What’s the best thing a new attorney general can do? Not be the current guy

This week, we’re expecting to hear about a new attorney general nominee with more than average attention on the candidate’s ethnicity and desire for justice.

We know the outlines of the bigger issues. There will be more emphasis from the Joe Biden administration on civil rights and policing changes than on restoring firing squad executions and attacking so-called sanctuary cities.

What faces any candidate for the Justice job is a long list of challenges toward re-balancing what the department is there to do. He or she must restore any sense of public trust in an agency that has been openly dismissive and even deceitful in public and in court on cases that have had perceived bearing on Donald Trump’s political fortunes, about the work of its professional legal staff and the work of the FBI.

The serving attorney general lied publicly to mislead about the findings of the Mueller Report, tried to defend Trump’s against mpeachment and argued against existing law to denounce Obamacare in federal suits. Attorney General William P. Barr ultimately may be tossed from his job for failing to find legal grounds to make criminal filings about Trump’s fantasies about election fraud.

Hearings on the new appointment will force public attention on all that.

What attracts my attention today are actions that new Justice leadership can take toward righting the listing ship by simply standing down.

Just stand down

Here are several examples, that don’t involve some giant legislative or prosecutorial shift:

Against all legal or political logic, Barr decided to commit the Justice Department to intervene in the New York state civil suit over charges of defamation from columnist E. Jean Carroll. She alleged Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store long before he was president. This is a civil complaint that in calling her out, Trump had defamed her. She claims the truth of the original details and is seeking both a Trump deposition and DNA. Barr decided that it was the business of the Justice Department to protect the president – despite the fact that this is not in federal court and happened before Trump was in office. The judge in the case has refused to throw out the complaint, as Trump and Justice asked. But a new attorney general should simply stop – and butt out of the case.
The same is true for New York State demands for tax returns from Trump and his companies – all from years preceding the presidency. The new attorney general should simply get out of the way and let the state courts operate. Those tax returns would seem evidence for schemes to avoid paying taxes both to the federal government and to the state. There are other lawsuits pending as well – all of which should proceed without the involvement of the Justice Department. Just doing nothing to insist that the White House disregard for law here would be an action worth note. It applies to policies as well.
The decision in a federal court in Brooklyn ordering the Trump administration to restore fully restore the DACA Dreamers (Deferred Action against Childhood Arrivals) case would be appealed immediately under Barr. An incoming attorney general can simply let it exist and follow the law.
Likewise, the incoming attorney general should halt the efforts of the Justice Department in a case accepted for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court over-interpreting the Medicare and Medicaid statutes. Trump sees the programs as tools to require efforts to get work – during a pandemic and widespread joblessness – in return for health benefits. The timing is such that the case likely will proceed, of course, but the point is that the federal solicitor general who argues these cases can stand down in the name of making Trumpism into law.

Attitudes on political prosecution

The Washington Post editorial board pointed at another such case. Under Trump, the administration “has thwarted justice at every turn for Bijan Ghaisar, the unarmed 25-year-old accountant shot to death in 2017 by two U.S. Park Police officers following a fender bender near D.C. despite the fact that he posed no threat.” The editorial advised the Biden administration could send an early signal that it is committed to accountability when police wrongly kill civilians — even or especially if the police happen to be federal officers – by dropping the case for a negotiated settlement.

Biden himself has said he has little personal interest in pursuing prosecution of Trump administration officials. He has said forcefully that Trump is abusing pardon powers by protecting his own campaign associates and friends, as illustrated by the pardon for former National Security Adviser Michael T. Flynn.

Yet, in a note of special obsession, Barr has extended the term of U.S. Attorney John Durham by making him a special counsel in continuing to investigate the origins of the Russia investigations growing out of Trump’s 2016 campaign. That effort is aimed, of course, right at adversary and predecessor Barack Obama and Biden, James Comey and the FBI.

What one side sees as political prosecution apparently doesn’t apply to the other side.

Today’s homily: Maybe doing nothing in these politically tinged cases is sufficient at this point.

How Janet Yellen, Biden’s treasury pick, could shape the future of climate politics

President-elect Joe Biden has a to-do list longer than a CVS receipt, but the very first thing he is expected to do once he is officially the president of the United States — besides rejoining the Paris Agreement — is launch a multipronged effort to revive the American economy.

In a throwback to 2009, when President Obama put then-Vice President Biden in charge of overseeing the largest clean energy investment in U.S. history, Biden has said he aims to make bringing down greenhouse gas emissions a central component of his administration’s economic stimulus plan.

Combining economic stimulus and climate action was a tall order in 2009. If the Senate remains in Republican control, it’ll be an even bigger lift in 2021. That’s where Biden’s cabinet comes in. On Monday, Biden announced his nominee for U.S. treasury secretary: Janet Yellen, who served as the first-ever female chair of the Federal Reserve under Obama.

The secretary of the treasury doesn’t just oversee the department that prints the nation’s money, pays its bills, and collects its taxes. If confirmed, Yellen, 74, will be a key Biden adviser, guiding the federal budget and shaping tax and spending policies. She will also be in charge of distributing congressional stimulus spending. That means Yellen stands to play a major part in executing Biden’s climate goals.

“The Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasury Department are crucial to the success of the administration’s efforts to move the U.S. and global economy to a low-carbon trajectory and to protect the economy from climate change shocks,” a trio of leading economists wrote in a policy recommendation memo for a group called the Climate 21 Project in mid-November.

Yellen is uniquely qualified to help Biden deliver on his economic agenda, and she has long acknowledged climate change as a risk to global financial stability. She was vocal about that risk when she served as the 18th Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 1999. And she talked about the issue later in her career, as chair of the Federal Reserve from 2014 to 2018, and now as a distinguished fellow at the Brookings Institution.

So what does that mean in terms of what Yellen might accomplish as treasury secretary? Perhaps most notable foreshadowing came in 2017, when Yellen co-founded a nonpartisan, international think tank called the Climate Leadership Council (CLC). The CLC advocates for a price on carbon that starts at around $40 a ton and increases 5 percent every year. The money generated by the tax would be returned to Americans each year in the form of a quarterly check in order to offset the costs of increased energy prices. The CLC also advocates for a border-adjustable tax on imports that would penalize carbon-intensive products and reward energy-efficient companies. In exchange for putting a price on carbon, the CLC says the government should do away with some existing federal emissions regulations. The proposal is regarded suspiciously by some progressive climate groups, not least of all because oil companies like ExxonMobil and Shell were quick to sign on as “founding corporate members” of the plan. But the proposal is exactly what you’d expect a bipartisan bunch of economists and former secretaries of state to come up with.

A paper that Yellen recently coauthored said that “carbon prices alone are not enough,” a good sign for climate advocates who hope she’ll use the full powers of her position to push for emissions reductions beyond a carbon tax if confirmed. Evergreen Action, a climate policy and advocacy group started by former Jay Inslee campaign staffers, says there are a handful of steps the treasury secretary could take to mobilize national climate action. She could formally recognize the financial risks posed by fossil fuels and apply “enhanced prudential standards” to fossil fuel companies, which would allow the Federal Reserve to rein in fossil fuel investments on the basis of protecting financial stability. Yellen could also lead the charge on establishing a national green bank to help private companies invest in sustainable infrastructure. Yellen could even pressure international financial institutions, like the World Bank, to divest from fossil fuels.

But the fact that Yellen has been thinking seriously about putting a price on carbon bodes well for carbon tax advocates, too. Carbon taxes have fallen out of favor in recent years, as efforts to pass such measures stalled out in Congress and failed at the state level. On the campaign trail, Biden rarely talked about a carbon tax, preferring instead to focus on a green stimulus plan that proved to be quite popular with voters. But Biden could change his tune if Yellen is confirmed.

“I do see Republican support, and not only Democrat support, for an approach that would involve a carbon tax with redistribution,” Yellen told Reuters in October. “It’s not politically impossible.”

