Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Peter Jackson reveals he didn’t write or direct his favorite “Lord of the Rings” trilogy scene

What’s the best scene in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy? There are a handful of answers that usually pop up for fans, from the Battle of Helm’s Deep in “The Two Towers” to Sam lifting up Frodo to climb Mount Doom in “The Return of the King.” When asked recently by Stephen Colbert (via The Independent) to pick his single favorite scene in the trilogy, “Rings” director Peter Jackson sidestepped all of the battle sequences and landed on Gollum‘s iconic monologue from “The Two Towers.”

Read more from IndieWire: Best Christmas movies to stream with your family

“We were shooting ‘Two Towers’ and it was introducing Gollum,” Jackson said. “A key thing with Gollum is that most people know he’s Sméagol and he’s Gollum, it’s like a split. But we hadn’t got a scene where you really got the idea of it…’This guy is two people.’ So we knew that we needed it but we had no time to shoot it.”

Jackson was preoccupied with other elements of production at the time, so he convinced his co-writer and co-producer Fran Walsh to create the scene featuring the two halves of Gollum interacting with one another. Jackson told Colbert that not only did Walsh write the scene, but she went on to direct what would become his favorite moment in the trilogy as well.

Read more from IndieWire: “House of the Dragon”: Everything you need to know about HBO’s upcoming series

“Fran wrote a scene where Sam and Frodo are asleep, so they can be just lumps in the bed, we don’t even have to have Elijah [Wood] and Sean [Astin],” Jackson said. “We didn’t have anyone to direct it, so I said to Fran, ‘You wrote it, you should shoot it.’ So she went in for a day and she wrote and directed a scene which has become pretty famous now.”

Read more from IndieWire: The 2020 Black List presents the year’s best unproduced scripts

Jackson has been out promoting the 4K restorations of “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Hobbit” trilogies, which are now available for purchase via Warner Bros. Home Entertainment. The director said earlier this month he wanted to remaster his original “Rings” trilogy because he did not like the visual inconsistencies that were created by filming each entry in a different way. While Jackson is not involved, the “Lord of the Rings” will be returning to screens with a new television series being developed by Amazon.

Jerry Falwell Jr. funneled millions of dollars from nonprofit Liberty University to GOP efforts: rpt

Jerry Falwell Jr., the disgraced former president of Liberty University, spent millions of the nonprofit religious school’s funds to promote the Trump administration and the Republican Party, according to Politico.

Falwell, who was forced out in August amid a sex scandal and questions about his use of the university’s funds, most notably launched a Liberty-funded “think tank” that reportedly paid for pro-Trump ads and hired members of President Donald Trump’s circle. The think tank, the Falkirk Center, a play on the names of Falwell and fellow co-founder and pro-Trump activist Charlie Kirk, hired former adviser Sebastian Gorka and Trump legal adviser Jenna Ellis, who has most recently pushed the president’s false fraud claims. The Falkirk Center also bought at least $50,000 in Facebook ads to promote Trump and other Republicans.

“Pray For Our President,” one ad said. “Be a radical for our republic,” said another ad promoting Rep.-elect Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., who has faced allegations of racism, sexual harassment, and lying about his rejection from the US Naval Academy. The center also held a two-day event at the Trump’s Washington D.C. hotel last year featuring former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas. The “think tank” has recently backed Trump’s attacks on governors who imposed restrictions to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

Liberty’s spending is “pushing the boundaries of its status as a nonprofit organization under Section 501c(3) of the federal tax code, which forbids spending money on political campaigns,” noted Politico’s Maggie Severns.

“The apparatus of the university has turned more and more towards political ends and concerns,” Marybeth Baggett, a former longtime professor at the school, told the outlet. “Obviously the school is conservative, yes. But I don’t feel like it was ever so agenda-driven as it was in the last four of five years.”

The school eliminated its philosophy department this year and cut 12 full-time faculty members last year while funding Falwell’s pro-Republican efforts and giving $2.2 million to Ralph Reed’s anti-gay and anti-abortion Faith and Freedom Coalition for “nonpartisan voter education.” It also gave donations to Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit run by Trump ally David Bossie.

“The full board did not know or approve that spending,” a source told Politico, though enough members voted to allow it.

Falwell resigned with a $10.5 million exit package in August after a former business partner alleged that he had a years-long sexual relationship with Falwell’s wife Becki while her husband watched. Falwell acknowledged his wife’s affair but denied his involvement. He had already come under fire over a questionable photograph showing him and a woman posing with their pants undone and for tweeting racist images and making anti-Muslim comments.

Falwell later sued the university for defamation in October, arguing that it damaged his reputation by not working to verify the allegation about the affair but ultimately dropped the suit last week.

Falwell’s departure has prompted unease among some university trustees about whether the school should remain involved in conservative politics or “refocus the university’s evangelical roots,” according to Politico.

“The board is split,” one source told the outlet. “There are those who want the school to be part of the conservative political conversation.”

Some board members have called for the Falkirk Center to be shut down and “don’t think it helps the school in maintaining a high academic standard,” the source added. “You can’t really call something a think tank, and yet it doesn’t put out academic research, or papers, or any kind of scholarship.”

“The Falkirk Center, to me, represents everything that was wrong with Liberty when Jerry was there,” added Karen Swallow Prior, a former longtime professor at Liberty. “It’s brazenly partisan.”

Liberty University spokesman Scott Lamb insisted that “while any academic think tank will have its detractors, the University and the Center have received hundreds of supportive emails” since Falwell’s departure and that the “think tank” had a “pipeline of material for print publication in 2021.”

Lamb said donations to other political organizations “are consistent with the mission and focus of Liberty University as an evangelical Christian university.” He claimed that the organizations promoted nonpartisan causes like voter registration even though the Falkirk Center heavily promoted Republican candidates, including on a podcast. One episode following the Republican National Convention was titled “The Christian case for voting President Trump.” The podcast has pushed Trump’s false voter fraud claims since the election and hosted Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani on one episode. Earlier this month, the podcast also hosted a Liberty professor who called for state legislatures to overturn the results of their state’s votes and appoint electors that would back Trump’s failed bid.

Tax law experts raised questions about the school’s tax-exempt status.

“Just because you throw in the word ‘nonpartisan’ doesn’t make it permissible,” Adav Noti, a former Federal Election Commission attorney, told Politico. “It depends on the actual content. This question comes up a lot, and often it turns on the real details of who was in the room and what was said.”

The IRS allows nonprofits with 501c(3) status to not pay income tax and accept tax-deductible donations but bars them from supporting political candidates.

“There’s this enormous government subsidy to 501c(3)’s that no one else gets,” Noti said. Nonprofits “can’t engage in electoral activity, because it would essentially be government-sponsored electoral activity.”

But the IRS has been “reluctant” to look at donations and activities by religious institutions like Liberty University due to a lack of resources and allegations of political bias from conservatives and the Trump administration. That could change once President-elect Joe Biden takes office.

“Enforcement generally changes as the office changes. It depends on the interest of those in power,” Daniel Romano, who heads up nonprofit services at the accounting firm Grant Thornton, told Politico. “They follow whatever marching orders they have.”

Winter TV Awards: “The Mandalorian” is a crowd-pleaser, but is it an awards player?

Can you participate in the streaming television game and not be interested in awards validation?

It’s a question that kept bouncing around my head during last week’s Investors Day call, where the Walt Disney Company put on quite a show, bombarding critics and fans alike with news of pending content, most of which draws from the organization’s endless troves of intellectual property. There was a clear feeling of dominance at the event, which also announced that the streamer’s subscriptions had reached nearly 90 million — a full four years sooner than its pre-launch goals.

Read more from IndieWire: Best Christmas movies to stream with your family

All of which is great, particularly in light of the streamer’s seemingly accidental success this year at the Emmy Awards, where “The Mandalorian” won seven awards from 15 nominations.

It’s an exciting time, particularly for fans of Star Wars and Marvel, with each franchise having 10 series in the works, as well as 10 Disney live-action, animation, and Pixar series to come.

The biggest takeaway from Disney’s presentation is how it appears to be delineating distribution of its content. Disney+ is where franchises live, those things you immediately associate with the brand, in addition to Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and the like. But if you’re looking for programming that offers a clean break from the glossy veneer of most Disney+ offerings, you’re going to have to turn to, well, not Disney+.

Read more from IndieWire: “House of the Dragon”: Everything you need to know about HBO’s upcoming series

That seemed to be the messaging from TV Studio Chief Dana Walden during last week’s event, at which point she spoke about several new shows the company was excited about that would find their home on Hulu, not Disney+. Among the titles were “Only Murders in the Building,” starring Steve Martin, Martin Short, and Selena Gomez; “The Dropout,” starring Kate McKinnon as Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced founder and CEO of healthcare startup Theranos; “Dopesick” starring Michael Keaton, Peter Sarsgaard, and Rosario Dawson; “Nine Perfect Strangers” from David E. Kelley and starring Nicole Kidman, Melissa McCarthy, and Regina Hall.

While it would be grossly premature to speculate about the quality of any of those series, it’s safe to say that based on cast and premises alone, all of these upcoming Hulu offerings are far more likely to serve as intriguing fodder for awards bodies than, say, “Loki” or “WandaVision” or “Lando.”

But let’s not look too far ahead. Week after week, the internet gobbles up a new episode of “The Mandalorian” and delights over Pedro Pascal’s face or Baby Yoda getting a name (Grogu and definitely not Grogurt, which is what my brain keeps suggesting) or some beautiful guest star (Timothy Olyphant), and the fanbase energy around the series is palpable, maybe even more than it was during the show’s first season.

To that end, it wouldn’t be surprising to see “The Mandalorian” pull some significant nominations during the Winter TV Awards season, potentially breaking through at the Golden Globes in Best Television Series – Drama and almost certainly making significant in-roads at guild awards, likely mirroring many of its Emmy nominations with regard to costumes, sound, cinematography, and visual effects.

It’s a great reception if you can get it, but beyond “The Mandalorian” are there other contenders lurking within the crowded queues of Disney+ IP?

If you asked Disney+, they’d probably tell you all about their new take on “The Right Stuff,” based on Tom Wolfe’s eponymous 1979 book and the 1983 film of the same name from Philip Kaufman. But the series received middling reviews, a tepid continuation of a story already so well told, it seems unlikely that the series will make headway with awards groups — particularly this year when there was a distinct lack of opportunity to manufacture buzz.

Read more from IndieWire: The 2020 Black List presents the year’s best unproduced scripts

Which brings us back to the original question: Can you participate in the streaming television game and not be interested in awards validation?

When it comes to Disney+, the answer may very well be yes. Thanks to last year’s acquisition of 20th Century Fox, the Walt Disney Company is downright octopean. Family-friendly fare stays safely ensconced at home on Disney+ while more adult themes get shuttled off to Hulu. Which is to say nothing of FX where, with the introduction of FX on Hulu earlier this year, now appears to be porting a good portion of its own awards-worthy content over to its Hulu launch page.

The specifics and strategies remain unclear but one thing is for certain: Awards or no, Disney+ is doing just fine.

A newfound “celestial autobahn” could lead to faster space travel in the future

On Earth, highways enable humans to go from one place to another in a shorter span of time. In our solar system, planet-generated space manifolds act as celestial highways where small asteroids, comets, and spacecraft can hitch a ride on a hypothetical space-like jet stream. But what does this network of celestial highways look like in our own solar system — and how fast can one object get from, say, Jupiter to Neptune by leveraging one of these manifolds?

These are questions that astronomers are continuously working to better answer, and according to a recent study published in Science Advances a novel network of these manifolds has been detected extending from the asteroid belt to Uranus and beyond. Together, the structure of these manifolds form a metaphorical “celestial autobahn” in our solar system.

“We observed some routes that transit from Jupiter to Neptune in less than 10 years,” Nataša Todorović, a research associate at the Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade and a lead researcher of the study, told Salon via email. Even more exciting, Todorović added: “I do believe it could enable faster space travel.”

As expected, the strongest manifolds detected are linked to Jupiter given the planet’s mass, according to the study. Interestingly, these strong manifolds linked to Jupiter have “a profound control on small bodies over a wide and previously unconsidered range of three-body energies,” Todorović and the study’s co-authors note. In other words, they’re expected to have a lot of influence on the motion of random space objects like small asteroids.

“The novelty here is that we observed the global structure of such manifolds, in terms of their domain in the Solar system,” Todorović explained. “We observed that manifolds generated by Jupiter are stretching to the outer border of the Solar system, beyond Neptune.”

To put that in perspective, Neptune is the farthest-known planet from the sun in our solar system; it orbits the sun every 164.8 years on average. Saturn is 2,313,267,138 miles from Neptune. These gravitational highways provide short travel times for such long distances. 

Todorović emphasized the precariousness of these celestial networks. 

“But we should not neglect the strongly chaotic environment, meaning that this course could change easily; finding a fast reliable travel route would require a systematic study of a larger sample of orbits,” Todorović said. 

Aaron Rosengren, Ph.D., an assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at the University of California–San Diego and a co-researcher of the paper, told Salon via email that a fitting analogy of their discovery is a “particularly powerful gulf or jet streams of space, which can enable more rapid and cost-efficient transportation throughout the Solar System.”

Manifolds are very complex in form, Todorović  explained. Technically speaking, they are energy surfaces that appear from the gravitational interaction between planets and the Sun or moons. Todorović said that manifolds originate from a planet’s “stability points,” or Lagrange points.

