food traditions from around the world

We have a very, er, specific New Year’s Eve food tradition in my household.

It’s an elaborate shrimp tree, and my mother and I spend hours constructing it each year. There’s the day-of, panicked search for the correctly shaped and perfectly sized foam cone, which somehow always gets tossed away during the year prior. There’s the painstaking affixing of curly kale leaves to said foam cone (once procured), in the style of a full Christmas tree. There’s the careful preparation of a perfectly seasoned cocktail sauce. And then, just before our New Year’s Eve party starts, there’s the pinning of each individual shrimp to the tree, using colorful toothpicks, to look like a wrap-around garland.

While I’d love to say this is a regional Northern California tradition, honed by many generations, I’m pretty sure it’s something we just decided to serve one year and loved.

But shrimp trees aside, there are lots of edible traditions around the holiday of New Year’s hailing from all over the world. While this list is so far from comprehensive it might as well just say “shrimp tree” for every entry, we’ve culled together a handful of common New Year’s foods eaten around the world, for your reading pleasure — don’t forget to add to our list in the comments, please!

* * *

1. Spain

In Spain, it’s customary to eat 12 grapes right at midnight on New Year’s Eve, representing good luck for each of the coming 12 months.

2. The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, oliebollen — which literally means “oil balls” — are consumed on New Year’s Eve, which purportedly began as a way to line the stomach with oil as a slick shield against the sword attack of a mythical (evil) goddess. If that doesn’t sound appealing, then you haven’t seen oliebollen, which are delicious donuts.

3. Japan

If you’re in Japan on New Year’s Eve, then you might find yourself enjoying a bowl of toshikoshi soba, or “year-end noodles,” which are made of buckwheat and lengthier-than-typical soba to symbolize longevity.

4. United States

In the South, New Year’s Day celebrators eat Hoppin’ John, a meal of black-eyed peas, ham hock and rice (sometimes with greens, too). It’s believed to beckon wealth and good luck in the year to come.

5. Germany and Austria

Marzipan pigs — aka, almond paste and sugar shaped into hogs — are gifted around New Year’s in Germany and Austria to symbolize good fortune.

6. Italy

Lentils are eaten in Italy after midnight on New Year’s Eve, with their coin-like shape nodding to luck and prosperity.

7. France

New Year’s Eve in France— known as Le Réveillon de la Saint Sylvestre or Le Réveillon du Nouvel An — often includes oysters and foie gras.

8. Turkey

In Turkey, some smash pomegranates in the doorways of their homes. As the tradition goes, the number of seeds that fly out predict how much good fortune you’ll have in the coming year.

9. Cuba

In Cuba, suckling pig is traditionally served on New Year’s Day, as pigs have long been a symbol of good luck.

10. Greece

Vasilopita cake, full of warming spices, is typically baked on Jan. 1 in Greece. Sometimes, a coin (or other trinket of some sort) is hidden inside for one lucky guest to find.

11. Russia

On New Year’s Eve in Russia, children get a visit from Father Frost, who brings gifts while they sleep. (No reindeer come with this bearded gift-giver, but Father Frost’s granddaughter, Snegourochka is there to assist.) The real presents, though, are the eats: pelmenyi with sour cream, pickled herring, mayo-slicked Olivier salad of boiled potatoes and eggs, and of course caviar and plenty of vodka.

12. Scotland

In addition to the tradition in many English-speaking countries of singing “Auld Lang Syne,” many folks in Scotland follow the practice of the “first footing,” or “first foot” in the house: apparently, an omen of good luck for the new year is if the first person to step foot in the house after midnight is a dark-haired man (this goes back to days of Viking invasions), bringing, among other symbolic items, shortbread, salt, and whiskey.

13. Chile

Chileans also partake in the Spanish grape-popping and Italian lentil-munching traditions. In Talca, Chile, locals have developed a newer New Year’s Eve practice of visiting departed loved ones at a cemetery after midnight mass, where they listen to music and light candles in remembrance.

14. Armenia

Nothing says “good luck in the new year” like bread, according to some Armenian families, who bake a large, flat loaf known as tarehats, darin, or gata. A coin or a single walnut is baked inside the bread, and whichever member of the family finds the prize trinket in their piece is expected to have the best luck that year.

15. Denmark

No purchased noise-makers needed in Denmark — though you may want to lock the kitchen cabinets if you love your dinnerware: There is a tradition of smashing plates against the doors of your friends and neighbors. (Apparently, a pile of china at your doorstep on New Year’s Day is a sign you’re beloved). If you prefer to save your plates for food, many Danes also jump off chairs to ensure good luck for the next year.