Fences have big effects on land and wildlife around the world that are rarely measured

What is the most common form of human infrastructure in the world? It may well be the fence. Recent estimates suggest that the total length of all fencing around the globe is 10 times greater than the total length of roads. If our planet’s fences were stretched end to end, they would likely bridge the distance from Earth to the Sun multiple times.

On every continent, from cities to rural areas and from ancient to modern times, humans have built fences. But we know almost nothing about their ecological effects. Border fences are often in the news, but other fences are so ubiquitous that they disappear into the landscape, becoming scenery rather than subject.

In a recently published study, our team sought to change this situation by offering a set of findings, frameworks and questions that can form the basis of a new discipline: fence ecology. By compiling studies from ecosystems around the world, our research shows that fences produce a complex range of ecological effects.

Some of them influence small-scale processes like the building of spider webs. Others have much broader effects, such as hastening the collapse of Kenya’s Mara ecosystem. Our findings reveal a world that has been utterly reorganized by a rapidly growing latticework of fences.

Connecting the dots

If fences seem like an odd thing for ecologists to study, consider that until recently no one thought much about how roads affected the places around them. Then, in a burst of research in the 1990s, scientists showed that roads — which also have been part of human civilization for millennia — had narrow footprints but produced enormous environmental effects.

For example, roads can destroy or fragment habitats that wild species rely on to survive. They also can promote air and water pollution and vehicle collisions with wildlife. This work generated a new scientific discipline, road ecology, that offers unique insights into the startling extent of humanity’s reach.

Our research team became interested in fences by watching animals. In California, Kenya, China and Mongolia, we had all observed animals behaving oddly around fences — gazelles taking long detours around them, for example, or predators following “highways” along fence lines.

We reviewed a large body of academic literature looking for explanations. There were many studies of individual species, but each of them told us only a little on its own. Research had not yet connected the dots between many disparate findings. By linking all these studies together, we uncovered important new discoveries about our fenced world.

Remaking ecosystems

Perhaps the most striking pattern we found was that fences rarely are unambiguously good or bad for an ecosystem. Instead, they have myriad ecological effects that produce winners and losers, helping to dictate the rules of the ecosystems where they occur.

Even “good” fences that are designed to protect threatened species or restore sensitive habitats can still fragment and isolate ecosystems. For example, fences constructed in Botswana to prevent disease transmission between wildlife and livestock have stopped migrating wildebeests in their tracks, producing haunting images of injured and dead animals strewn along fencelines.

Enclosing an area to protect one species may injure or kill others, or create entry pathways for invasive species.

One finding that we believe is critical is that for every winner, fences typically produce multiple losers. As a result, they can create ecological “no man’s lands” where only species and ecosystems with a narrow range of traits can survive and thrive.

Altering regions and continents

Examples from around the world demonstrate fences’ powerful and often unintended consequences. The U.S.-Mexico border wall — most of which fits our definition of a fence — has genetically isolated populations of large mammals such as bighorn sheep, leading to population declines and genetic isolation. It has even had surprising effects on birds, like ferruginous pygmy owls, that fly low to the ground.

Australia’s dingo fences, built to protect livestock from the nation’s iconic canines, are among the world’s longest man-made structures, stretching thousands of kilometers each. These fences have started ecological chain reactions called trophic cascades that have affected an entire continent’s ecology.

The absence of dingoes, a top predator, from one side of the fence means that populations of prey species like kangaroos can explode, causing categorical shifts in plant composition and even depleting the soil of nutrients. On either side of the fence there now are two distinct “ecological universes.”

Our review shows that fences affect ecosystems at every scale, leading to cascades of change that may, in the worst cases, culminate in what some conservation biologists have described as total “ecological meltdown.” But this peril often is overlooked.

To demonstrate this point, we looked more closely at the western U.S., which is known for huge open spaces but also is the homeland of barbed wire fencing. Our analysis shows that vast areas viewed by researchers as relatively untrodden by the human footprint are silently entangled in dense networks of fences.

Do less harm

Fences clearly are here to stay. As fence ecology develops into a discipline, its practitioners should consider the complex roles fences play in human social, economic and political systems. Even now, however, there is enough evidence to identify actions that could reduce their harmful impacts.

There are many ways to change fence design and construction without affecting their functionality. For example, in Wyoming and Montana, federal land managers have experimented with wildlife-friendly designs that allow species like pronghorn antelope to pass through fences with fewer obstacles and injuries. This kind of modification shows great promise for wildlife and may produce broader ecological benefits.

Another option is aligning fences along natural ecological boundaries, like watercourses or topographical features. This approach can help minimize their effects on ecosystems at low cost. And land agencies or nonprofit organizations could offer incentives for land owners to remove fences that are derelict and no longer serve a purpose.

Nonetheless, once a fence is built its effects are long lasting. Even after removal, “ghost fences” can live on, with species continuing to behave as if a fence were still present for generations.

Knowing this, we believe that policymakers and landowners should be more cautious about installing fences in the first place. Instead of considering only a fence’s short-term purpose and the landscape nearby, we would like to see people view a new fence as yet another permanent link in a chain encircling the planet many times over.

Alex McInturff, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of California Santa Barbara; Christine Wilkinson, Ph.D. Candidate in Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, and Wenjing Xu, PhD Candidate in Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley

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

As FDA gives Pfizer and BioNTech the vaccine green light, global concerns over equal access grow

As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday granted its first emergency use authorization for a Covid-19 vaccine, justice campaigners continued pressuring governments of rich countries like the United States to work harder to ensure that people across the globe—particularly those in poorer countries—have equal access to coronavirus vaccination.

Developed by American pharmaceutical company Pfizer and German drugmaker BioNTech, the vaccine now authorized for distribution in the United States has also been approved by the necessary officials in Bahrain, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and the United Kingdom. The New York Times reports that “other authorizations, including by the European Union, are expected within weeks.”

The U.S. approval came after President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a “largely symbolic” executive order directing pharmaceutical companies to prioritize Americans for vaccines, which critics condemned as “morally and strategically misguided.” It also followed White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, reportedly telling FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn that he should be prepared to submit his resignation if the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine wasn’t authorized on Friday.

By Saturday morning, the U.S. had recorded more than 15.86 million Covid-19 cases and 295,600 deaths out of over 71.2 million infections and nearly 1.6 deaths worldwide.

To have safe & effective vaccines against a virus that was completely unknown to us only a year ago is an astounding scientific achievement. But an even greater achievement would be to ensure all countries enjoy the benefits of science equitably. #Solidarity #ACTogether pic.twitter.com/exTH9uf6im

— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) December 12, 2020

In a statement Friday, Hahn called the authorization “a significant milestone in battling this devastating pandemic that has affected so many families in the United States and around the world,” adding that “the tireless work to develop a new vaccine to prevent this novel, serious, and life-threatening disease in an expedited timeframe after its emergence is a true testament to scientific innovation and public-private collaboration worldwide.”

Despite the commissioner’s international tone, advocacy organizations across the globe continue to accuse the U.S. and other wealthy nations of vaccine hoarding. Earlier this week, members of an alliance calling for a #PeoplesVaccine warned that nine out of 10 people in poor countries are set to miss out on COVID-19 vaccination in 2021, even though multiple vaccines are currently in development, often funded by public money.

“Nearly 70 poor countries will only be able to vaccinate one in 10 people against COVID-19 next year unless urgent action is taken by governments and the pharmaceutical industry to make sure enough doses are produced,” according to a group that includes Amnesty International, Frontline AIDS, Global Justice Now, and Oxfam. “By contrast, wealthier nations have bought up enough doses to vaccinate their entire populations nearly three times over by the end of 2021 if those currently in clinical trials are all approved for use.”

9 out of 10 people in low-income countries are going to MISS OUT on a #COVID19vaccine next year.
Meanwhile, rich countries have enough to vaccinate their entire populations nearly 3 TIMES OVER.