“However, we can not see them in their entirety, since we humans are limited only to 2D-3D shapes,” Todorović explained. “Manifolds originating from different planets can intersect, which enables the transition between them; in some way, this will enable that planets are connected via such manifolds, in the sense that an object could travel from one planet to another.”

The researchers made this discovery by employing a tool called the fast Lyapunov indicator (FLI), which is usually used to detect chaos in the universe (which is linked to manifolds).

“Here,” the researchers wrote in the paper, “we use the FLI to detect the presence and global structure of space manifolds, and capture instabilities that act on orbital time scales; that is, we use this sensitive and well-established numerical tool to more generally define regions of fast transport within the Solar System.”

While the idea of manifolds is nothing new, and they’ve been used in space travel before, Todorović’s study reveals more details about this celestial autobahn generated by Jupiter which could lead to more information on the nature of comets originating beyond Neptune — and our Solar system, like the infamous `Oumuamua. As you might recall, ‘Oumuamua grabbed the attention of scientists around the world in October 2017 because it had some strange properties which suggested it could be an alien spacecraft, but turned out to be an interstellar visitor. 

“These channels are important in spacecraft navigation and also explain the erratic nature of the trajectories of comets originating from the outskirts of the Solar system and getting close to the Sun,” Avi Loeb, chair of Harvard’s astronomy department, told Salon via email. “It could also help to understand the fraction of objects ejected from the Solar system to interstellar space.”

How did a Proud Boys leader with a felony record get into the White House?

The chairman of the white nationalist Proud Boys group, a convicted felon, posted photos from inside the White House gates ahead of a violent pro-Trump rally in Washington DC on Saturday, raising new questions about the president’s apparent embrace of the right-wing agitators.

Enrique Tarrio revealed that he visited the executive mansion on Saturday after receiving a “last-minute invite to an undisclosed location.” The White House later said that Tarrio had not been invited, but had instead taken part in a holiday tour. “He was on a public White House Christmas tour,” White House spokesperson Judd Deere said over the weekend. “He did not have a meeting with the president, nor did the White House invite him.”

White House public tours are self-guided, and anyone who wants one, including Christmas tours, must apply no fewer than 21 days ahead of their booking date because the application includes a security form and background check. Hopefuls with a felony are generally denied, a former Trump White House official told Salon, unless a senior member of the administration intervenes.

In 2013, Tarrio, also known as Henry Tarrio Jr, was convicted of two class C, one class D and one class E felonies for stealing and reselling $1.2 million worth of diabetes test strips from Abbott Labs, and served 16 months in federal prison. Court records show that he was released in December 2014 with two years probation, and ordered to pay restitution for the full $1.2 million.

On Saturday, Tarrio was accompanied to the executive mansion by other members of Latinos for Trump, including Bianca Garcia, the president of the group, and her son, Armani Garcia, a former intern for Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga. It is unclear if or when Latinos for Trump applied for its White House tour, and unclear why Tarrio received a security pass. 

In the past, people who have been invited to the White House specifically because of their work on criminal justice reform have been denied entry. For instance, Vicki Lopez, a former county commissioner in Florida who had been previously sentenced to 27 months in federal prison for mail fraud, was not allowed into the Obama White House in 2009, despite receiving a commutation from former President Bill Clinton. People with prior convictions who are able to gain entry are generally given special badges and personal escorts.  It would be highly unusual for someone with Tarrio’s criminal history to get inside the White House without someone high up in the administration personally pulling strings, according to the former White House official. 

A White House spokesperson declined to reply when asked who had checked Tarrio in on Saturday: The East Wing, where visitors usually enter, or the Executive Office of the President.

During the first presidential debate in September, Trump had the opportunity to denounce white supremacists and violent far-right groups — specifically, Democratic opponent Joe Biden invited him to condemn The Proud Boys. Trump did not denounce the group but told them “stand back and stand by,” a directive that the group took as an endorsement. The Proud Boys Telegram account wrote, “standing down and standing by sir.” Another known account incorporated a version of the phrase — “Stand back. Stand by” — into a new group logo.

“I think this ‘stand back, stand by’ thing will be another Proud Boy saying,” Tarrio told The Daily Beast. (The Beast pointed out that previous slogans were: “The West Is the Best,” and the warning “F*ck Around and Find Out.”)

Trump eventually condemned the group in a Fox News interview two days later but he also claimed he knew “almost nothing” about them. “I condemn the Proud Boys,” Trump said. “I don’t know much about the Proud Boys, almost nothing, but I condemn that.”

The Proud Boys self-identify as “Western chauvinists,” but deny being part of the racist alt-right. Members claim they are instead simply a men’s group that promotes an “anti-political correctness” and “anti-white guilt” ideology, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

On his 2020 Ballotpedia candidate questionnaire, Tarrio cited as his favorite book Pat Buchanan’s 2001 “The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization.”

“This book shows the growing problems and divide in our country,” Tarrio wrote. “It allows me to learn how to find solutions to conserve our nation and restore the love we have for it. We are not a perfect nation, but we must strive everyday to get as close to perfection as possible.”

The group’s initiation process demands aspirants to, among other things, denounce masturbation and recite five brands of breakfast cereal while fighting off an attack from other members. The final requirement for membership involves “a major fight for the cause,” founder Gavin McInnes told Metro.us in a 2017 interview.

“You get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa” and possibly get arrested, McInnes explained.

“Their disavowals of bigotry are belied by their actions,” the SPLC says on its profile of the group. “Rank-and-file Proud Boys and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists. They are known for anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric.”

In 2017, Proud Boys marched at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virg., but after a neo-Nazi terrorist attack on counter-protesters left one woman dead, the group’s founder Gavin McInness sought to create distance from the white supremacist movement. In recent months, members have shown up to counter Black Lives Matter protests, and last month President Trump shared a video of a post-election Proud Boys brawl in D.C., selectively edited to make it appear that a member was a victim, not an instigator.

The group has held rallies where hundreds of members attended, many of them armed. However, its chairman, Tarrio, cannot legally own a gun, because he is a convicted felon. He often appears in photographs wearing a tactical vest with a fruit-flavored malted alcoholic beverage tucked into a front pocket.

The Proud Boys also have ties to longtime Trump associate and convicted felon Roger Stone, and they are open about its support for the outgoing president. Another leader, Joe Biggs, boasted last year that he was having dinner with Trump at the president’s D.C. hotel, and shared a picture of himself seated beside Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Trump’s official schedule that evening included “remarks at a fundraising committee reception” at Trump International Hotel at 8:00 PM.
Tarrio’s Saturday visit coincided with a rally in the nation’s capital where thousands of right-wing protesters, including several hundred Proud Boys, a number of them dressed in tactical vests and fatigues, took to the streets to protest Trump’s election defeat. 

This January, Tarrio launched his ill-fated congressional campaign with a launch party at Trump National Doral in Miami on Jan. 25. (Tarrio had to accept Roger Stone’s endorsement in absentia that evening, as the Trump confidant had been arrested that morning.) About 300 people attended the event, which caught the tail end of the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting and ended with fireworks.

However, his campaign’s finance records do not indicate any payments on the night other than a $900 expense on Jan. 27 to Trump’s BLT Prime restaurant in Washington, D.C. (There is a BLT Prime at Trump’s Doral club as well.) Tarrio later bragged that “We exceeded our expectation by three-fold with 250+ in the building.”

A White House spokesperson referred Salon’s questions about security checks to the U.S. Secret Service. The Secret Service did not reply to multiple requests for comment.

HBO’s unflinching “Baby God” corrects pop culture’s tendency to treat fertility fraud lightly

Since the advent of at-home DNA testing and the proliferation of online genealogy websites where, with the click of a mouse, you could be connected with family members you didn’t even know you had, fertility fraud has increasingly served as a narrative device on scripted television. 

Sometimes it’s as a punchline; there’s that third season turn in “Bored to Death” when it’s revealed that Jonathan Ames’ (Jason Schwartzman) potential girlfriend, Rose (Isla Fisher),  is actually his half-sister. Their shared biological father was a man who ran a scammy fertility clinic where he just provided patients with his own sperm, despite telling them that it came from more “impressive” donors. 

The concept also serves as the main throughline of “Sisters,” an Australian drama that opens on an elderly Nobel prize-winning scientist and fertility expert. He’s being cared for by his daughter, Julia (Maria Angelico). On his deathbed, he reveals that he substituted his own sperm in hundreds of IVF procedures, and Julia sets out to meet her new siblings. 

The show wasn’t renewed for a second season, but an American adaptation, “Almost Family,” was released on Fox in October 2019. It was almost universally panned by critics for largely ignoring the issue of consent, instead veering into lighthearted dramedy about an unconventional family. 

As TV Guide reported, the show’s creator, Annie Weisman stopped short of condemning the doctor’s actions when pressed by reporters at the Television Critics Association summer press tour, saying, “In any story, it’s important to feel empathy and understanding for every character . . . still contending with the consequences of his actions, but understanding that those types of innovators do cross lines in their singular quest.” 

However, “Almost Family” never really reckoned with the real-life implications and trauma that the doctor’s actions would have rendered. After the show aired, “The Daily Beast” spoke with several individuals, like Julia Manes, who were born as a result of fertility fraud. 

“I thought it was disgusting,” Manes told the publication “I think they minimized fertility fraud. It is medical rape and sexual assault. They made a comedy out of it. It was awful.”

While imperfect, HBO’s recent documentary, “Baby God” rights that wrong. 

Over the course of 78 minutes, filmmaker Hannah Olson pieces together the crimes of Nevada obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Quincy Fortier who worked into his 90s and secretly impregnated his fertility clinic patients with his own sperm. The exact number of patients isn’t known, nor the amount of children, though there’s evidence of children that he fathered being born from the 1940s to the 1980s. 

Wendi Babst, one his daughters who is a retired detective and arguably the main character of this documentary, has found at least a dozen half-siblings. His son, Quincy Fortier Jr., speculates that “there had to be hundreds.” 

The documentary primarily consists of interviews with the women who were secretly impregnated by Fortier, and with the children they conceived. Through Olson’s lens, these stories are stripped of any salaciousness (unlike “Almost Family” there are, thankfully, no siblings unwittingly having sex with each other plot points), but they never feel clinical. 

Instead, she focuses on the human elements that connect them. Take Cathy Holm, Babst’s mother and one of Fortier’s patients who went to see him in the 1960s after she and her husband struggled to conceive. She was young, newly married and ready to become a mother. “I just really wanted to have a baby,” she murmurs to the camera. 

As “Baby God” lays out, this was in the very early days of clinical artificial insemination; DNA wasn’t really understood and bodily and sexual autonomy were wonky terms that still largely just existed in textbooks and courts (Griswold v. Connecticut, the case in which the Court supported women’s rights to obtain birth control and thus, retain reproductive autonomy, without marital consent, was passed just before Babst’s birth). And, as Holms says, doctors were viewed like priests; they took an oath to do no harm, and people believed them. 

Holms’ tone in the film is largely resigned. 

It’s a tone that is mirrored by Dorothy Otis, a 94-year-old woman who consulted Fortier when she was a newlywed about a suspected infection. Unlike Holm, she didn’t want a baby — she wanted to go back to school — but was impregnated by him during what he claimed was a routine exam. “My life may have been altogether different,” she says. 

“How can you go about changing the past?” both women seem to ask. 

Many of Fortier’s children, however, are curious about how their father’s past impacts who they are today. The physical similarities are evident, especially in the case of Brad Gulko, who looks like a carbon copy of Fortier — but what about something deeper? Some of Fortier’s children ponder whether they get their coolness in social situations from him. Gulko, who is a geneticist, wonders whether he went into science because he inherited his father’s interest in the subject.

“Do you want to say your father was a monster?” Babst asks bluntly. “And what does that say about you?” 

“Baby God” smartly doesn’t attempt to solve these questions by diving into the murky waters of nature versus nurture. However, Olson never really nails down Fortier’s motivation for his actions.

There’s a lot of speculation. Fortier Jr. says that his father justified his actions, saying, “I’m just helping out,” and a recording of Fortier’s own voice can be heard saying that it was common for doctors to mix their own sperm with the intended donor’s. Although Gulko addresses an animal’s primary biological motivation to breed diversely, he adds that “most people in a civilized society realize you can’t just do that.” 

One of Fortier’s past patients raises the question, “Was he trying to see how many people he could have on this earth before he left?” 

For much of the documentary, this seems like the likeliest explanation — that Fortier was a fertility expert with a god complex. 

But then, as the documentary is beginning to wind down, it’s revealed that Fortier abused and molested his own children he had with his wife, crossing the line with one in a way that reflects on his clinic practices. “My father was crazy, he was a pervert,” Fortier Jr. says. “I think the happiest he ever made me was when he was laying in his coffin, dead.” 

Using this revelation as a bombshell reveal, instead of as a starting point to characterize Fortier and his actions, is a narrative miscalculation. It would’ve stripped away any opportunity to justify Fortier’s fertility fraud, which one of his adopted daughters attempts to do, as a harmless means to an end that enabled women who wanted to be mothers become pregnant. Rather, it would have better framed Fortier’s story as that of an abuser who operated unchecked for his entire life. 

In the end, however, it’s still clear that Fortier is a monster, and creates space to meditate on his children’s pain. “Baby God” treats its subjects with dignity and empathy and, unlike “Almost Family,” doesn’t shy away from the wreckage his legacy left behind. 

“Baby God” is currently streaming on HBO Max.

Hollywood is still overlooking Latinx filmmakers: “My story matters, my pain matters”

The lack of Latinx American filmmakers is troubling — especially considering that the Latinx community is the largest non-white moviegoing audience in the United States. In fact, Latinx viewers were 24% of the audience for the first Paul Walker/Vin Diesel “Fast and the Furious” film,and were 38% of the audience for the sequel, “2 Fast 2 Furious,” according to Target Latino.

However, there are too few mainstream Latinx American directors. Miguel Arteta was the rare Latinx writer/director to have a feature released theatrically this year — the Tiffany Haddish-Rose Byrne-Salma Hayek comedy, “Like a Boss.” And Robert Rodriguez, arguably the best known Latinx American filmmaker working regularly in Hollywood, has his new film “We Can Be Heroes” coming to Netflix Jan. 1. 

But these men (and they are mostly men) are the exceptions. Gregory Nava, who made the landmark Oscar-nominated “El Norte” back in 1983 and “Selena” in 1997, has not directed a film since 2007. And indie filmmaker Victor Nuñez, who helmed the Oscar-nominated “Ulee’s Gold,” has not made a feature since 2009.

More often than not, when films are made for a Latinx audience, Latinx American directors are not hired. Take for example two films from last year, the American remake of the Mexican hit “Miss Bala” starring Gina Rodriguez, directed by Catherine Hardwicke and “We the Animals,” director Jeremiah Zagar’s adaption of Justin Torres’ novel. Both films were good, but what might they have been with Latinx talent behind the camera?

Why does Hollywood not provide Latinx American filmmakers with the opportunity to create work for their community? Moreover, why is Hollywood not telling more Latinx stories? There is a significant audience hungry for Latinx American cinema in general, and films that go beyond the tropes of gangland and immigrant tales in particular. Actors and directors want to work and tell their stories. They often have to create their own projects because they are being largely ignored by the studios. 

In fact, there is a campaign, the “Untitled Latinx Project,” that started to lobby studios at the end of Hispanic Heritage Month in October this year, demanding “systemic change in our industry” in a document called, “La Letter.” The project is challenging Hollywood to not just create opportunities but also increase representation for Latinx as well as Black and Indigenous members of the film and TV community. 

Josefina Lopez was one of the many Latinx talents who signed “La Letter.” She wrote “Real Women Have Curves,” a hit 2002 indie film that won the Audience Award and Special Jury Prize at Sundance. Lopez has encountered more roadblocks than inroads over her 30+ year career. She talked with Salon about the trials and tribulations she has experienced in the industry, and what she’d like to see changed. While Lopez speaks from personal experience, many of her observations echo what other people of color encounter working in the film community.

“I’ve been at this since I was 18, and I have been asked to write a lot of gang movies. That’s what executives think is commercial and gets made,” she said. “We are sold as dangerous people you should be afraid of. I’ve had so many white directors approach me about gang films, or tell me how they’re making a movie about gangs not knowing anything about my community. I say, ‘I don’t exploit our community’s suffering.'”

Nevertheless, she acknowledged, “Everyone does gang movies because they get distribution. I’ve been writing about successful, educated, Latinos, but I can’t get those [films] made. I wrote a film about a Latina running for mayor 30 years ago, but it was too controversial. I don’t have any gang experience. No one ever recruited me! [laughs] I did write immigrant films because I am an immigrant and know that experience. I wrote about a Latina going to Paris in my novel, ‘Hungry Woman,’ and I am trying to make that movie. The other story that now sells is about coyotes [people smugglers] and the undocumented — and I’ve been writing about that for 30 years.”

Her frustration with the industry is palpable. When “Lady Bird” won two Golden Globes and was nominated for five Oscars, Lopez was crying because the film was basically the story of “Real Women Have Curves” but with a skinny white girl. 

“Why aren’t there Latinos?” she asked, bemoaning the heartbreak of being made to feel invisible. Even when she was an undocumented youth and saw the rare Latino character on TV, they were inevitably criminals or maids. She recalled, “It really hurt so much as a little kid to feel not real. When you are a kid and hiding and feel you don’t have the right to be a human; your pain does not matter. At 16 ‘a.k.a. Pablo’ came on TV. I was so excited. Finally, Latinos on TV! A Mexican family! I was devastated when the show was canceled after like six episodes. Why can’t we see ‘The Lopez Bunch?’ That’s why I devoted my life to writing — because my story matters, my pain matters.”

The idea of never having to see storytelling from a perspective other than a white masculine, western point of view, is what Lopez calls, “White Writer Privilege.” She explains how this kind of thinking creates blind spots in terms of Latinx and people of color being seen. White writers should ask, “Am I the right person to tell you the story?” and “Could this story be done justice by a person from that community?” When White Writers tell stories about people of color, they can damage the community with their ignorance and even get people killed. Lopez said, “White people love everything about our culture — except us.” 

One story from her career is particularly telling. Lopez was up for a job for writing a TV show about a maid who gets bitten by a mosquito that gives her a superpower and cleans better. She asked the producer, “Why, if she has superpowers, would she still be a maid?” and justified her query, stating, “I have to ask this. People will ask me, ‘Why would you take on this project?'” 

Or there was the time when Lopez pointed out that a producer had said something “subtly racist” in a meeting, even though she knew speaking up could cost her the job. Afterward, her representative advised her to “tone it down,” and that the producer thought she had “a chip on her shoulder.” 

Ask Lopez about a “watershed” Latinx film on a par with “Crazy Rich Asians” or “Black Panther” – films starring predominantly POC casts that became crossover megahits with all audiences — that she would like to see get made and she will mention “Rain of Gold,” a classic Mexican American immigrant experience novel. “It would be our ‘Roots,’ she said.

However, Lopez knows that getting a project like “Rain of Gold” made would require financing and distribution, which could be difficult to obtain. She observed, “You can produce a feature, but if you can’t get stars, then you can’t get distribution. Producers produce what’s safe: books and brands. Latino stories have to have a book attached, and that limits what is commercial. One thing I’m focusing on is horror because Latinos love horror. It’s commercial and cheap. I wrote ‘Lola goes to Roma,’ which takes Latinos out of East LA and puts them in Europe. I have so many more movies to come.”

Lopez has a message to the executives and producers who decide which stories get told on screen. “You have a lot to learn from us. We’re trying to teach you a lesson and you’re refusing to learn. I don’t want you to feel sorry for me — but see the people you judged,” she said. “We are resourceful and resilient, and you can learn from us. I have an immigrant’s drive. We’ve had to be creative and have dignity to survive, and in my writing, I celebrate that. A lot of problems that have been created by white men can only be solved by women and people of color. The new form of storytelling is that it takes a community to solve a problem instead of just a white guy saving the day by himself. When people feel connected to themselves and each other, anything can be transformed and healed.”

However, it may be some time before Lopez gets to realize all of her Latinx Hollywood dreams. According to Gladys Rodriguez – a member of the Untitled Latinx Project and a writer/producer for “Sons of Anarchy” and “Vida” – since the “La Letter” call to action went out in the fall, to date “no studios or companies have been in touch.” 

The Trump administration is openly defying a court order to stop deporting migrant children

Justice Department lawyers admitted on Saturday that the Trump administration is openly defying a court order issued by a federal judge who has frequently tangled with the DOJ since President Donald Trump took office.

Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered border officials last month to stop deporting unaccompanied migrant children without a court hearing or a chance to seek asylum in the United States. DOJ lawyers acknowledged in a court filing over the weekend that the Department of Homeland Security has ignored Sullivan’s order and since deported at least 66 unaccompanied migrant children in “contravention” of November’s ruling.

“Defendants regret that class members were expelled contrary to the Court’s injunction and are committed to full compliance with the Court’s injunction going forward,” the DOJ filing said.

The Trump administration is using a public health law that allows the government to temporarily block noncitizens to summarily deport more than 13,000 unaccompanied migrant children amid the coronavirus pandemic. Sullivan ruled last month that the law does not allow the administration to deport border-crossers without due process and that the policy was in violation of the legal safeguards Congress created for migrant children. Federal law requires border officials to transfer unaccompanied migrant children to facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is required to provide the children with lawyers as they seek asylum or to avoid deportation.

The DOJ’s filing on Saturday showed that 34 children between the ages of 12 and 17 were deported by Customs and Border Protection despite November’s court order. One of the deported children was an American citizen who was later allowed to reenter the country.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement also admitted earlier this month that it deported 32 unaccompanied migrant children on the day of Sullivan’s decision. The agency claimed it was unaware of Sullivan’s order at the time.

“At the time the flight arrived in Guatemala City and the unaccompanied minors were transferred, neither the ICE personnel on the flight, nor those on the ground in Guatemala City, were aware of the injunction,” ICE official Jeffrey Lynch said in a filing, adding that the department then made a decision not to return the children back to the US.

The CBP deportations came despite agents being issued guidance to follow the court order, agency officials admitted, but said that some supervisors and agents were unaware of the guidance. The officials cited the pandemic as a contributing factor, noting that it has impacted in-person training.

Border Patrol chief Rodney Scott and William Ferrara, the head of the CBP Office of Field Operations, said in the filing that they regret the improper deportations and have notified authorities in Mexico and Canada of the children that were illegally deported. Scott said the agency is considering “formal discipline” for some supervisors.

The ACLU said the policy is inhumane and must be reversed.

“The widespread failure to comply with the injunction is deeply concerning and we hope the illegally expelled children will not be harmed before they can be found, if they can be found,” Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the ACLU who is challenging the deportations, told CBS News. “This cruel and unlawful policy, like so many others from the Trump administration, was putting thousands of children in grave danger,” Gelernt continued. “Not surprisingly, all three federal judges who have looked at it have concluded it should be halted.”

The policy was implemented in mid-March. By the end of September, the administration had used the policy to deport more than 200,000 migrants. Sullivan’s order does not affect other migrants who can still be deported without due process, including families with children. The administration has argued that the policy was called for by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prevent outbreaks at immigration facilities but three former administration officials told CBS News that the White House overruled career experts and pressured the CDC to implement the policy this spring.

“We were forced to do it,” one former health official said. “We exhausted all of the options. We delayed. We slow-rolled. We flat out said there’s not a public health justification. We said no. And then we were told, ‘Do it.’ So, at the end of the day, your options are to resign in protest or sign it. And if you resign in protest, the next person is just going to do it anyways.”

President-elect Joe Biden has vowed to direct the CDC and DHS to review the policy so that migrants are allowed to make asylum claims though he did not say he would end the policy.

Advocates say the policy is unnecessary and should be reversed.

“It is unconscionable that they are leaving the kids there and that they did not immediately bring them back,” Sarah Pierce of the Migration Policy Institute told BuzzFeed News.

“This policy is counter to our nation’s longstanding commitment to protecting refugees, including unaccompanied kids on the move, and the court rightly enjoined it,” Wendy Young, the president of legal assistance nonprofit Kids in Need of Defense, told Vox. “The United States is capable of determining the protection needs of these children while at the same time addressing public health concerns.”

Martha Stewart’s 30-minute chicken puttanesca is the easy comfort food we need right now

The weather has cooled off, it’s dark as night by 5 p.m., and our cravings for comfort food have grown proportionately with our lack of desire to spend tons of time cooking during the week after work. If you’re in a similar boat, never fear – you’re not going to be left with nothing but frozen food and stale pretzels just because you don’t feel like spending hours in the kitchen instead of curled up on the couch. Clever, quick recipes, like Martha Stewart‘s 30-minute chicken puttanesca with polenta, help us make satisfying and legitimately delicious weeknight meals without feeling like we’re going to collapse from exhaustion by the time we’re done cooking, thanks to a few simple shortcuts.

The key to enjoying this meal is picking up a tube of pre-cooked polenta at the store. Once it’s sliced, you sauté the polenta in olive oil until it’s golden brown on both sides, and has nice crispy edges that will offer up textural contrast in the dish.

Then, you sauté the chicken in the same skillet, and remove it to make the punchy puttanesca sauce. A combination of olives, capers and garlic transforms even the most bland store-bought marinara sauce, adding a briny, savory quality that will make you want to add an extra scoop of sauce to your plate.

To finish the dish, add the polenta rounds and the chicken back to the skillet, nestling them into the puttanesca sauce so all surfaces have a nice coating of flavor. Top with shredded mozzarella and pop under the broiler, so the cheese melts and starts to brown, which adds even more flavor to this one-skillet, 30-minute chicken recipe.

In less time than it takes to listen to an episode of your favorite podcast, you’ll have a restaurant-worthy meal that tastes good at the kitchen table, but even better eaten on the couch surrounded by cozy blankets.

Get the recipe for Martha’s Chicken-and-Polenta Puttanesca Melts — also in the November issue of Martha Stewart Living.

Our mission at SheKnows is to empower and inspire women, and we only feature products we think you’ll love as much as we do. Please note that if you purchase something by clicking on a link within this story, we may receive a small commission of the sale.

Read more SheKnows:

  1. The Best Ina Garten-Approved Kitchen Gifts for Foodies
  2. 17 Holiday Main Courses You Can Make Right in Your Slow Cooker
  3. Don’t Miss These Incredible Ina Garten Holiday Recipes & Gift Ideas

Kayleigh McEnany refuses to call Biden president-elect because Electoral College is just “one step”

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Tuesday again declined to acknowledge that President-elect Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

At a White House briefing, McEnany was asked if President Donald Trump had recognized that Biden is the president-elect after the Electoral College officially determined the outcome of the election this week.

“The president is still involved in ongoing litigation related to the election,” McEnany deflected. “Yesterday’s [Electoral College] vote was one step in the constitutional process so I will leave that to him and refer you to the campaign for more on that litigation.”

McEnany also declined to offer any response to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who congratulated Biden earlier on Tuesday.