We must have a #PeoplesVaccine for everyone, everywhere. pic.twitter.com/wpkiTjleDZ

— Abby Maxman (@abbymaxman) December 9, 2020

“The hoarding of vaccines actively undermines global efforts to ensure that everyone, everywhere can be protected from COVID-19,” said Steve Cockburn, Amnesty’s head of economic and social justice, in a statement Wednesday.

“Rich countries have clear human rights obligations not only to refrain from actions that could harm access to vaccines elsewhere, but also to cooperate and provide assistance to countries that need it,” he added. “By buying up the vast majority of the world’s vaccine supply, rich countries are in breach of their human rights obligations. Instead, by working with others to share knowledge and scale up supply, they could help bring an end to the global COVID-19 crisis.”

Dr. Mohga Kamal Yanni of the People’s Vaccine Alliance warned that “the current system, where pharmaceutical corporations use government funding for research, retain exclusive rights, and keep their technology secret to boost profits, could cost many lives.”

“No one should be blocked from getting a life-saving vaccine because of the country they live in or the amount of money in their pocket,” said Anna Marriott, Oxfam’s health policy manager. “But unless something changes dramatically, billions of people around the world will not receive a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19 for years to come.”

Global Justice Now campaigner Heidi Chow urged all pharmaceutical companies and research institutions working on a COVID-19 vaccine to “share the science, technological know-how, and intellectual property behind their vaccine so enough safe and effective doses can be produced,” and governments to ensure that Big Pharma “puts people’s lives before profits.”

Lois Chingandu, director of Frontline AIDS also delivered a message to vaccine developers, declaring that “we need to put pharmaceutical industry profit aside during this unprecedented pandemic, both to save humanity and the economy.”

A handful of rich countries have bought up over half of all #COVID19 vaccines so far.

The world must learn the painful lessons from a history of unequal access in dealing with HIV.

We must have a #PeoplesVaccine for everyone, everywhere. Everyone has the #righttohealth. #UHCDay

— UNAIDS Global (@UNAIDS) December 12, 2020

Their calls for international cooperation and warnings of what will happen in its absence were echoed by Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, and Dr. Vanessa Kerry, a critical-care physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and founder and CEO of Seed Global Health, in an opinion piece published Saturday in The Boston Globe.

“These vaccines will have zero percent effectiveness for those who can’t access or afford them,” they wrote. “A scientific breakthrough toward a vaccine is crucial, but its power is muted if not coupled with an equitable access and distribution plan. To achieve this, novel and thoughtful approaches to global vaccine production and distribution are needed.”

The quality of the science and data behind the leading #COVID19 vaccines won’t make a difference for those who can’t access or afford them, write @Seed_Global’s @VBKerry and @oxfamamerica’s @abbymaxman. https://t.co/TKyX3uS6x4

— Boston Globe Opinion (@GlobeOpinion) December 12, 2020

“In a pandemic of this magnitude, we must pursue a new path of prioritizing public health at a global level,” Maxman and Kerry added. “That’s why we have joined more than 100 leading public health, economic, business, and racial justice leaders to call on the U.S. government to make the upcoming COVID-19 vaccines a people’s vaccine: a global public good, fairly available to all, and prioritizing those most in need everywhere around the world.”

Campaigners are planning a global day of action for Monday to demand a people’s vaccine. According to Global Justice Now, one of the organizers, “We will be targeting Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca with a day of mass calling, emails, and social media messages, to make sure our demands are not ignored.”

🗓️ Monday 14th December

🌍 Take action to demand a #PeoplesVaccine that is available for everyone in the Global South & not exclusively reserved for citizen's of the world's wealthiest countries

✊🏽 Find out how you can join the day of action: https://t.co/RZApVJRGQy pic.twitter.com/qBrzIHhFDu

— Medact (@Medact) December 12, 2020

My husband voted for Trump, I was a secret Democrat: Our purple marriage couldn’t last

The day after the 2016 presidential election, I sold my engagement ring. My husband was red. I was (secretly) blue, and silent tears ran down my cheeks as I sat in my car, in the rain, on Philadelphia’s jammed Schuylkill Expressway, listening to Hillary Clinton’s concession speech on the radio. Instead of voting for the candidate I wanted, I’d cast my vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson, though I wasn’t sure what a Libertarian was. I had wanted to keep the peace with my husband, a goal that was increasingly difficult to achieve, whether we were discussing politics or just coping in everyday life.

“I’ll give you $4,000 for it,” the bespectacled pawnshop owner said. According to the appraisal, it was worth three times that amount. But 26 years into my marriage, I knew how to get by on just enough, financially and emotionally. This wasn’t the first time I had hocked my ring. My husband and I had an expensive house and cars we couldn’t afford. Our careers were in slumps. But I suspected that my unhappiness went beyond being broke, and that our political divide presaged a deeper splintering.

I married at 19, leaving New York City and my burgeoning acting career in a whirlwind of infatuation, caught up in the excitement of my husband’s professional soccer career in Texas. The plan had been to live together, but under pressure from my conservative parents, we made things official after dating just six months. My husband was a world traveler, a charming risk-taker, the life of the party — good qualities for a boyfriend, perhaps, and not necessarily for a husband. Our first substantive fight came early on. I wanted to keep my maiden name. My husband was flat out against it. My Scottish surname was an important part of my identity, plus I just didn’t like the way his name sounded with mine. But I was afraid he would change his mind about marrying me if he knew how I really felt, so I conceded. When his soccer team folded and we found ourselves back in New York, with me trying to make another go in show business, I argued that I needed to reclaim my stage name, so I legally — and happily — changed my name back. When I trace the trajectory of our long marriage, that is the first time I remember masking my true desires to keep my husband happy.

I did it again in 1996, when my husband stayed up all night to watch the Clinton-Dole match; he was rooting for the red team. I went only as far as saying I was pro-choice. Still, I didn’t vote in that election. Back then, I didn’t care too much about who was president and it was easier to just agree with him. I grew up in a house where people didn’t yell, and I had learned to keep quiet rather than to fight it out.

As the years turned into decades, however, I started caring more, and our political differences began to feel like one of the more obvious markers of the disconnect between us, whether we were parenting (he was a strict disciplinarian; I was a softie); choosing a vacation destination (he wanted to throw a dart on the map; I preferred a carefully researched itinerary) or deciding how to manage our money (he was of the let’s-gamble mentality and I was in constant distress about saving enough to pay for our two kids’ college tuitions).

By the time Barack Obama was on the ballot, I’d accepted the fact that my husband and I were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. But on Election Day, when my eight-year old daughter declared, “I’m gonna pull the lever,” I knew there was no way I could let her inside the voting booth with me. With my heart pounding, I insisted she wait outside the curtain, then I slipped in and yanked the lever as fast as I could. Deep down, I knew that in a healthy marriage, hiding one’s voting preference was probably not normal. But I wasn’t brave enough to explain to my daughter why I didn’t vote the way Daddy did. I committed my small act of defiance in secret. I told myself it was one way of staying true to myself, keeping a bit of who I was.

I also kept mum when politics came up at dinner parties. In the red county where we lived, most of our couple friends were red together. Sure, it might be funny to see James Carville sparring with his Republican wife on TV. But in real life, I figured, one partner had to shut up. And it was me. The truth is, my husband was the honest one, because he voted for what he believed. I was the one with a secret life.

By 2012, I had resorted to outright lying, about politics and everything else. “Yes, sure, I voted for Mitt Romney,” I said at the dinner table with a straight face on Election Day. And then I smiled, cleared the table, and pretended everything was OK. But the more our political beliefs widened, the more I examined other aspects of our relationship. I tried to remember what I had initially loved about the man I had married, and realized that we had always been different. He liked the small town where he grew up and I longed for the big city. I loved books. He didn’t read. He wanted to join the country club and I wanted to go to museums and author talks. Still, I loved that he kept our yard beautiful and planted anything I wanted. Though he could be harsh with our son — a constant source of conflict — he was sweet with our daughter and would stay up all night with either child when they were sick. And he coached the kids’ teams and volunteered for any committee that needed help. What more could I want? But I was having a harder and harder time seeing us growing old together.