“I haven’t gotten the president’s reaction to that yet but the president, again, is pursuing ongoing litigation,” she said.

Watch the video below from Fox News.

It’s time to scare people about COVID

I still remember exactly where I was sitting decades ago, during the short film shown in class: For a few painful minutes, we watched a woman talking mechanically, raspily through a hole in her throat, pausing occasionally to gasp for air.

The public service message: This is what can happen if you smoke.

I had nightmares about that ad, which today would most likely be tagged with a trigger warning or deemed unsuitable for children. But it was supremely effective: I never started smoking and doubt that few if any of my horrified classmates did either.

When the government required television and radio stations to give $75 million in free airtime for antismoking ads between 1967 and 1970 — many of them terrifyingly graphic — smoking rates plummeted. Since then, numerous smoking “scare” campaigns have proved successful. Some even featured celebrities, like Yul Brynner’s posthumous offering with a warning after he died from lung cancer: “Now that I’m gone, don’t smoke, whatever you do, just don’t smoke.”

As the United States faces out-of-control spikes from COVID-19, with people refusing to take recommended, often even mandated, precautions, our public health announcements from governments, medical groups and health care companies feel lame compared with the urgency of the moment. A mix of clever catchphrases, scientific information and calls to civic duty, they are virtuous and profoundly dull.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges people to wear masks in videos that feature scientists and doctors talking about wanting to send kids safely to school or protecting freedom.

Quest Diagnostics made a video featuring people washing their hands, talking on the phone, playing checkers. The message: “Come together by spending time apart.”

As cases were mounting in September, the Michigan government produced videos with the exhortation, “Spread Hope, Not Covid,” urging Michiganders to put on a mask “for your community and country.”

Forget that. Mister Rogers-type nice isn’t working in many parts of the country. It’s time to make people scared and uncomfortable. It’s time for some sharp, focused, terrifying realism.

“Fear appeals can be very effective,” said Jay Van Bavel, associate professor of psychology at New York University, who co-authored a paper in Nature about how social science could support COVID response efforts. (They may not be needed as much in places like New York, he noted, where people experienced the constant sirens and the makeshift hospitals.)

I’m not talking fear-mongering, but showing in a straightforward and graphic way what can happen with the virus.

From what I could find, the state of California came close to showing the urgency: a soft-focus video of a person on a ventilator, featuring the sound of a breathing machine, but not a face. It exhorted people to wear a mask for their friends, moms and grandpas.

But maybe we need a PSA featuring someone actually on a ventilator in the hospital. You might see that person “bucking the vent” — bodies naturally rebel against the machine forcing pressurized oxygen into the lungs, which is why patients are typically sedated.

(Because I had witnessed this suffering as a practicing doctor, I was always upfront about the trauma with loved ones of terminally ill patients when they were trying to decide whether to consent to a relative being put on a ventilator. It sounds as easy as hooking someone to an IV. It’s not.)

Another message could feature a patient lying in an ICU bed, immobile, tubes in the groin, with a mask delivering 100% oxygen over the mouth and nose — eyes wide with fear, watching the saturation numbers rise and dip on the monitor over the bed.

Maybe some PSAs should feature a so-called COVID long hauler, the 5% to 10% of people for whom recovery takes months. Perhaps a professional athlete like the National Football League’s Ryquell Armstead, 24, who has been in and out of the hospital with serious lung issues and missed the season.

These PSAs might sound harsh, but they might overcome our natural denial. “One consistent research finding is that even when people see and understand risks, they underestimate the risks to themselves,” Van Bavel said. Graphs, statistics and reasonable explanations don’t do it. They haven’t done it.

Only after Chris Christie, an adviser to President Donald Trump, experienced COVID, did he start preaching about mask-wearing: “When you have seven days in isolation in an ICU, though, you have time to do a lot of thinking,” Christie said, suggesting that people, “follow CDC guidelines in public no matter where you are and wear a mask to protect yourself and others.”

We hear from many who resist taking precautions. They say, “I know someone who had it and it’s not so bad.” Or, “It’s just like the flu.”

Sure, most longtime smokers don’t end up with lung cancer — or tethered to an oxygen tank — either. (That, in fact, was the justification of smokers like my father, whose two-pack-a-day habit contributed to his death at 47 of a heart attack.)

These new ads will seem hard to watch. “We live in a Pixar era,” Van Bavel reflected, with traditional fairy tales now stripped of their gore and violence.

But studies have shown that emotional ads featuring personal stories about the effects of smoking were the most effective at persuading folks to quit. And quitting smoking is much harder than maintaining physical distance and mask-wearing.

Once a vaccine has proved successful and enough people are vaccinated, the pandemic may well be in the rearview mirror. In the meantime, the creators of public health messaging should stop favoring the cute, warm and dull. And — at least sometimes — scare you.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Bill Barr gets the Roy Cohn boot: Trump’s long history of disloyalty strikes again

Attorney General Bill Barr, after much hinting from the palace intrigue press, has finally gotten the boot, er, resigned, a mere 36 days before the will of the voters forced him out the door. The announcement, released on Donald Trump’s Twitter feed as usual, was a long time coming, as Trump has reportedly been furious at Barr for not doing more to falsify evidence of “voter fraud” that Trump can use to justify his ongoing and failing efforts to steal the election. Trump’s pressure campaign on Barr to break the law got so out of control recently that Barr reportedly had to ban a White House liason from visiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) offices. But while Barr no doubts his good reputation on Capitol Hill can be restored by parachuting out of the burning plane at the 11th hour, no one should mistake this ending as a redemption tale for Barr.

As Noah Bookbinder of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said in an emailed statement, while it is “beyond ironic that Barr seems to have been pushed out for not going quite far enough to abuse his position for Trump’s benefit,” the reality is “Barr has repeatedly used the DOJ for the benefit of President Trump.” The attorney general clearly viewed himself more as the president’s fixer than as the nation’s top lawyer protecting the interests of the citizens of the United States. 

When Barr first came on to head the DOJ under Trump in early 2019, he replaced Jeff Sessions, who drew Trump’s ire by not doing more to obstruct the Russia investigation. Barr, who publicly lobbied for the job, proceeded to spend the next two years as a loyal flunkie for Trump, leveraging the power of the attorney general’s office to shield Trump from any accountability for his various criminal and ethical violations. Barr covered up for the Russian collusion. He tried to fix the Ukraine scandal. In the last days of the campaign, he even bolstered Trump’s lies about “voter fraud”, obviously an effort to support a conspiracy to steal the election. 


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


So what happened? Why did Barr announce — after the election — that a DOJ investigation found no “fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election“?

Probably for the same reason the Supreme Court has delicately decided to blow off Trump’s demands that they steal this for him: It simply wasn’t close enough to steal. It seems that, unlike Trump, Barr has the sense to know when the heist simply can’t be pulled off. And so, while Barr crossed every ethical line and probably quite a few legal boundaries for Trump, in the end, it wasn’t enough. Trump’s belief that loyalty is a one-way street finally kicked in and now Barr is out the door. 

Barr is just the latest of lawyers-cum-fixers for Trump that have met the same fate, dating all the way back to the 1980s, when Trump pulled the same move on the infamous Roy Cohn, the man who appears to have taught Trump everything he knows about being a real-life supervillain. 

Cohn, for those who don’t spend their time wallowing in the stories of evil people, first rose to fame working for alcoholic blacklist enthusiast Sen. Joseph McCarthy, before making a name for himself as the shadiest lawyer in New York City. He was effective, not for his legal genius so much as his legendary skills at bribery, blackmail, and influence-peddling. Only Fred Trump holds as much claim as Cohn does to making Trump the monster he is. Roy Cohn is the man who taught Trump that the rules don’t apply to people like them.

This past week, as Axios reports, Trump was in a desperate spiral to overturn the election, calling various legislators and other power players to browbeat them into finding some string to pull to invalidate the election, while also publically threatening and pressuring government officials and the Supreme Court into doing the same. This strategy is pure Roy Cohn, who taught Trump that any hurdle can be overcome by making the right phone calls, greasing the right palms and making the right threats. Just as Trump is doing now, Cohn learned the limits of his power the hard way, when he died of AIDS in 1986. And even though Cohn had devoted himself fully to Trump, turning the incompetent wannabe real estate titan into a success, Trump had no gratitude or loyalty. Instead, he abandoned Cohn, causing Cohn to say in his final days that Trump “pisses ice water.”


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


“Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Trump reportedly demanded of his staff in 2017, furious that no one was willing to step up to break the law to help him obstruct the federal investigation into his ties with a Russian conspiracy to interfere with the election. 

The answer, of course, is “dead and abandoned by you in his hour of need”.

But, of course, the demand was just further proof that Trump simply feels entitled to have minions run around breaking the rules for him, even though they will certainly be discarded the second he has no use for them. At the time, his “Roy Cohns” were Sessions, his first attorney general, and Don McGahn, working as White House counsel. Both did their level best to be loyal soldiers to Trump, and both were chewed up and spit out because they found there were legal lines they wouldn’t cross. 

Same story for Michael Cohen, who worked for Trump for years in the era after Cohn passed. Cohen spent years doing dirty work for Trump, and eventually went to prison for his role in a campaign finace fraud scheme involving pay-offs to former Trump mistresses. As he did with Cohn, Trump washed his hands of Cohen, telling transparent lies claiming he was not involved in the conspiracy, despite Cohen providing taped evidence showing otherwise. 

Unlike all these other men, however, there’s good reason to believe Barr will remain unscathed, both personally and politically, from being thrown out with the trash. Barr’s eagerness to join the Trump administration never really seemed to be about Trump, but about Trump’s usefulness to Barr’s ideological ends. Barr has had a long time interest in making the executive branch as close as possible to a monarchical role. Who better than Trump, who commits crimes with the ease the rest of us eat breakfast, to test out Barr’s notion that the president could be put above the law?

In the end, Barr may have been a better Roy Cohn than Cohn himself.

Like Cohn, Barr was able to weaponize Trump in his game of cheating the system and getting away with it. But unlike Cohn, Barr never did it out of loyalty, or with any apparent expectation of reward. Using power to get away with criminal behavior appears, with Barr, to be reward enough. 

Ina Garten shares the trick that makes tomato soup richer

We love Ina Garten and her pro cooking tips. After all, it’s because of the Food Network star that we now know these Thanksgiving hacks and learned how to make the perfect creamy hash browns. Her culinary wisdom is unmatched and endlessly appreciated. With the release of her new cookbook, “Modern Comfort Food,” she’s continued to gift us with her new recipes‘ ability to make us feel warm in our bellies — and our hearts. And the ultimate feel-good food: tomato soup, just got a whole lot better thanks to this trick from Garten.

Speaking to NPR, Garten explained that she knew her new cookbook would be released right before the election and she anticipated everyone would be stressed. And thus, Garten came to the rescue with “Modern Comfort Food.”

Garten told the radio network: “So I thought, why don’t I do something about comfort food? But like with a modern twist, and that’s how it started.”

So Garten set out to do just that, and gave her loyal fans soul-satisfying, easy-to-make dishes she knew we needed. When writing her recipes, she set out to make them with a special twist.

Garten revealed that her cookbook writing process included her sitting down, and reflecting on the distinct flavors from our childhood. And that’s how she found a way to make her tomato soup richer.

“I just said, OK, how can I make better tomato soup? So I did it with a little saffron and I did it with a splash of cream. So it was a little richer,” said the Barefoot Contessa.

As the first line in her book reads: “I often say that you can be miserable before eating a cookie and you can be miserable after eating a cookie, but you can never be miserable while you’re eating a cookie.”

As hectic as the world may be, we can always count on Ina Garten to make things (at least for a moment) a little less miserable.

Read more SheKnows:

  1. The Best Ina Garten-Approved Kitchen Gifts for Foodies
  2. 17 Holiday Main Courses You Can Make Right in Your Slow Cooker
  3. Don’t Miss These Incredible Ina Garten Holiday Recipes & Gift Ideas

Trump sues New Mexico in continued election challenge as Electoral College affirms Joe Biden’s win

As the 538 electors who make up the Electoral College met on Monday in all 50 state capitals and the District of Columbia to cast their constitutionally mandated votes for president, Donald Trump expanded his failed legal effort to overturn the 2020 election based on fictitious claims of fraud. The Trump campaign filed a federal lawsuit in New Mexico, a state he lost by more than 10 percentage points, alleging that Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver violated state law by allowing voters to submit ballots using drop boxes at polling places in lieu of presenting them in-person to a judge.

“[I]t’s not over. We keep going and we’re going to continue to go forward. We have numerous local cases,” Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade before his campaign filed its latest lawsuit. 

The Trump campaign, which has lost in court more than 30 times since the election after failing to show any evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities, largely recycles arguments from another failed Republican lawsuit in November. The New Mexico GOP sued over the state’s use of drop boxes, which were installed to reduce crowding and allow for social distancing amid the coronavirus pandemic. Republicans wanted video cameras to monitor the boxes but a judge ultimately dismissed the case after the secretary of state agreed to remind county election officials of guidelines requiring the drop boxes to be secured.

Trump’s new lawsuit asks the court to delay the certification of New Mexico’s electoral votes, which were officially cast to Biden on Monday, and order a statewide canvass of all absentee ballots. The lawsuit also asks the court to segregate absentee ballots submitted through drop boxes and contact those voters to ensure no unauthorized ballots were cast.

The campaign filed a similar lawsuit in Pennsylvania that was rejected in October by a Trump-appointed judge, who said the complaint failed to show evidence of fraud and that it was not the job of the judges to “contradict the reasoned judgment of democratically elected officials.”