With Trump on the ballot in 2016, I began keeping a running list of the pros and cons of staying versus leaving, with the incessant hum of Fox News in the background. I took to escaping with a book inside my walk-in closet, the only place in our home I truly felt safe. It felt like a metaphor for my life and the person I’d let myself become.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings were a breaking point. As usual, my husband sided with the Republicans, claiming the accusations against him were ridiculous, and I landed with the Democrats, saying it was inexcusable behavior. For the first time, my daughter was truly paying attention to what was occurring on the political stage. That alone prompted me to finally speak up, but neither of us could hear or listen empathetically to the other.

Still, I said yes to couples’ therapy and to an expensive, weekend-long marriage retreat. Finally, my husband told me that he was who he was and he wasn’t changing. As for me, it was easier to tell him that I was unhappy because of his views on an election that had divided an entire country than to admit that I had never been emotionally honest with him. It was easier than telling the truth: I didn’t love him the way I should.

At first, my husband didn’t believe me. And why would he? The reality was that he didn’t actually know me. I’d never let myself be known. When I told him that I needed to leave, that I would be moving into my mother’s home to regroup, my kids were shocked, too. But they also seemed a little proud, at least eventually. Dismantling our home was painful — excruciating at times — but we all survived. Except for the woman hiding behind the mask. She’s gone.

Now, newly divorced, the kids stay with me in my mom’s house where my son has planted a Black Lives Matter sign in the front yard. That’s not something we would have done in our former home. I don’t blame my husband for that. He was never the one who stopped me from voting for my preferred candidate or expressing my beliefs. All along, I had been gagging myself.

Not this time. I voted early in this year’s election, accepting a sticker for my candidate from a volunteer and adhering it to my coat collar.

“Would you take a picture and post it on your social media accounts?” he asked.

I paused. Yes. I would. I was no longer secretly blue.

The sunny Friday after the election, I went on a trail run. My smart watch started buzzing with incoming texts. “Thank you, PA,” a friend from Florida wrote. “You saved us, Philly!” another pal said. I smiled, flicking through the messages, and caught sight of my hand. My ring finger was naked — for good.

The world feels different now, and so do I. I’m willing to admit that my husband and I were mismatched from the start — there’s no use pretending otherwise — and that our political divide just made the rest of our fault lines clear. I guess that’s one thing to thank our soon-to-be-ex president for.

Republicans are furious with GOP leaders backing Trump’s attempts to overturn election results

On Saturday, The New York Times reported that longtime Republican officials are fuming at the state of the party they long called their own. In particular, they are angry that House and Senate Republicans, including some party leaders, signed onto a doomed Supreme Court lawsuit that would have effectively undermined federalism and stripped several states of the right to manage their own elections, to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

“With direct buy-in from senior officials like Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and the Republican leader in House, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the president’s effort required the party to promote false theory upon unsubstantiated claim upon outright lie about unproved, widespread fraud — in an election that Republican and Democratic election officials agreed was notably smooth given the challenges of the pandemic,” reported Jim Rutenberg and Nick Corasaniti.

Some of the Republicans are those with a long history of criticizing Donald Trump. For instance, ex-RNC chairman Michael Steele said, “The act itself by the 126 members of the United States House of Representatives, is an affront to the country. It’s an offense to the Constitution and it leaves an indelible stain that will be hard for these 126 members to wipe off their political skin for a long time to come.” Former GOP New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman put it more bluntly, saying, “I keep comparing it somewhat to Jonestown. They’ve all drunk the Kool Aid. It just hasn’t killed them yet.”

Tom Rath, a former GOP New Hampshire Attorney General who went on to endorse Biden, agreed, explicitly fingering his party’s attempts to undermine trust in the democratic process. “It’s very unfortunate that some people tried to live off that chaos, perpetuate it and make it even more difficult for the average citizen to trust what government’s doing,” he said. “We’re in a very bad place as a party.”

Despite losing the case, there is no sign yet that Trump or his supporters plan to concede. The president tweeted that “WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT!!!” and Texas GOP chairman Allen West even suggested states loyal to Trump should “form a union.”

This New York cheesecake recipe swaps graham crackers with pie crust crumbs to elevate the crust

In her new cookbook, Petra (Petee) Paredez writes, “Making pie is an inherently generous act, because pie is a dish that is meant to be shared.” Millions of Americans are bracing to slice into a freshly-roasted turkey on Thanksgiving Day, but the real magic happens at the end of the meal. And it involves slicing into freshly baked apple, pecan and pumpkin pies to share.

When the owner of Petee’s Pie Company stopped by Salon Talks to discuss “Pie for Everyone,” which features recipes from one of New York’s top pie shops, I asked her to expand upon the generous act of pie making.

“I think that one of the ways that pies transform a meal is that it’s a dessert that everybody shares, and we kind of want to share dessert. When you’re at a restaurant, dessert is the thing you’re most likely to share,” Paredez said. “And it’s this joyful sort of indulgence. It feels good to share as an experience with somebody.”

“But the other thing about pie is that it has a reputation for being tricky. And there are some tricks to it, but it’s something everybody can learn. If you spend the time to make a pie for somebody, they know that you care about the,” she continued. “If you take a pie to an event that you made yourself, it’s going to really sort of endear people to you, because they know that you took the time to do something special for them.”

But there is a formula that every at-home baker can master, and Paredez is finally sharing her secrets with the world. First, no house is complete without a strong foundation — and that’s a tender and ﬂaky crust when it comes to pie making. Next, the fruits and natural ingredients that ﬁll pies are the true stars of the show.

“My guiding principle is that when it comes to fruit pies, you want to just amplify the flavors that are already there,” she told Salon.

You can make cheesecake at home by following the recipe below. For a master class in pie making, you can read the Q&A of our conversation below.

***

“My cheesecake was born in New York, and I make it with the best cream cheese in New York (Ben’s Cream Cheese—not easy to find, but certainly worth seeking out). It might not be as dense as some more famous New York cheesecakes, but I think most people appreciate its lightness. Thanks to the sour cream, buttermilk, and lemon juice, it’s also very tangy. I usually find graham cracker crusts disappointing, so of course I use pie crust crumbs instead. Serve on its own or top slices with Sour Cherry or Wild Blueberry Sauce.” – Petee

***

Recipe: Cheesecake

Makes one 9- to 10-inch (23- to 25-cm) cake (pie)

Ingredients:

For the crust:

1⁄2 recipe Butter Pastry Dough (page 38)
1⁄4 cup (50 g) sugar
2 tablespoons unsalted butter, melted
For the filling (all ingredients should be at room temperature)
2¾ cups (635 g) cream cheese, about three 8-ounce (226-g) packages
2⁄3 cup (165 ml) sour cream
1⁄2 cup (120 ml) buttermilk
3 eggs, separated
2 teaspoons lemon juice
1 cup (200 g) sugar
2 tablespoons plus 2 teaspoons flour
Zest from half an orange
Contents of 1⁄3 of a vanilla bean
1⁄4 teaspoon cream of tartar

Directions:

Make the crust:

Preheat the oven to 375°F (190°C). Roll the butter pastry dough to 1⁄4 inch (6 mm) thick and place it on a cookie pan. Bake for 30 minutes, or until puffed up and light golden in color. Allow it to cool, then crumble the crust into small pieces. Grease the bottom and sides of a 9- to 10-inch (23- to 25-cm) springform pan with butter and line the bottom of the pan with a circle of parchment paper.

In a small bowl, combine the pie crust crumbs, sugar, and melted butter, making sure that the sugar and butter are evenly dispersed.

Dump the crumbs into the pan and spread them over the bottom and onto the sides. Press onto the sides first, then the bottom of the pan, evening out the bottom and sides with the back of a measuring cup (or a cup with straight sides), taking care that there isn’t a pile-up in the corners. There’s no need to press down very hard with the measuring cup or make a completely smooth surface.

Bake for 20 minutes. Transfer the pan to a cooling rack while preparing the filling. Increase the oven temperature to 400°F (205°C).

Make the filling:

In the bowl of a stand mixer with the paddle attachment or in a large bowl with a hand-held mixer, beat the cream cheese, sour cream, buttermilk, egg yolks, and lemon juice until the mixture is completely smooth, scraping the sides of the bowl and the paddle attachment occasionally. It may take around 5 minutes until the mixture is completely lump-free.

In a small bowl, combine the sugar and flour, then add this mixture to the cream cheese mixture with the mixer running on low. Mix just until combined. Scrape all the batter from the paddle attachment into the bowl and set aside.

In a small bowl, combine the orange zest and vanilla, then, using a spatula, spread the mixture onto the inside of the mixer bowl. Gradually incorporate the orange-vanilla mixture into the cream cheese mixture by scooping up batter and scraping it onto the sides of the bowl until fully incorporated.

In a clean, dry mixer bowl or a separate large bowl, use the whisk attachment or a hand-held mixer to beat the egg whites and cream of tartar on high speed until stiff peaks form. Pile the beaten egg whites onto the cream cheese batter and use a rubber spatula to gently fold them into the batter, until there are no lumps of egg white.

Gently pour the batter into the prepared crust, making sure to scrape the entire contents from the sides of the bowl into the crust. Place the springform pan on a baking sheet and place it on the middle rack of the oven. Immediately reduce the heat to 250°F (120°C) and bake for 75 minutes. Do not open the oven when the time is up. Instead, turn the oven off and keep the cheesecake in the warm oven for 1 hour. Gently remove from the oven, transferring to a cooling rack to cool to room temperature. Once cooled to room temperature, transfer to the fridge for 3 hours, or until cooled completely.

Use a knife to gently separate the cheesecake from the sides of the pan, then release the sides. Slide a wide spatula under the cheesecake to separate it from the bottom of the pan and gently peel off the parchment paper before transferring it to a serving platter. Slice the cheesecake with a hot, wet knife to avoid dragging and crumbling the filling. The cheesecake will keep for up to 1 week, covered, in the fridge.

Butter Pastry Dough

1 tablespoon sugar
1¼ teaspoons salt
1⁄4 cup (60 ml) boiling water
1½ loosely filled cups (180 g) pastry flour, from the freezer
2⁄3 loosely filled cup (80 g) all-purpose flour, from the freezer
1 cup (2 sticks/225 g) cold unsalted butter, cut into 1⁄2 -inch (12-mm) pieces
Extra flour, for rolling

Making dough by hand

Stir the sugar, salt, and water together in a small bowl until the sugar and salt are fully dissolved. Place the bowl in the freezer—the liquid needs to be ice cold before it is added to the dough.
Put the flour(s) in a large bowl and dump the butter, lard, or coconut oil into the flour. Toss to coat the pieces of fat in the flour. Working quickly, use your thumbs and index fingers to squeeze each chunk of fat into a thin sheet, between 1⁄8 and 1⁄4 inch (3 and 6 mm) thick. Shake the contents of the bowl to ensure the sheets are well-coated in flour.
Sprinkle the ice-cold sugar-salt solution over the fat and flour. Use your fingers to lightly toss the contents of the bowl around to disperse the liquid.
Squeeze the shaggy mess with your fists, repeatedly and quickly, until the chunks get bigger and more cohesive.
At first it will be crumbly and seem as if it won’t come together, but with continued compression, you can begin to make two mounds of dough of roughly equal size. Flatten your mounds into 1-inch- (2.5-cm-) thick disks.

Like this recipe as much as we do? Click here to purchase a copy of “Pie for Everyone: Recipes and Stories from Petee’s Pie, New York’s Best Pie Shop.”

This cranberry crumb cake with orange liqueur glaze is the best boozy addition to any holiday brunch

If there’s one dessert that reminds Salon’s resident pastry chef Meghan McGarry of home, it’s crumb cake.

“Crumb cake has a certain nostalgia to it, because there was always a crumb cake in my house growing up,” McGarry, the owner of the beloved Buttercream Blondie brand, tells Salon. “Whenever a guest would stop by, we would cut off a slice of crumb cake to ensure a warm welcome.”

When McGarry developed her recipe for crumb cake, her goal was to recreate that same nostalgia factor. Her cranberry orange crumb cake is the third recipe featured in her series of go-to holiday bakes for Salon Food. It follows raspberry almond thumbprints, which are a creative new twist on classic holiday shortbread, and sprinkled confetti cookies, which reimagine a favorite New York bakery treat.

Because McGarry’s apple crumb cake was the top bake featured on Salon Food this fall, the pastry chef decided to return with a holiday spin on the popular dessert. This retro cake combines the same flavorful crumb McGarry is known for on top for with the winning pairing of cranberries and oranges. The contrast of bright cranberries with a spiked orange glaze creates a pairing so timeless that you’ll feel like you’ve been eating it for years.

A good crumb cake is a true “anytime bake,” making it the perfect dessert for this untraditional holiday season. This cake makes for a good brunch bake or Sunday bake. It’s not too sweet, because McGarry allows the fruit to shine. It is bold enough to serve following your main holiday dinner, and you could even add a a dollop of fresh whipped cream or a scoop of ice cream to create little à la mode journey.

The instructions to this no-fuss bake are easily to follow, but McGarry offers one expert tip to make a perfect crumb, every single time. “You want to make the crumb topping first and set it off to the side while you assemble your cake, so the ingredients have time to absorb the butter,” she says.

This cake is incredibly tender thanks to one secret ingredient: creme fraiche. If you can’t find any at the store, you can substitute it for sour cream, but creme fraiche really ups the lush factor. A spiked orange glaze with fresh zest also dresses up this bake, while at the same time adding a layer of fresh flavor to every bite. McGarry adds orange liqueur in her recipe to amp up the orange flavor, but you can swap it out with orange juice if alcohol isn’t on the menu in your house.

Whether you’re hosting a get-together that’s smaller than normal or searching for the perfect holiday gift to give to the foodie in your life, this cake fits the bill for any occasion. Leaving a crumb cake and bag of freshly ground coffee on your neighbor’s porch is away to say “happy holidays” from a safe distance. Food-safe plastic wrap and a golden bow are all you need to seal this gift baked with love.

***

Recipe: Cranberry Orange Crumb Cake

Ingredients:

Crumb Topping

1 cup AP flour
1/4 cup sugar
1/3 cup dark brown sugar
1 tsp. cinnamon
1/4 tsp. salt
3.5 ounces (7 Tablespoons) unsalted butter, melted

Instructions:

Crumb Topping

In a medium size bowl, mix together flour, sugar, dark brown sugar, cinnamon and salt.
Add melted butter and mix together so crumbs form. Set aside.

Click here to access the remainder of Meghan McGarry’s cranberry orange crumb cake. And don’t forget to follow @ButtercreamBlondie on Instagram for more ways to bake through it.

The 2020 social justice movements were fed by chefs and food trucks

For Nikeisah Newton, 2020 started off on a promising note. Just a year earlier, Newton had launched Meals 4 Heels, a catering and delivery company serving vegan and vegetarian meals to Portland, Oregon’s sex worker community — and it was going well. Then the pandemic happened.

As social distancing measures stopped most in-person sex work from taking place, her business dried up.

“Most strip clubs closed in Portland, so I turned my focus to community-based social justice organizations,” said Newton.

Then, when George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Jacob Blake were killed at the hands of police, and thousands of Portlanders took to the street to protest, Newton decided to start feeding the protesters hitting the streets instead.