“This lawsuit appears to be yet another attempt by the outgoing Trump Administration to silence the voices of lawful voters throughout the country,” Alex Curtas, a spokesman for Toulouse Oliver, told the Las Cruces Sun News. “The state GOP acknowledged that drop boxes are legal under New Mexico law… Now, on the same day that New Mexico’s electoral votes were cast for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, Donald Trump is making a desperate attempt to undermine our lawful election in New Mexico predicated on a misunderstanding of election laws.”

Trump lost the state by over 100,000 votes, and its five electoral votes would not get him much closer to reversing an election he lost by 74 electoral votes.

Trump’s campaign suffered another defeat in Wisconsin on Monday as the state Supreme Court rejected its lawsuit seeking to throw out hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots in two counties with large Black populations.

“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,” conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, who joined the court’s three liberals, said in his opinion. “The challenges raised by the Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.”

“Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook,” added liberal Justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky. “No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election.”

Many of Trump’s and his allies’ lawsuits have targeted areas with large Black populations. “This lawsuit, Mr. Troupis, smacks of racism,” Karosfky told Trump campaign lawyer Jim Troupis on Sunday, arguing that the campaign targeted Milwaukee and Dane counties “because of their diverse populations, because they’re urban.” The Trump campaign’s lawsuits have also singled out counties with large Black populations in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia.

“It is difficult for me to think of another president in modern time who has literally driven a national scheme to disenfranchise Black voters and other voters of color en masse, in the way that we see with these post-election lawsuits,” Kristen Clarke, the head of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told NPR.

But while Trump’s campaign has sought to throw out millions of legal votes and subvert the election, his legal team, led by Rudy Giuliani, has failed to convince even Trump-appointed judges of any of the president’s baseless claims. At least 86 judges, including 38 who were appointed by Trump or other Republicans, have rejected at least one case brought by Trump or his GOP allies.

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on Monday pointed out that Trump’s legal team and his allies have lost “50 times” in “almost every state.”

“So do you have the worst legal team who just don’t seem to be presenting a good case?” he asked White House adviser Stephen Miller. Claiming that “judges are caving” to the “corrupt corporate media” by outright rejecting Trump’s complaints, Miller bragged that Trump allies would present an “alternate slate of electors” in states where he challenged the rules even though these won’t be certified by secretaries of state, making them moot.

“They don’t have legal authority and so this does not affect the counting of Electoral College votes,” explained Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California Irvine School of Law.

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., has also vowed to challenge some states’ electoral results. Brooks would need a senator to sign on for a challenge, which is expected to quickly be defeated.

Despite the futility of the effort, however, Hasen said it was important not to lose sight of what Republicans were trying to do. “All of this fantasy talk about… accepting these fake electors not appointed by the state should be understood for what they are: an attempt to steal the election from the victor,” he tweeted. “That’s not hyperbole. That’s literally what it is.”

For his part, Joe Biden on Monday said “now it is time to turn the page” and “unite” and “heal” after the Electoral College vote. “In this battle for the soul of America, democracy prevailed,” the president-elect said. “We the people voted. Faith in our institutions held. The integrity of our elections remains intact.”

But even as some Republican leaders and even Russian President Vladimir Putin finally congratulated Biden on an election he won six weeks ago, many twisted themselves in knots to avoid acknowledging Biden’s victory.

“I suppose you can say official, if there is such a thing as official president-elect, or anything-else-elect,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told reporters before alluding to Trump’s lawsuits and a completely unrelated Justice Department investigation into Hunter Biden. “There’s an inauguration that will swear somebody in, and that person will be the president of the United States, but whether you call it that or not, you know, there are legal challenges that are ongoing — not very many — probably not a remedy that would change the outcome.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., claimed that Trump still had a chance despite failing to show any evidence of fraud that would affect the result and mounting legal losses. “It’s a very, very narrow path for the president,” Graham said Monday. “But having said that, I think we’ll let those legal challenges play out.”

Rep. Paul Mitchell of Michigan announced that he would quit the Republican Party on Monday for backing Trump’s attempt to “treat our election system as though we are a third-world nation and incite distrust of something so basic as the sanctity of our vote.”

Mitchell, who is retiring at the end of this term, warned that members of Congress “take an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States,’ not to preserve and protect the political interests of any individual, be it the president or anyone else, to the detriment of our cherished nation.”

“This party has to stand up for democracy first — for our Constitution first — and not political considerations,” he later told CNN. “Not to protect a candidate. Not simply for raw political power, and that’s what I feel is going on and I’ve had enough.”

Fresh tarragon and its 9 best uses

Every week Food52 gets Down & Dirty, in which we break down our favorite unique seasonal fruits, vegetables, and more.

Today: All this month we’ll be stocking up on fresh herbs to get our spring fix. Next up, tarragon.

Label something as “King” (see especially: beers and burgers) and you’re setting yourself up for disappointment—they rarely live up to their regal name. Luckily, when the French do something, it tends to be more promising. Tarragon is known as “the King of Herbs” in France, and in this case it’s a well-earned title. Tarragon is a mainstay in French cooking and an essential ingredient in both Béarnaise sauce and the combination of herbs known as fines herbes.

But its royal status hasn’t carried over stateside—not yet anyway. When we add fresh herbs to a dish, we’re far more likely to reach for basilchives, or even the polarizing cilantro, only procuring tarragon when a recipe calls for it. It’s time for that to change. This spring, vow to start using this versatile anise-scented herb more often.

If you’re a licorice-hater, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to hate tarragon, too—give it a shot. It doesn’t have a harsh flavor; Kristen describes it “like licorice chilled out and went to the countryside.” Our beloved thirschfeld adds: “The smell is a magical anise elixir, packed with the promise of the other herbs that will follow close behind: lovage, savory, chervil, and chives.” 

More: If you can’t get enough of tarragon’s anise flavor, salty licorice might be the candy for you.

Fresh Tarragon

You’re most likely to find French tarragon at the grocery store—which is good because it’s the one you want. If you end up with tarragon with a tamer flavor, you might have found Russian tarragon, which Jack Staub refers to as the “far-heartier-of-habit but infinitely less tasty surrogate.” If you’re wondering why anyone would bother with a less-tasty tarragon, the “far-heartier-of-habit” bit means it actually likes poor soil conditions and puts up with neglect and dry spells. So not only can Russian tarragon thrive in adverse conditions, but it can also be grown from seed—French tarragon rarely produces viable seeds, so new plants have to be propagated by root division or stem cuttings. 

A final type, Spanish tarragon, isn’t in the same genus as the first two, but it’s still a better substitute for French tarragon than Russian tarragon is (sorry Russian tarragon). It has wider leaves and is a little milder and sweeter in flavor.

Store tarragon in the fridge, either loosely rolled in a damp paper towel and then placed in a plastic bag or in a jar of water loosely covered in plastic. Tarragon is not well-suited for drying, as it loses a lot of its flavor. If you want to save some for later, follow Deborah Madison‘s suggestions: “Working tarragon into herb butter or steeping branches in oil or vinegar is perhaps a better way to preserve its flavor, at least for a limited time.” 

More: Here are 5 ways to flavor your butter with fresh herbs.

Fresh Tarragon

Once you’re ready to starting using your fresh tarragon, strip the leaves (2, pictured far above) from the stalks (1, far above) and chop it up (3, above) as needed for your use. Remember to add it at the end of cooking; otherwise, its flavor will be diminished. Here are 9 foods that could use more tarragon: 

Potatoes
If you’re not sure how you feel about tarragon, try it first in comforting potato dishes, like a potato salad or a springy one-pot meal with pork shoulder, new potatoes, and peas.

Eggs
Add fresh tarragon to all sorts of egg dishes, from scrambled to deviled.

Seafood
Tarragon plays well with a variety of fish, from salmon to tuna to snapper—and even works in a dipping sauce for fish sticks. Use fresh tarragon with bivalves like clams and scallops, too.

Poultry
Try fresh tarragon in every type of chicken dish you can think of—chicken saladchicken pot piechicken coated in a creamy tarragon sauce—and duck dishes, too.

Sauces
Next, add tarragon to sauces—all of the sauces: pestoaiolisauce gribiche, and green goddess dressing. Then go wild and add tarragon to a savory whipped cream with capers, a lemony dip with lima beans, a walnut and anchovy sauce, and this Semi-German Green Sauce.

Cooked Vegetables 
Tarragon has quite a strong flavor, which plays ever so nicely with roasted, grilled, or gently braised vegetables (plus, plenty of olive oil and salt!). I’m craving these roasted baby turnips with a shallot-mustard vinaigrette; roasted asparagus with creamy lemon sauce and a poached egg; these Genius braised buttery whole scallions; and I’m sure you know that grilled artichokes need nothing else but a good aioli—this recipe is packed with tarragon.

By the way, tarragon is just as powerful paired with vegetables in a creamy soup, like these soups for all seasons: asparagus and yogurt (spring into summer), garlicky zucchini (summer into fall), celery root and apple (fall into winter).

Pasta 
Just as licorice-y fresh fennel or fennel seed-packed sausage pairs wonderfully with pasta, so too does fresh tarragon. This mean, green lasagna (which actually does also call for fresh fennel as well!) leans into those anise-y flavors, while this lemony mushroom spaghetti and this garlicky, nutty fusilli number both pair the herb with asparagus. Not an asparagus fan? Try tarragon pasta with ricotta-coated summer squash.

Cocktails and Other Drinks
When it comes to mixing herbs like tarragon into cocktails (and mocktails!), lean into bright, citrusy flavors. You could simply muddle a handful into your favorite highball, but if you want to start with a recipe, try a grapefruit-tarragon gin and tonic or a floral melon and white rum mojito. PS: it’s just as exciting in classic lemonade.

Dessert 
If basil and sage make their way into your desserts, welcome tarragon to the party! We’ll start with this tarragon-infused butter peach pie, with a scoop or three of grapefruit-tangerine-lemon-tarragon sorbet. And since fruit desserts are clearly the way to let tarragon shine, why not fill the freezer with a batch of strawberry-tarragon ice pops while you’re at it.

Photos by Mark Weinberg

Cider makers are betting on foraged apples for climate resilience

If you know where to look in the fall, you’ll find patches of ground turned red with wild apples in certain parts of Ithaca, New York. Steve Selin knows where to look — and he seeks that bounty out in his role as cider maker at South Hill Cider. Although Selin owns a small orchard just outside of downtown Ithaca, he also spends time searching the hedgerows and forests around his part of the Finger Lakes for wild apples to use in his cider.

Steve Selin carries harvesting materials to gather wild apples.

Steve Selin gathering wild apples to make cider. (Photo credit: South Hill Cider)

“Wild apples have a character that is impossible to simulate,” Selin said. “Like the difference between picking wild mushrooms and growing cultivated mushrooms. And the trees grow in the wild; they are generally very slow-growing and quite old. These two characteristics are known in the wine world to create more concentrated wine. I also find that is the case with apples.”

You probably wouldn’t want to bite into one of the apples Selin finds. They’re tart, sour, and often bitter. But their intense flavor was made for fermenting and turning into cider. Quite literally.

Centuries ago, cider was the alcoholic beverage of choice, with many landowning Americans growing apples to ferment into hard cider. When prohibition went into effect, apple growers began to focus on producing the fruit as a snack instead of a beverage, and orchardists began breeding and propagating sweeter apple varieties instead. As a result, many cider apple trees were abandoned, left to grow on their own — and most people have never tasted cider made from their apples.

Read more Civil Eats: 7 Ways the Second Gentleman Could Address the Root Causes of Hunger

Selin, who has been bottling cider since 2003, now finds himself in the midst of a cider renaissance in the U.S. And with the beverage making a comeback, growing 10 times in retail sales from 2008 to 2018, some cider makers aren’t just foraging for wild apples, they’re also grafting older, wild apple varieties in their orchards.

While some of these apple trees are wild in the sense that they grew from seed to tree, others likely came from cultivated varieties planted decades ago and since forgotten. In addition to ensuring a steady supply of the most optimal cider apples, cultivating these varieties also enables cider makers to grow the fruit to withstand the looming threats of global warming and the range of diseases and pests that climate change will bring to their regions.

Selin is grafting and planting some of the wild seedlings he has collected. “We have about 100 of them in the orchard that  will be bearing fruit in the next couple of years,” he said. “We grafted another 100 this year and are increasingly going in that direction. I believe that these will be the next generation’s cider apples in our region.”

Breeding climate-resistant apples

While apples grow in all 50 states, most cider apples are grown in the Northeast, Northwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Midwest. They need well-drained, slightly acidic soil and cold temperatures, but milder winters, late frosts, rain, and drought can all lead to large crop losses, such as the frost-and-hail combination that wiped out some crops throughout the Northeast last May. The climate crisis will also bring changes in pathogens, pests, and an increase in bacterial diseases such as fireblight, which affects fruit trees such as apples and pears and can destroy entire orchards.

“[Climate change] doesn’t necessarily mean more pest and disease pressure, but it does mean changes,” said Cameron P. Peace, a professor of horticulture at Washington State University. “You can breed apples to be resistant to fireblight, [but] something new may come along, or the strain of fireblight changes and overcomes the current resistance.”

Some of South Hill Cider's apple harvest. (Photo credit: South Hill Cider)

Some of South Hill Cider’s apple harvest. (Photo credit: South Hill Cider)

Peace oversees the school’s student-run Palouse Wild Cider Breeding Program, which, for the past six years has worked to breed cider apples that are fireblight resistant and bred to grow in the local region and flower quickly, allowing the students to see the outcome of their crosses. They started with more than 20 wild apple seedlings species, along with heirloom and modern seedlings from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Geneva, New York collection.