Newton was asked to help feed protesters from multiple mutual aid groups. “Meals were going for a $8 suggested donation, but no one would be turned away,” she said. “If you want to show support this is how you do it. You buy from Black businesses. I’m a Black female chef in Portland . . . a predominantly White city.”

Newton is far from alone in her efforts: In addition to feeding people impacted by the economic downturn caused by the pandemic, a wide range of food trucks and catering companies across the country stepped up to feed the millions who took the streets in racial justice protests earlier this year. Those trucks and others returned in October and November to help feed people waiting in long lines at the polls. Using everything from pay-what-you-can models to foundation funding, these efforts have helped keep small businesses afloat while filling important nutritional gaps where they can.

Read more Civil Eats: The New York Farmers Responding to Food Insecurity

During the height of the protests in New York, a group of culinary activists combined forces to feed protesters in the Bronx. The Bronx-based culinary collective Ghetto Gastro and the nonprofit Rethink Food teamed up to use donations to feed people who took to the streets demanding justice.

Rethink used upcycled U.S. Postal Service vans to create a donation-based mobile version of their Rethink Café. The group distributed meals in the Bronx and across New York City. “At the core of our work we want to be there to support our communities and nourish them. We believe when communities are nourished they thrive,” Rethink Food executive director Meg Savage told Civil Eats.

Similar projects popped up across the country, including others in Portland, Oregon and Dallas, Texas.

But with the increased momentum, many food trucks were also increasingly exposed to people who weren’t as keen on their message. They became targets. That was the case for Riot Kitchen, which launched this past spring as a mutual aid organization in Seattle amidst the protests there.

As protests continued to take place nationwide, they took their mutual aid program on the road. Riot Kitchen (which did not respond to Civil Eats’ request to comment for this story) was the subject of consistent targeting by law enforcement while feeding protesters — most notably in August, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

According to the Seattle Times, they were stopped alongside volunteers at a gas station filling up canisters they intended to fuel generators use to cook food to feed protesters. According to police reports, the officers assumed the volunteers were going to use the fuel to incite riots. They arrested nine members of the group for disorderly conduct. The police response to Riot Kitchen is indicative of the systemic behavior that launched these protests in the first place.

That was the summer. Then, election season rolled around. Taking advantage of the grassroots momentum from caterers and food trucks in supporting the protests, comparable groups headed to the polls. Vote.org, a tech organization focused on breaking down barriers to voting, partnered with local food truck operators to bring Vote.org-branded food trucks to lines of voters and voter-education initiatives around the country. In addition to food they offered information about voting and connected voters with nonpartisan Election Protection hotlines for any issues they had at the polls.

“Typically, we [provide] the tools that other organizations use to power their in-person registration events,” said Sydney Rose, director of programs for Vote.org. This year, however, the organization turned to “not only give people access to our tools in a safe, socially distanced way but also a mutual aid opportunity. It was an opportunity to create some joy in a time where everything feels confusing and may be even scary.”

While Rose saw the lines people had to wait in to vote as a form of voter suppression, she finds the long lines for food equally problematic. She says some communities they visited were facing high rates of food insecurity, and many people waited in line out of necessity. The trucks saw massive lines at polling stations in states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Georgia and Texas. In some cases they gave away more than a thousand meals a day.

Like Vote.org, Pizza to the Polls, a nonprofit founded in 2016, also turned out food trucks to feed people at voting sites. This election cycle, they sent more than 66,000 pizzas to more than 3,000 polling locations in 48 states. They partnered with companies such as Uber to operate the trucks.

“As apocalyptic as 2020 has been, voting in this presidential election gave a lot of people hope. Food trucks helping to sustain voters cemented that feeling of community and invigorated countless American who stood on line for 2, 3, 4 plus hours,” said Andra Tomsa, founder and CEO of spare, a national nonprofit working to end food insecurity.

“They especially focused on communities susceptible to voter suppression and voter intimidation and allocated most of their efforts to parts of the nation that have been hit hardest,” said Tomsa.

Humanitarian chef José Andrés took a similar approach with an initiative called Chefs at the Polls. They served roughly half a million meals to voters at 735 polling locations in 235 municipalities. They worked with 500 restaurants and food truck operators nationwide ranging from Metzger’s Bar and Butchery in Richmond, Virginia to Melba’s in New York City.

“This movement has also made an effort to utilize trucks that are owned by women, minorities and veterans. They have been instrumental in allowing people to practice their right to vote and a welcome respite for those who struggle to string three square meals together due to the economic crisis,” said Tomsa.

Now, as we face the winter months, it’s not clear whether this distinctly 2020 trend will continue into next spring. As the nation inches closer to a COVID-19 vaccine, it’s likely that indoor dining will return in 2021. Will food truck operators and caterers still be vectors for social justice when society is back to business as usual?

For Meals 4 Heels, the answer is a crystal clear yes. Even when business gets back to normal, Nikeisah Newton says the fight for equity will continue.

“It’s a lifetime fight. It’s ingrained in me, just like oppression and systematic racism is ingrained in the United States. Absolutely the fight and the support from Meals 4 Heels will continue,” Newton said.

The success of “The Mandalorian” made spinoffs inevitable – but at the expense of originality

In case you haven’t heard, the “Star Wars” universe exploded this week, and we have the success of “The Mandalorian” to thank for that.

You may recall that the series launched on the same day as the Disney+ debut a little more than a year ago, bringing the media giant’s library, which includes Marvel and the film and TV assets previously held by 21st Century Fox, into our homes.

On Thursday the company announced that its year-old streaming service is closing in on 87 million subscribers, most of whom likely signed up in exchange for accessing the hundreds of movies in its vault on demand. For $6.99 a month that’s a fair trade, especially for anyone with kids. Even $7.99 is a decent price, or Disney is hoping that it is since part of its announcements to investors this week was that it would hike monthly subscriptions by $1.

For obvious reasons the Disney+ streaming service is the platform upon which the company is pinning most of its franchise hopes, urged on no doubt by the recent industry-shaking move made by Warner Bros. That company recently announced that all 17 of its films originally scheduled for theatrical release in 2021 will also be available HBO Max on the same day they come out in theaters, starting with the Christmas Day debut of “Wonder Woman: 1984.”

Before Thursday “The Mandalorian” was the only part of “Star Wars” franchise still flying, what with the Skywalker saga now complete and the company’s commitment to its related “Star Wars” stories on hold after the disappointing performance of “Solo.”

But unto Disney “Mandalorian” creator Jon Favreau delivered a new frenzy-producing fascination in the diminutive form of The Child, aka Grogu, aka Baby Yoda, and his exciting adventures with titular character Din Djarin, played by Pedro Pascal. The company realized that this was the way, and now we are getting two “Mandalorian” spinoffs: “Ahsoka” was widely assumed to be a done deal the minute Rosario Dawson showed up as Ahsoka Tano, a fan favorite from “The Clone Wars” animated series, in the fifth second season episode titled “The Jedi.”

As for the other one, “Rangers of the New Republic,” the programming fact sheet says it will “intersect with future stories and culminate into a climactic story event.” OK. Both are executive produced by Favreau and Dave Filoni.

These are but two of many planned “Star Wars” TV titles due over the next few years. A prequel spy thriller called “Andor,” which follows Diego Luna’s hardboiled spy introduced in “Rogue One,” is set to debut in 2022.

The company teased a Lando Calrissian miniseries being developed by “Dear White People” creator Justin Simien; and another event series that returns Ewan McGregor to the role of Obi-Wan Kenobi along with Hayden Christiansen as a younger (but very toasty, I guess) Darth Vader, set a decade after the events of “Revenge of the Sith.” Hopefully McGregor and Christiansen will be encouraged to do some acting this time around; they are capable performers.

But wait! There’s more.

We’re also getting “The Acolyte” from “Russian Doll” creator Leslye Headland, described as “a mystery-thriller that will take viewers into a galaxy of shadowy secrets and emerging dark-side powers in the final days of the High Republic era,” and a Disney+ adventure film featuring R2-D2 and C-3PO titled “A Droid Story.”

All this is in addition to two new animated series, “The Bad Batch” and an anime-style anthology collection titled “Star Wars: Visions,” and a pair of theatrical features. One, “Rogue Squadron,” will be helmed by “Wonder Woman” director Patty Jenkins and set for 2023. “JoJo Rabbit” director Taika Waititi is developing the other.

(These are only the “Star Wars” announcements. Disney also has grand plans to expand its other properties, Marvel and Pixar included, and caused a stir by announcing that Harrison Ford was on board for another “Indiana Jones” feature.)

Diehard worshippers of all things Force-related must be alight with joy at all this bounty headed their way. Why wouldn’t they be? Well . . .

Oversaturation is a real danger here, folks. It has to be said. The “Star Trek” universe learned that some time ago when it ran out of juice before our sunken eyes in the form of “Enterprise,” the show very few people are tweeting about revisiting. “The Next Generation” made viewers excited to revive their love for Gene Roddenberry’s universe for a time, and begat “Voyager” and “Deep Space 9,” both of which are still very loved. By the time “Enterprise” rolled the engine had run out of steam, and viewers and producers alike silently agreed to mothball the brand for a few cycles.

And yes, we’re discussing very different franchises with disparate fanbases – and lots of crossover between each! – but what “Trek” shares with the “Star Wars” brand is that each has been around for decades.

Save for a 16-year fallow period, “Star Wars” has lingered somewhere in the surface thoughts of many millions of people and has kept popular culture captive by steadily nurturing the expansion this universe. Thanks to many “Star Wars” novels and Filoni’s engaging animated series there’s an entire universe with the “Star Wars” brand waiting to be drawn upon and fleshed out onscreen.

There’s no way that Disney wouldn’t want to capitalize on such resilient appeal.

But while the company is in no way intent on killing the goose that’s laying golden eggs, they certainly are creating a lot more geese, potentially driving down the product’s value or increasing the odds that each new clutch will be of lesser quality than the next.

The “Ahsoka” pickup is either a no-brainer, given the passion of loyalists who came to love her through Filoni’s development of her character via “The Clone Wars” or a gamble with odds set against it owing to high expectations. “Andor” looks exciting, and who doesn’t love Diego Luna? Then again it also has a whiff of “If you like Han Solo, but found ‘Solo’ underwhelming, why not try . . .”

An apt enough segue to a second point, which is the hint of unoriginality here in all nearly all of Disney’s series announcements. Granted, choosing to be mimetic instead of experimenting with something that hasn’t been tested is also good business.

“The Mandalorian” proves this by leveraging some elements of familiarity within the universe while writing fresh pages to be added to its overall mythology. Favreau and the writers have been relatively careful to refrain from invoking too many legends too early on even as they’ve capitalized on the popularity of edge characters, such as Boba Fett, to launch entirely new stories.

Much as folks love Pascal, Din Djarin wouldn’t be such a weekly fixation if not for the longstanding and largely dormant ardor people held for Han Solo’s nemesis or the unexplored anthropological origins of Yoda.

One might also sense danger in that proposal, yes? Because from the moment the series was announced, an appearance by Boba Fett, or at the very least a resolution to one of the longest standing examples of an onscreen demise without the proof of a corpse, was inevitable.

Once a series teases the appearance of one popular character you just know there will be another. And another. The Mandalorian” successfully returned Boba Fett (and Temuera Morrison, the actor who played his father Jango in the prequels) to active service for the slam-bam explosive action flick portion of the tale – and yes, that describes most of Season 2.

Introducing Dawson as Ahsoka in the season’s fifth episode (“Chapter 13: The Jedi”) is a move that would have been described in a bygone era as a backdoor pilot.

By the current landscape’s definition, however, this was a sampling. How pumped was the fandom? Very, for positive reasons along with less-than-stellar ones. No matter where you stand, Disney is counting on “Ahsoka” to be so irresistible that you cannot resist tuning in.

Harder to foresee is how long it will take for even the most Force sensitive to become immune to this insistent expansion of this universe outward and looking backward via its series as opposed to moving the story forward and beyond where “The Rise of Skywalker” left us. This is the way that is most sensible, but to take a longer view may make one fear that it’ll lead to a dead end sooner rather than later . . . hopefully not before we get that Lando show, though.

“The Wilds” review: Stranded on an island? Whatever. Just try being a teenage girl (spoiler-free)

Leah has her head buried in a book. Fatin’s makeup is perfect. Martha is worried about her best friend, Toni, who seems increasingly angry. Nora is quiet. Her athletic sister, Rachel, is diligently measuring her food on an app that makes her iPhone double as a scale. Shelby is blonde and sunny. Dot is confrontational. Jeanette doesn’t know when to stop talking.

All of them are sitting in a chartered plane en route to Hawaii to attend a young women’s empowerment retreat — The Dawn of Eve — over a long weekend.

The plane takes off, things don’t go as planned, and these caricatures — purposefully crafted to hit the stereotypical marks of every teen show ever — are about to become the most compelling teenage girl characters seen in a genre TV program since “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”

Creator Sarah Streicher (“Daredevil”) takes a big swing on “The Wilds,” a cross-genre, propulsive, and heartbreaking coming-of-age tale that is Amazon Prime Video‘s first entry into young adult programming. That it lands so directly is credit to the performances of the nine actors at the center of the show: Sarah Pidgeon, Sophia Ali, Jenna Clause, Erana James, Mia Healey, Helena Howard, Reign Edwards, Shannon Berry, and Chi Nguyen.

As the women come to terms with being stranded on an island, the background of each character is revealed via flashback — yes, like “Lost,” but that’s truly where the comparison ends. These are young women in chronological age only; all of them are old souls that have been through the wringer. (The work from Clause as Martha and Berry as Dot, in particular, is jaw-dropping — and it is astonishing to note that this was Clause’s first professional acting job.)

With a first-day binge release, the temptation for many will be to plow through all 10 episodes in order to untangle the mystery behind the island. Don’t do this. Really, don’t.

The backstories of the young women on the island are meditations on the impact of short- and long-term trauma on mental and physical health, and there isn’t a false note — ever — hit by any of the actors. Not to cross-pollinate two very different shows about troubled teens, but there is a scene on the intensity level of Zendaya’s Emmy-winning “Open the door!” monologue from “Euphoria” in pretty much every episode. You, the viewer, will need a break. Do not wear yourself out with compassion fatigue for the characters. Take the time to absorb each episode, and the emotional impact of the final very sad and satisfying reveal will be stronger.

Besides the young women, there are some adults involved in the machinations: Rachel Griffiths plays a scientist with the empowerment program, while David Sullivan and Troy Winbush are investigators looking into how the women wound up on the island. All deftly operate in the various shades of gray required by their characters — and Griffiths is outstanding as ever in making small choices at the beginning of the show that pay off huge at the end.

Shot in New Zealand on both soundstages in Auckland and the tropical west coast of the country’s North Island, the scope of the production is apparent in every shot. The black sand beach where the women spend most of their time was recreated on a soundstage for night shoots, and I never thought I would have to applaud sand continuity in a review, but here we are. No expense was spared — thanks Amazon money! — and it shows.

A special shoutout also should go to music supervisor Jen Malone, (“Euphoria”) whose ear for the importance of music in the lives of young people is unparalleled. (Also this Gen Xer cannot wait for the resurgence of The Psychedelic Furs based on an outstanding recurring needle drop of “The Ghost in You.”)

While Streicher’s work — especially given this is her first time out of the gate as an executive producer — is deft and powerful, there are some wobbles in the narrative. The “Lord of the Flies”-esque stuck-on-the-island tropes are a little too on-the-nose (wild, bite-y animals are wild and bite-y!), the thematic messaging is occasionally too overt, and there are two incredibly frustrating loose ends not tied up by the final episode. As of yet, no Season 2 has been announced, although the groundwork for the story’s continuation is well-laid.