“The students are making crosses that have never been made before, and it’s amazing the things that are coming out of it in terms of the fruit’s shape and color — and underlining that is genetic diversity, which provides an opportunity for adaptation for various climate changes,” said Peace.

While his students are focused on developing apple varieties for Northwest, Peace hopes that by focusing on wild apples they help develop tools to encourage more breeders to use more diversity.

Harvesting wild pears in upstate New York.

A wild pear harvest. (Photo credit: South Hill Cider)

“I think breeding should be regional,” he said. “People shouldn’t be trying to think of breeding for the whole world. We are planning for the future decades ahead, and while you might want to do your trials in a warmer climate, in general where there is a viable crop, there should be a local breeder working on those varieties. If they happen to do well somewhere else, good for them.”

One of the tools Peace has helped to develop outside of the student-run breeding program is DNA diagnostic tools of apples and cherries, which will allow botanists to more accurately predict how the trees and their crosses will perform.

Finger Lakes cider makers at work in the orchard

Selin isn’t alone in planting wild apple varieties; other Finger Lakes cider makers, including Autumn Stosheck of Eve’s Cidery and Eric Shatt of Redbyrd Orchard Cider, are also grafting foraged apple varieties in hopes of growing more resilient trees.

Shatt and his wife and business partner Deva Mass started cider orchards in Burdett and Trumansburg, New York, in 2003, relying in part on wild trees they found in abandoned orchards. They have been making cider for the public under the Redbyrd label since 2010.

“It’s always been a quest in farming for me to grow in a way that requires the least amount of inputs,” Shatt said. “In discovering wild trees, it was kind of obvious that because they establish themselves and have continued to survive and produce crops of apples without any inputs, that there was a good potential to cultivate them,” he added.

Wild pears. (Photo credit: South Hill Cider)

Wild pears. (Photo credit: South Hill Cider)

Over the course of their work, Shatt and Mass have grafted about 30 different wild apples into their orchards, although there are only about five or six that Shatt said he continues to be excited about.

“Once you graft them in, sometimes they don’t perform the way they did in the wild. They’re overly vigorous, or they don’t produce enough,” Shatt said. He now gives what’s known as scion wood — a shoot from an established tree used to start a graft — to others who want to grow the varieties he’s cultivated.

“I’m on this quest to grow food in a low-impact way. In searching for and discovering naturally resilient cultivators and bringing them into the orchard, we’re promoting sustainable food systems,” Shatt said.

Read more Civil Eats: Op-ed: Dear Secretary of Agriculture, This Is Your Chance

While foraging is endemic to the local culture in Ithaca, and many Finger Lakes cideries market their products that way, Mass and Stoscheck are keenly aware it’s happening on land that once belonged to the local Indigenous population.

“We hope that through featuring wild fruit in ciders that tell a story about a place, we can begin a dialogue around land rematriation and reparations in a state where less than 2 percent of farmers are BIPOC. We’re trying to organize around paying it back,” Stoscheck said, adding that she is working on a holiday pack and virtual tasting with Redbyrd Orchards Cider with proceeds going to Quarter Acre For The People, a land access project.

“This is not the final thing on reparations; it’s more like a starting point in a conversation around what businesses can do,” she said.

Stoscheck started Eve’s Cidery nearly 20 years ago. She and her business partners forage mainly for wild pears, specifically looking for fireblight-resistant trees. They’ve grafted and are trialing wild pear specimens that other cidermakers in the Finger Lakes have found, as well as apples.

checking on apple rootstock.

Checking on rootstock. (Photo by Bridget Shirvell)

Her big focus, though, is growing rootstock on to which she can graft the apples. Most rootstock is dwarfing rootstock, which comes from the West and produces the smallest type of apple trees. Since the 1950s, rootstock has been bred to be smaller and more productive, for a focus on ever-higher planting density, ever-earlier yields, and ever-higher yields per acre.

“It is considered not commercially viable to plant an orchard on anything but dwarfing rootstocks,” Stosheck said. “However, the price you pay for all that productivity is a tree that really couldn’t survive in any natural setting.”

She’s started planting a cold hardy rootstock that she believes is also less susceptible to mouse girdling than many other rootstocks, helping make for a large, healthy, vigorous tree that will be more resilient to a low-input organic management system.

Stoscheck is excited by the developments she and other cider makers are bringing about, related to both cultivation and taste, in their work with wild varieties. “If universities and corporations are breeding apples for shelf life and yield, what are you as an eater missing out on in terms of flavor?” she asked. “Cider made from wild and heirloom apples offer a whole delightful universe of flavor and aroma that you’ve been deprived of and never knew existed.”

Still, it’s a long-term project, she emphasized. “We’re at the beginning — it’s a project that’s realistically multi-generational. We’re working on it; we’re figuring it out. I have ideas, [but] check back in 30 years.”

Under attack for its response to the coronavirus pandemic, OSHA is playing catch-up

In the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, infections began spreading at the JBS USA beef processing plant in Grand Island, Nebraska, the area’s largest employer with 3,500 workers. On April 3, a worried employee called federal regulators at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, complaining that despite the outbreak the plant was not practicing social distancing. 

OSHA made note of the call, but closed the case without visiting the plant, agency records show. Within three weeks, coronavirus cases at the plant grew exponentially, to 237 by April 21.  But OSHA didn’t conduct an inspection until May 12, in keeping with the requirement to investigate whenever a worker dies or at least three are hospitalized. OSHA records indicate that the case is open.  

In the first months of the pandemic, OSHA drew scathing criticism for a hands-off approach to a crisis that was claiming  the lives of many hundreds of essential workers, including meatpackers. More recently,  OSHA began ramping up enforcement activity. As of  November 26, the agency had levied $3.4 million in proposed fines against 255 employers that failed coronavirus-related inspections, according to an OSHA press release.  The inspections and fines mark a significant bump from early September, when OSHA had cited no more than a handful of employers

Despite the burst of activity, a FairWarning review of OSHA inspections shows that the regulators are mostly responding to deaths or hospitalizations, as required by law, rather than flagging unsafe conditions before more workers get infected. More than 200 out of a total of 317 inspections  were in response to reports of a worker dying, or at least three getting hospitalized, according to FairWarning’s review. A high percentage of the inspections were at hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and other long-term care centers, and more than half were in New York or New Jersey, where most coronavirus deaths occurred in the first months of the pandemic. 

There is no official count of suspected deaths from Covid contracted in the workplace, and some workers who died could have been infected somewhere else. But National Nurses United, a union, says that as of mid-September 1,718 healthcare workers had died from Covid-19. Hundreds more deaths have been reported by groups representing meatpackers and transit, retail and grocery workers. 

Critics say OSHA is not working to prevent workplace outbreaks before they occur.  

“It’s all reactive–following deaths,” said Debbie Berkowitz, a former chief of staff and senior advisor for OSHA during the Obama administration,  who now heads the worker health and safety program for the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group. 

In a statement, OSHA said any suggestion that it is not protecting workers from COVID is “patently false.” According to the statement, “OSHA continues to investigate every complaint about workplace safety, and has done so in over 12,000 COVID-19 related complaints this year.”

OSHA regulates job safety in about half the states. The rest run their own job safety programs under agreements with OSHA. OSHA’s count of citations and penalties does not include actions by those states.

As reported by FairWarning, the number of OSHA inspectors has fallen to record lows  under the Trump administration, which has also left key positions unfilled. “The anti-regulatory bent of this administration has resulted in unnecessary death and misery for people,” said Ryan Talbott, a staff attorney with the Center for Food Safety, one of several groups that petitioned OSHA  to adopt temporary emergency standards to protect workers from the coronavirus. 

OSHA has so far offered  guidance on preventing the spread of infection, but argues that its existing rules  are sufficient to protect workers from COVID risks.

Among those, the agency said, is a general duty clause requiring employers to keep workplaces “free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”

Fourteen states have gone further than OSHA by issuing COVID-specific regulations, according to the National Employment Law Project. Among them are Virginia, Oregon and California, where Cal/OSHA on December 1 implemented a new set of emergency regulations meant to protect farmworkers and others who have been most affected. 

Advocates say that a piecemeal, state-by-state approach is far less effective than standardized federal rules specific to Covid. These [California] regulations set up a good standard to reduce transmission, but I don’t think that’s going to be enough,” said Susana Matias, a UC Berkeley researcher who has studied Covid-19 outbreaks among farmworkers in the state. Among other concerns, she worries that subcontractors who recruit immigrants to work at farms may escape scrutiny under the new California rules. 

Berkowitz, the former OSHA official, said that the agency’s decision not to issue an emergency standard, and “of doing almost no enforcement until very close to the election, has contributed to the spread of COVID-19 and has resulted in…workers dying .”

Ready for Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago shadow presidency? That’s where all this is heading

On Monday morning’s edition of “Fox & Friends,” Donald Trump’s personal Wormtongue, white supremacist Stephen Miller, announced Trump’s latest and most ludicrous attempt to remain president despite the incontrovertible results of the election.

Also on Monday, the Electoral College officially affirmed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the winners of the election, 306-232. This, Miller seemed to suggest, is irrelevant.

Miller explained that Republican legislators in the major swing states will send alternate electors to Congress — electors who, unlike the actual electors, have cast their ballots for Trump in defiance of the popular-vote outcome.

“You have an alternate slate of electors in a state like, say, Wisconsin or in a state like Georgia,”  the lifeless-eyed outgoing White House adviser began. “And we’ll make sure that those results are sent up side by side to Congress.” 

In other words, Miller apparently believes these “alternate” cosplay Trump electors will allow congressional Republicans to take one last stab at certifying the fake Trump electoral vote over the votes of the actual electors. 

Sure enough, to this point Republicans are following through with this charade. In Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia, rosters of phony-baloney GOP electors cast their ballots for Trump. Meanwhile, the actual Texas electors even voted 34-4 to support these sham electors. 

The Red Hats have gotten desperate enough to fool themselves for another couple of weeks, into halfway believing their slates of fake electors will hand Trump the real presidency. It doesn’t work that way, obviously, but it further enables what I believe is Trump’s longer-term plan.

For some time now, I’ve been predicting on my podcast and elsewhere that Trump is setting up a shadow presidency and real-life fifth column. This elector scam augments the framework for it. He’s already spent most of November and December insisting that he’s the actual winner of the election, “by a lot.” Now he has so-called electors to backstop his claim.

It’s entirely possible, if not inevitable, that Trump will hold his own swearing-in ceremony on Inauguration Day, probably in the context of another super-spreader rally. That will officially launch his shadow presidency, while conveniently distracting at least some viewers from paying attention to the actual inauguration of President Joe Biden at the U.S. Capitol. During the event, Trump will inevitably yawp his way through a “second inaugural address,” laying out his supposed agenda for the next four years. From there, he’ll retreat to his alternate-universe “White House” at Mar-a-Lago, where he’ll proceed as if he were still the chief executive. Except now, he’ll be the president of a diminishing group of loyalists who will acknowledge him as their president-in-exile, awaiting his triumphant return to Washington in 2025.

Sociopathic tyrants like Trump never abandon their power. They must be dragged away from it. Psychologically speaking, pretending to still be president will go a long way toward dampening the pain of Trump’s ouster. He’s like a child who’s told he can’t have a dog, so he buys a BB gun instead and shoots pellets at the neighbor’s dog.

There’s no chance Donald Trump will simply walk away. He can’t physically bring himself to do it. A shadow presidency, therefore, will allow him to continue play-acting as a wrongfully deposed leader, forced by a “rigged election” to flee to Florida, where he’ll continue to lament how unfairly he’s been treated. He’ll sign fake executive orders condemning actions by the Biden White House. He’ll hold press conferences, rallies and maybe even State of the Union addresses — cut-rate imitations of all the things he’d normally do as president. 

And his supporters will go along with it, while framing Biden as the fake president. After all, Trump’s Red Hats have been suckered into believing that the world’s most notorious con man is the only leader telling the truth, while literally everyone else, including Fox News anchors, Trump-supporting governors and Trump-appointed judges, is lying. To deny the presidential authority of Trump is to deny the existence of God. So of course they’ll ride along with the shadow presidency. They’ll suck it down like heroin, the same way they’ve sucked down every horrible deed, every trespass and every crime for the past four interminable years.

Why wouldn’t they? It checks all the boxes, including the all-important victimhood box. No one loves playing the victim more than Trump and his aggrieved, mostly white and mostly male supporters. That sweet, sweet victim card will keep them sufficiently motivated to remain entrenched in their political Galt’s Gulch — their involuntary exile — waiting for the moment of glorious return, when they can carry Trump’s ponderous bulk back into the White House aboard a gilded palanquin.

Naturally, this vaporizes the American tradition of “one president at a time,” but political traditions are meaningless to Trump and his followers. If it’s not nailed down, he’ll knock it over. The serious danger intrinsic to this plan is that it may further split the country, normalizing sedition and marching us toward some form of disjointed secession. Other than charging him with the actual crime sedition under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115, however, there’s not much that can be done, chiefly because we’ve never been down this road before. I honestly don’t know how this will end up, but it won’t be good for America.

Irrespective of whether Trump follows through on any of this, we live in a nation where upwards of 74 million suckers are cool with fascist tyranny. Worse yet, they believe in the small, weak, whiny man at the center of it, and buy into his harebrained schemes. I’ve often said that Trump could promise his Red Hats their very own jetpacks made of beef, and they’d believe him. After all, they believe he passed Veterans Choice. They believe his economy was the greatest ever. They believe Trump is a patriot who loves democracy. They’ll delude themselves into believing anything, including his self-anointed status as the one true president.

Suffice it to say, this is a worst-case scenario. My ongoing disclaimer is that I hope I’m wrong. But everything we’ve observed about Trump surely indicates that, at the very least, he’ll never acknowledge that he lost the election and he’ll never shut the hell up about it either. So whether he pretends to be a second-term president or whether he simply re-litigates the 2020 election at rallies and on Twitter until … whenever, he and his fanboys will continue to be disruptive to the functioning of the republic. It’s now a matter of degree: How disruptive will they be, exactly? It would be a mistake to underestimate the extent to which they’ll continue to prop up their deposed autocrat, trying anything to derail the Biden presidency. Worst of all, as soon as the rest of us let our guard down, they’ll be back. And if that happens, the sequel will be far worse than the first time around. 

Political reporters want a fight with Biden? Here’s an idea: Fight for transparency

Easily-bored political reporters are looking for something exciting to do now that the Trump circus is leaving town, and I have an idea: Demand transparency from the Biden administration, and don’t let up.

Start by insisting that Biden hold open-ended press conferences ASAP. Then get him to publicly commit not simply to a return to Obama-level transparency, but to a new era of openness. The only way a public that has lost faith in government can learn to trust it again will be by being able to truly see how it works — and by seeing it held accountable.

Here are a few specific questions reporters should ask:

  • When will you start releasing White House visitors logs again, as Obama did but Trump refused to do? Will you do it with fewer exceptions and less subterfuge?
  • Will you demand that your agency heads do the same?
  • Will you publicly authorize multiple top administration officials to speak to reporters on the record — with no more anonymous “background briefings”?
  • Will you proactively establish entire classes of documents that will be made public by federal agencies without reporters having to ask? That would include the calendars of agency heads, agency org charts, top contracts and grants, all unclassified correspondence with Congress, and a summary of classified inspector general reports, for starters.
  • Will you restore transparency of the pardon process? Will you pledge to use clemency for mercy and justice and never for personal protection or political favor?
  • Will you promise to respect the oversight powers of Congress? Will you repudiate Trump’s blanket refusal to comply with congressional requests and subpoenas?
  • Here is a list of documents that Congress has requested from the executive branch, but that Trump has refused to turn over. Will you release them now?
  • Here is a list of the most important Freedom of Information Act requests that have been ignored by the Trump administration. Will you make the information public without any further delay?
  • Are you committed to appointing nonpolitical inspectors general? Do you promise to fire them only for good and specified causes?
  • Please publicly acknowledge the value of dissenters and whistleblowers inside the executive branch.
  • Will you pledge not to use the Espionage Act of 1917 to pursue leakers?
  • Will you renounce the prosecution of journalists for doing their job?
  • Do you recognize that the Obama administration was insufficiently forthright about surveillancekiller drones and cyber-warfare? Do you agree that the public deserves to know what the government’s overarching approach is to these increasingly common and powerful tools, as well as what guardrails prevent their misuse?
  • Will you, unlike Obama, openly discuss American policy regarding the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners and the covert targeted killings of terror suspects?

There is nothing inappropriately partisan or provocative about journalists starting to bang this drum now, and loudly. Habits are forming within the new administration, and it’s essential for the public that those habits be good ones.

“Without rules in place to ensure transparency, ethics, accountability, none of the stuff that we want to get done is going to get done effectively,” says Lisa Rosenberg, executive director of Open the Government, which advances the public’s right to know. “Because at its core, for our democracy, for institutions to work, they need to be accountable. So if we want to address COVID, if we want to address climate change — it doesn’t matter what it is — we need to start with the fundamentals. And the fundamentals are an accountable government.”

I interviewed Rosenberg because she recently finished shepherding an extraordinary report titled “Accountability 2021: Recommendations for restoring accountability in the federal government.” The contributors — an all-star collection of most of my favorite good-government types — put together a spectacular and exhaustive list for policymakers in the executive and judicial branch.

It’s also something of a cheat sheet for reporters who want to set a positive, public-spirited agenda. Several of my suggestions above are cribbed from it.

One goal, Rosenberg said, should be for Biden to say, “I will be available to journalists. I commit to making all of these people available to journalists. And you can ask us anything.”

She said that when Biden interviews job candidates, “he should ask them about their commitment to transparency.”

One of the major, concrete recommendations in the report: “We want what we’re calling a chief accountability officer to be in the White House,” Rosenberg said. “And that person then would implement the ethics orders, the transparency orders — all of those sorts of initiatives that we hope to see issued on Day One of a Biden presidency.”

Having such a position would be a big step forward, Rosenberg said. “By placing that person in the White House, presumably, they have the ear of the president. And they can say, ‘You know, Mr. President, this isn’t going the way it’s supposed to. We’re not seeing proactive disclosures,’ or ‘We’re seeing when one agency doesn’t talk to another.’ “

Here’s one particularly resonant passage from the report:

Agency leadership fails to reward civil servants who work to advance transparency, instead too often consistently violate legal requirements to provide comprehensive, accurate, and timely information to the public; the default to extreme, unwarranted secrecy often puts civil rights and civil liberties at risk; and antiquated technology and the lack of uniform data protocols leave us in the dark.

And one possible solution:

The president should prioritize the institutionalization and protection of dissent across government. Each agency should at minimum create a “dissent channel” —modeled after the Dissent Channel at the Department of State and the Direct Channel at the United States Agency for International Development — that allows civil servants and federal contractors to voice objections to policies, corruption, or inappropriate interference by political appointees, and clarify that any civil servant or contractor that appropriately utilizes the channel for those purposes will be protected from retaliation under applicable whistleblower protection laws.

If the political press suddenly wants to prove how tough it is, after four years of completely failing to hold Donald Trump and his inner circle accountable, it could best do so not by finding fake scandals to blow out of proportion, but by aggressively pushing Biden to meet the needs of the public — in a way no president has ever done before.

Yes, Trump will leave office — but his seditious secession movement isn’t going away

Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by more than 7 million votes. All 50 states have certified the votes cast in the 2020 election, and as of Monday evening, the members of the Electoral College have cast their ritual votes. On Jan. 6, Congress will count those votes and confirm Biden as president-elect. (Republican dead-enders can delay that process, but they have no power to stop it. On Jan. 20, Joe Biden will take the oath of office as the 46th president of the United States.

How has President Trump responded to these events? By enlisting or intimidating his allies and sycophants into an attempted coup against American democracy.

Trump’s plot, so far, has involved dozens of lawsuits demanding that the results of the 2020 election be overturned. These cases have involved false claims of “voter irregularities,” “fraud,” votes cast after Election Day and assorted other lies and conspiratorial fictions. Trump has also embedded loyalists in key positions throughout the federal government, with the apparent goal of sabotaging Biden’s presidency.

Predictably, there have been threats of violence by Trump and his agents against their “enemies” who are “disloyal” because they refuse to collaborate in the plot to nullify the election results of the 2020 election. This stochastic terrorism bore poisoned fruit last Saturday as the “Western chauvinist” Proud Boys and other right-wing thugs descended upon Washington to protest the defeat of their leader.

Trump’s unofficial paramilitaries attacked people seemingly at random and sought out street fights with antifascists and other groups. There were four stabbings, leaving one person in critical condition, and more than 30 arrests.

As part of their rampage, the pro-Trump goons also engaged in apparent hate crimes targeting black churches, stealing and burning Black Lives Matter banners. The Rev. Ianther M. Mills of the Asbury United Methodist Church described the events as “reminiscent of cross burnings” by the Ku Klux Klan.

Author and commentator Jared Yates Sexton summarized last weekend’s events on Twitter: “Laugh at the Proud Boys and all these fascist street gangs all you want, but if there were ever-present cellphones and cameras in 1920s Germany you can bet the videos would look pretty identical.

In total, Trump and his allies appear to be committing the crimes of sedition or treason against the United States.

The boldest and most desperate gambit in Trump’s coup attempt was of course the now-defunct lawsuit by Texas and 17 other states that aimed to have all the votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin nullified. That would have thrown the electoral count into chaos, and presumably ended with either state-appointed electors or the House of Representatives awarding Trump a second term. “The Seditious 18” lawsuit is in many ways unprecedented in American history.

After the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on Friday, the Republican Party of Texas responded with an official threat of secession: “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

Trump reportedly plans not to attend Biden’s inauguration — another departure from long-standing democratic precedent — and has hinted to friends and advisers that he may use that same day to announce his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election. Trump and his movement will also continue to claim that they were “betrayed,” and that Joe Biden and the Democrats “stole” the 2020 election. 

On Monday, Trump’s senior adviser Stephen Miller announced that teams of “Trump electors” from the states where there was alleged fraud will vote to “certify” him as the “rightful” president. (This has apparently happened, at least in Georgia.) Even after repeated defeats in the courts and a conclusive vote by the Electoral College, Trump’s legal team claims it will fight on — nominally to overthrow Biden’s victory (which is no longer possible) but in reality to provide more fuel for their seditious and treasonous plot going forward. 

Today’s Republican Party is the country’s largest white supremacist and white identity organization. Donald Trump is its leader and champion. Despite all of the polite talk of how Trump’s and 74 million votes in the 2020 election are the result of “economic anxiety” or “status anxiety,” social scientists have repeatedly shown that racism, racial resentment and white supremacist views are the key determinants driving Donald Trump’s support.

Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election was the product of white backlash against the country’s first black president. The 2020 election only confirmed the deep hold that white supremacy has on the Republican Party and much of white America. Instead of rejecting white supremacy on Election Day 2020, 74 million Americans chose to embrace it even more tightly

Today’s neo-Confederate Republicans and Trumpists share much in common with their treasonous forefathers who rebelled against the United States and launched a civil war that would kill at least 750,000 people. The Confederates supported the Constitution and the nation’s laws when those protected the evil cause of white-on-black chattel slavery, but also claimed they could nullify and ignore any laws that limited their so-called right to enslave Black people.

Trump’s Republican Party and his neofascist movement are applying much the same logic to the 2020 election. Votes for Donald Trump are to be counted. Votes for Joe Biden are to be rejected.

The ugly connections between Trump’s ongoing coup, America’s history of white-on-black slavery, and the treasonous Confederacy go even deeper.

The first sentence in the main narrative of Donald Trump’s brief in support of the Texas-led suit to overturn the 2020 election reads: “Our Country is deeply divided in ways that it arguably has not been seen since the election of 1860.”

But in reality, it is Trump and his movement who are fomenting the division and other forms of extreme polarization. In the history that Trump is summoning, he is Jefferson Davis, leader of the Confederacy’s war to protect and expand the “freedom” of white people to own Black people as human property.

In a Thursday night tweet, columnist and commentator Robert Reich summarized this crisis perfectly: “Trump will not be reelected. But Trump’s GOP is now the gravest threat to American democracy and the Constitution since the Civil War.

Trump and the White Right’s obsessions with “voter fraud,” “vote rigging” and other supposed trickery and machinations are focused on Black and brown people in cities such as Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee and Philadelphia. Similar claims were used to overturn Reconstruction and to enforce the white racial terrorism of Jim and Jane Crow, under which black people were not allowed to vote or exercise their other constitutionally-guaranteed human rights without fear of violence and death.

There are other connections between the American slaveocracy and today’s Republican Party and “conservative” movement. Both have employed the language of “states’ rights” and “liberty” as incoherent, unprincipled talking points. Both then and now, what matters for the White Right and conservative movement is power, of a particular and specific kind: the power of white people over nonwhite people. There is another name for such racialized “democracy”: apartheid.

The American fascist movement’s seditious and treasonous attacks on democracy will not end after Donald Trump leaves the White House. They will only increase in the years and decades to come. In all, the 2020 election and Trump’s coup attempt offer a preview of how Republicans and other American fascists will behave when the people’s will in a multiracial democracy is not to their liking.

Their psychological, emotional and financial investment in white supremacy is too great to give up. To maintain it, Republicans and Trumpists are willing to risk destroying the nation. Their desperate allegiance to the lost cause of Donald Trump’s presidency is proof.

For all of the efforts by the White Right to sow discord, disunion and fantasies of a second American civil war, that will not occur. Yes, there will be accelerated right-wing political violence. Once Donald Trump is forced from office and the COVID pandemic recedes, we may well see a wave of right-wing terrorist attacks directed against progressives, liberals and the Biden administration.

But as for violence on a massive scale, red states and blue states will not send rival armies to the field. There will not be artillery duels outside Washington. Neo-Confederate “MAGA”-emblazoned fighter planes will not battle the U.S. Air Force over the “battleground” states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Trump’s personal cadre of special operations forces will not sabotage infrastructure or recruit and train underground guerrilla forces in California and New York.

The struggle will be conducted on the field of public policy and manifested through questions of identity and fights over what “We the People” means in 21st-century America.

Ultimately, the coalition of liberals, progressives and other decent Americans that elected Joe Biden are looking to the future, in hopes of making the United States a better, freer and more inclusive nation. Trumpists, Republicans and other right-wing reactionaries want America to slouch backward to the worst and most ignominious parts of its past. Donald Trump’s failed coup attempt is like a black hole in space, exerting its gravitational force to pull the country into darkness.

Citing 14th Amendment, Democrat Bill Pascrell says GOP House members shouldn’t even be sworn in

Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell on Friday charged that some of his Republican colleagues shouldn’t be sworn in for the next session of Congress, accusing them of violating the U.S. Constitution and attempting to “demolish democracy” by backing President Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the November election, which he lost to President-elect Joe Biden.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), chair of the Committee on House Administration, the New Jersey congressman specifically condemned the more than 100 House Republicans who are supporting a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that aims to block the four key battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—all of which Biden won—from voting in the Electoral College.

Pascrell cites Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which gives each chamber of Congress final authority over membership, as well as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says:

No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

“Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as members of the Congress,” writes the longtime Trump critic.

“These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber,” he adds.

Pascrell urges Pelosi and Lofgren to exercise their power to figure how they can respond to these alleged constitutional violations and, if possible, refuse to seat incoming members who, in his words, are “seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.”

Their actions “must be repudiated in the strongest possible terms,” he argues. “The moment we face now may be without parallel since 1860. The fate of our democracy depends on us meeting that moment.”

 The congressman was far from alone in condemning the behavior of GOP officials who have rallied around Paxton’s long-shot lawsuit and other legal challenges to Biden’s decisive victory. Earlier Friday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also slammedsupporters of Trump’s attempt to sow doubt about the security of the election.

“House Republicans are spending critical time when people are starving and small businesses are shuttering trying to overturn the results of our election,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “but please tell us more about how ‘both sides are just as bad.'”

Fellow Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said Thursday that “they are attempting a coup in broad daylight and it should not be treated as anything less.”

Vaccines against COVID will have side effects — that’s a good thing

Takeaways

  • Temporary side effects from vaccines are a normal sign of a developing immune response.

  • Vaccines work by training your immune system to recognize and remember a pathogen in a safe way.

  • Expected side effects from a COVID-19 vaccine include redness and swelling at the injection site and stiffness and soreness in the muscle.

  • A potent vaccine may even cause fever. It does not mean that the vaccine gave you COVID-19.


In 2021 hundreds of millions of people will be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. The success of that COVID-19 vaccination campaign will heavily depend on public trust that the vaccines are not only effective, but also safe. To build that trust, the medical and scientific communities have a responsibility to engage in difficult discussions with the public about the significant fraction of people who will experience temporary side effects from these vaccines.

I am an immunologist who studies the fundamentals of immune responses to vaccination, so part of that responsibility falls on me.

Simply put, receiving these vaccines will likely make a whole lot of people feel crappy for a few days. That’s probably a good thing, and it’s a far better prospect than long-term illness or death.

Immunology’s “dirty little secret”

In 1989, immunologist Charles Janeway published an article summarizing the state of the field of immunology. Until that point, immunologists had accepted that immune responses were initiated when encountering something foreign — bacteria, viruses, and parasites — that was “non-self.”

Janeway suspected that there was more to the story, and famously laid out what he referred to as “the immunologist’s dirty little secret”: Your immune system doesn’t just respond just to foreign things. It responds to foreign things that it perceives to be dangerous.

Now, 30 years later, immunologists know that your immune system uses a complex set of sensors to understand not only whether or not something is foreign, but also what kind of threat, if any, a microbe might pose. It can tell the difference between viruses — like SARS-CoV-2 — and parasites, like tapeworms, and activate specialized arms of your immune system to deal with those specific threats accordingly. It can even monitor the level of tissue damage caused by an invader, and ramp up your immune response to match.

Sensing the type of threat posed by a microbe, and the level of intensity of that threat, allows your immune system to select the right set of responses, wield them precisely, and avoid the very real danger of immune overreaction.

Vaccine adjuvants bring the danger we need

Vaccines work by introducing a safe version of a pathogen to a patient’s immune system. Your immune system remembers its past encounters and responds more efficiently if it sees the same pathogen again. However, it generates memory only if the vaccine packs enough danger signals to kick off a solid immune response.

As a result, your immune system’s need to sense danger before responding is at once extremely important (imagine if it started attacking the thousands of species of friendly bacteria in your gut!) and highly problematic. The requirement for danger means that your immune system is programmed not to respond unless a clear threat is identified. It also means that if I’m developing a vaccine, I have to convince your immune system that the vaccine itself is a threat worth taking seriously.

This can be accomplished in a number of ways. One is to inject a weakened — what immunologists call attenuated — or even killed version of a pathogen. This approach has the benefit of looking almost identical to the “real” pathogen, triggering many of the same danger signals and often resulting in strong, long-term immunity, as is seen in polio vaccination. It can also be risky — if you haven’t weakened the pathogen enough and roll out the vaccine too fast, there is a possibility of unintentionally infecting a large number of vaccine recipients. In addition to this unacceptable human cost, the resulting loss of trust in vaccines could lead to additional suffering as fewer people take other, safer vaccines.

A safer approach is to use individual components of the pathogen, harmless by themselves but capable of training your immune system to recognize the real thing. However, these pieces of the pathogen don’t often contain the danger signals necessary to stimulate a strong memory response. As a result, they need to be supplemented with synthetic danger signals, which immunologists refer to as “adjuvants.”

Adjuvants are safe, but designed to inflame

To make vaccines more effective, whole labs have been dedicated to the testing and development of new adjuvants. All are designed with the same basic purpose — to kick the immune system into action in a way that maximizes the effectiveness and longevity of the response. In doing so, we maximize the number of people that will benefit from the vaccine and the length of time those people are protected.

To do this, we take advantage of the same sensors that your immune system uses to sense damage in an active infection. That means that while they will stimulate an effective immune response, they will do so by producing temporary inflammatory effects. At a cellular level, the vaccine triggers inflammation at the injection site. Blood vessels in the area become a little more “leaky” to help recruit immune cells into the muscle tissue, causing the area to become red and swell. All of this kicks off a full-blown immune response in a lymph node somewhere nearby that will play out over the course of weeks.

In terms of symptoms, this can result in redness and swelling at the injection site, stiffness and soreness in the muscle, tenderness and swelling of the local lymph nodes and, if the vaccine is potent enough, even fever (and that associated generally crappy feeling).

This is the balance of vaccine design — maximizing protection and benefits while minimizing their uncomfortable, but necessary, side effects. That’s not to say that serious side effects don’t occur — they do — but they are exceedingly rare. Two of the most discussed serious side effects, anaphalaxis (a severe allergic reaction) and Guillain-Barré Syndrome (nerve damage due to inflammation), occur at a frequency of less than 1 in 500,000 doses.

Side effects are normal.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2

Early data suggest that the mRNA vaccines in development against SARS-CoV-2 are highly effective — upwards of 90%. That means they are capable of stimulating robust immune responses, complete with sufficient danger signaling, in greater than nine out of 10 patients. That’s a high number under any circumstances, and suggests that these vaccines are potent.

So let’s be clear here. You should expect to feel sore at the injection site the day after you get vaccinated. You should expect some redness and swelling, and you might even expect to feel generally run down for a day or two post-vaccination. All of these things are normal, anticipated and even intended.

While the data aren’t finalized, more than 2% of the Moderna vaccine recipients experienced what they categorized as severe temporary side effects such as fatigue and headache. The percentage of people who experience any side effects will be higher. These are signs that the vaccine is doing what it was designed to do — train your immune system to respond against something it might otherwise ignore so that you’ll be protected later. It does not mean that the vaccine gave you COVID-19.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]

It all comes down to this: Some time in the coming months, you will be given a simple choice to protect yourself, your loved ones and your community from a highly transmissible and deadly disease that results in long-term health consequences for a significant number of otherwise healthy people. It may cost you a few days of feeling sick.

Please choose wisely.

Matthew Woodruff, Instructor, Lowance Center for Human Immunology, Emory University

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

After voting for Trump, Texas electors pressured swing states to reject Biden victory

The Electoral College on Monday affirmed former Vice President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, but not before Texas’ 38 electors delivered their votes for Donald Trump and defiantly urged the legislatures of the swing states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin to overrule the will of their voters and appoint their own electors.

The call from the Texas electors came in the form of a resolution they passed 34-4, but it had no impact on the results. The four states had already cast their votes by that time, and soon after California cast its 55 votes for Biden and pushed him over the 270 number he needed to win the presidency. But the resolution continued the practice of many Texas Republicans of baselessly questioning Biden’s victory and claiming fraud.

The resolution also “condemn[ed] the lack of action by the U.S. Supreme Court” to overturn the election results. There was a brief debate among electors over whether they should keep language in the resolution denouncing members of the U.S. Supreme Court for “moral cowardice.” On Friday, the high court briskly rejected a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Ken Paxton that sought to overturn the election results and had become a vehicle for Republicans across the country to contest Biden’s victory.

One elector said the inclusion of the Supreme Court language would make Texas appear “childish, impertinent and angry.” An amendment deleting the language eventually prevailed.

Biden won 306 pledged electoral votes in the November election, but Trump — along with many Texas Republicans — has refused to accept defeat and waged a legal and political campaign to get certain swing states to undo the results. Typically, the meeting of the Electoral College is a mostly ignored formality. But Republicans’ continued disputes of the election have caused this year’s vote to take on a rare public fascination in 2020.

The resolution drew a mocking reaction from the Democratic lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, John Fetterman.

“We’ll get right on that,” he wrote on Twitter, followed by a post mocking the Dallas Cowboys.

Numerous lawsuits filed by the Trump legal team claiming or raising questions of fraud were thrown out of state and federal court. Even so, Paxton launched a last-ditch legal effort to overturn the election results last week, only to be soundly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the suit, he claimed that pandemic-era changes to election procedures in those states violated federal law and asked the high court to block the states from voting in the Electoral College.

Many leading Texas Republicans were supportive of Paxton’s effort. More than a dozen Texans in Congress signed an amicus brief endorsing Paxton’s tactic. Ted Cruz, the state’s junior U.S. senator, agreed at the president’s request to argue the case before the high court if it were heard. The state’s senior senator, John Cornyn, questioned Paxton’s legal theory, however.

When asked at the U.S. Capitol on Monday whether Biden is the president-elect, Cornyn responded in the affirmative. “I would say that subject to any other litigation that could occur between now and Jan. 20, the answer is yes,” he said, according to Politico.

Meanwhile, state Republican Party chairman, Allen West, made national news after the Supreme Court’s decision by suggesting that states opposed to the ruling “should bond together and form a Union … that will abide by the constitution.”

The next — and final step before inauguration — will be on Jan. 6, when the states send their votes to the U.S. Capitol, where they will be tallied in a joint session of the newly sworn in U.S. Senate and House. The Texas electors’ resolution Monday urged lawmakers from the four swing states to object to their electors if they are not replaced by their legislators.

In most circumstances, electors follow the will of the state’s voters. But in 2016, two Texas electors refused to vote for Trump — one voted for then-Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and another cast a ballot for a fellow Texan, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul. Their dissent triggered Gov. Greg Abbott to push for a bill that would “bind” Texas’ Electoral College members to the result of the statewide popular vote. The measure failed.

In Texas, Trump decisively defeated Biden, but the margin — 5.6% — was the closest between the two parties since 1996.

Electors are often low-profile party fixtures within the state’s political world, but this year’s Republican lot includes state Rep. Briscoe Cain of Deer Park. There are 538 electors total.

Hours ahead of Monday’s meeting, even with Texas slated to deliver its votes to Trump, several Republicans suggested that the nation’s election results were not yet settled.

“The Electoral College is casting their votes,” tweeted U.S. Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Terrell. “Democrats will soon say it is time to move on. They are 100% WRONG. We should not move on until the massive claims of voter fraud are answered and addressed!”

U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, an Austin Republican, released a statement Monday afternoon saying “there’s no question about the outcomes in Texas, despite the millions upon millions that Democrats desperately poured into races all over the place.” But followed up with a call for for answers to “some legitimate questions” raised about “what went on in” races in other states.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Chrissy Teigen shared a little twist on latkes that’s perfect for your holiday celebration

As it is with most holidays, one of the key traditions many look forward to every year is enjoying the food. For Hanukkah, a crispy batch of latkes is one of our favorite ways to celebrate. In honor of the first day of the first night of the eight-day Festival of Lights, Chrissy Teigen shared her recipe for the perfect golden brown potato pancakes on her Cravings Instagram, and what we love so much — aside from the fact that they look positively scrumptious — is that these latkes are adorably bite-sized. Even if you don’t celebrate the holiday, you’ll likely love this homemade fried treat.

Sharing a picture of her delicious latkes on Instagram, Teigen wrote, “Happy Hanukkah to those who celebrate! One potato can make a whole latke of mini potato pancakes, topped as simply (just sour cream or applesauce) or fancy (hello, salmon roe and chives!) as you want. Get the recipe at our link in bio, and tell us how you like to top your latkes!”

As the chef says, one potato can go a long way: This recipe makes 14-16 beautiful little bite-sized potato pancakes! And although Teigen mentions that these latkes can be made in advance and kept in a low oven, they are best made if you, “just fry while everyone hangs around you.” In a recipe that only takes 10 minutes to prep, celebrating with people can make all the difference in this experience.

If you’ve never made the infamous dish, you’ll want to follow Teigen’s five-step recipe for a seamless experience. Prepare to use a 10-inch skillet (Don’t have one? We love this Ina Garten-approved Lodge skillet).

Get Chrissy Teigen’s Mini Potato Pancakes with Fixings recipe. 

Our mission at SheKnows is to empower and inspire women, and we only feature products we think you’ll love as much as we do. Please note that if you purchase something by clicking on a link within this story, we may receive a small commission of the sale.

Read more SheKnows: 

  1. This Bright, Herby Topping Takes Rachael Ray’s Everything Bagel to the Next Level
  2. Oprah Just Shared the Foodie Christmas Gift She Got From Meghan Markle
  3. 15 Actually Awesome Hostess Gifts You Can Pick Up at Costco