The biggest question about the success of “The Wilds” is how a YA show not based on an existing intellectual property will do on Amazon Prime Video. There have been obvious acclaimed successes on the streaming service — Doesn’t everyone’s mom love “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”? Emmy voters certainly loved “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel!” — but the moms that are paying the Amazon Prime membership and invested in getting an entertainment return for their free shipping money are not the 16-year-old girls who should be watching this show. Amazon is clever to release the pilot for free on YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook, but is that enough? In the era of peak TV, it’s never a safe bet to ask an audience to switch platforms to continue watching a show.

In addition, the marketing and trailers so far have been something of an intentional misdirect to preserve the central mystery of the show; that’s fine, but it’s also a tricky line to walk between withholding key plot points and hiding what the show is actually about. (To put it in non-spoiler network terms, the trailer makes it look like a CW show, when actually its linear home would be on FX.)

So, will its intended audience find the show? I certainly hope so. It’s a leap forward for Amazon’s programming, and taking this kind of creative risk should be encouraged. Raise your glass to toast “The Wilds” for being a rare thing indeed on the TV landscape: a genre show about a diverse group of teenage girls that is relatable, relevant, and important.

Grade: B+

“The Wilds” Season 1 premieres Friday, December 11, in full, on Amazon Prime Video.

Happiest Hanukkah from this crispy latke, egg and cheese sandwich

Egg and cheese sandwiches are often just that: egg and cheese on a roll or bagel or toast. Just as often, they co-star a choose-your-own breakfast meat, be it bacon or sausage or ham. But arguably the most festive version, especially during Hanukkah, features a crispy, chewy latke.

The latke, egg, and cheese sandwich on house-baked challah from B&H Dairy in Manhattan’s East Village has technically been available for years, yet only just became a permanent menu item.

“One of the things that drives my eating is being able to go to a restaurant and put together disparate elements to make something even better,” Lawrence Weibman, the de facto creator of the sandwich, told me over the phone.

Weibman doesn’t work for B&H. He’s a regular customer, as well as a video producer and food-lover, who runs the Instagram account @nycfoodguy. He’s always on the hunt for the most exciting dishes at restaurants, even if they’re not on the menu—yet.

The native New Yorker moved to the East Village in 2008 to glimpse some of the “old” New York that constantly appeared in books and movies, but wasn’t in his neighborhood growing up: “To me, the East Village is one of the few areas left in the city that still has true bohemian soul. This is a place that embodies the last vestiges of the New York of the past. B&H embodies [that feeling].”

B&H does represent classic New York charm, where restaurant employees know the names of their regulars, and vise versa. Weibman is just as familiar with the owners of B&H, Ola and Fawzy Abdelwahed, as well as the restaurant’s cooks and front of house employees, as they are with him. Sometimes, they’ll name specials after certain customers.

“I said you’re more than welcome to create your own dish. In the beginning, it was just a conversation,” Ola told me over the phone, describing the evolution of Weibman’s sandwich from suggestion to menu item. At first, she was skeptical: “Potato pancake inside of the egg sandwich? But he said, ‘It’s delicious,’ so I said ‘Okay, I’ll try one.'” Her thoughts now? “It’s awesome, everybody loves it.”

The addition of a latke to an egg and cheese sandwich was, as is the case with many ingenious creations, an unplanned yet illuminating success. “I was probably craving bacon one day,” Weibman said. As B&H is both a pescetarian and Kosher establishment, an alternative came to mind: an order of their salty golden-brown potato pancakes, one of which he slid onto the egg and cheese sandwich. “What goes better with squishy and melty, than crispy-crunchy? It’s all about sandwich construction.”

Speaking of construction, Weibman has thoughts. “Fried eggs, over medium, with American cheese. You want to be able to squeeze down and have that yolk in the middle, not on top.” The challah—B&H’s homemade signature—is untoasted: “You want the squishy bread, because you have to be able to smush it down a little to fit it in your mouth once the latke goes in, unless you’re a boa constrictor.”

And of course, there’s the condiments factor. For Weibman, that’s salt and pepper, plus ketchup and hot sauce. Staying true to his brand, Weibman didn’t just go for the hot sauce on the counter. “The guys who work there have their own stash of hot sauce in the fridge . . . sometimes they had a ghost pepper sauce. The real secret was to ask for the hot sauce in the back.” He says that extra heat, with the sweetness from ketchup, are non-negotiable.

Until just recently, to get this sandwich at B&H, one had to order an egg and cheese sandwich and side of potato pancakes, then rearrange accordingly. Yet, as Weibman got to know the cooks and owners more, he felt comfortable requesting the whole sandwich (“a trepidatious ask,” he added).

When he first shared photos of the sandwich on Instagram, he noted it was an off-menu creation. “But then people started coming in and ordering it. They have other dishes named for regulars. I’d mess with [Ola] and be like, ‘Where’s mine? I’ll take a sign!'”

“I said, ‘Next time we print the menu, I promise we’ll put your name on it,'” laughed Ola, relaying the same story. “Some new customers see it online, and say they want it just like the photo. For me, it was something new. It’s very popular.”

Recipe: Latke, Egg & Cheese Sandwich, Inspired by B&H

Prep time: 15 minutes

Cook time: 40 minutes

Makes: 1 sandwich

Ingredients:

Sandwich

2 thick slices challah (or brioche in a pinch)
2 slices American cheese
Olive oil or butter, for frying eggs
1 or 2 large eggs
Kosher salt
Freshly ground black pepper
1 latke (recipe below)
Hot sauce and ketchup, for serving, optional (but not really)

Latkes

1 pound Russet potatoes (about 3 medium), scrubbed
1 small or 1/2 large yellow onion, finely chopped
1 large egg
2 tablespoons matzo meal or Panko breadcrumbs
³/₄ teaspoon teaspoon kosher salt, plus more for sprinkling
Freshly ground black pepper
Vegetable oil, for frying

Directions:

Sandwich: Place bread on a cutting board. (If you’d like, you can toast it first, but @nycfoodguy does not.) Layer the cheese on one slice of bread.
Heat oil or butter in a small nonstick skillet. Scramble or fry the eggs to your liking (at B&H, they’re served over-medium for this sandwich, but live your life). Season the eggs with salt and pepper, then slide them over the cheese. Place a latke over the eggs. If you’d like, smear a bit of hot sauce and ketchup over the latke, then top with the second slice of bread.
Carefully cut the sandwich in half, and serve with extra hot sauce and ketchup if desired.
Latkes: Fill a medium bowl halfway with water. Peel the potatoes and plop them into the water (this prevents the potatoes from oxidizing. Grate the potatoes through the large holes of a box grater, then transfer back to the water and let sit for 10 minutes.
Remove the potatoes from the bowl and transfer to a clean kitchen towel. Gather the towel into a package and use your hands to squeeze out as much water as possible into the bowl, then return the potatoes to the towel. Drain the water from the bowl, but leave any potato starch that’s accumulated in the bottom—we’ll use it in a bit.
Place the onions on top of the potatoes. Using the towel, wring and squeeze as much water as possible from the potatoes and onions into the sink. Transfer the potatoes and onions to the bowl with the reserved potato starch.
Crack the egg into the bowl along with matzo meal, salt, and a few good grinds of pepper. Use your hands to combine the mixture well, making sure to scrape up and combine any potato starch from the bottom of the bowl.
Line a sheet pan or a large plate with paper towels. Pour oil into a large nonstick or cast iron skillet until it reaches about 1/4-inch up the sides. Heat over medium-high until very hot and shimmery. Test this by adding a piece of potato from the latke mixture to the oil: If it sizzles immediately, you’re good to go. If not, wait a couple more minutes and try again.
Scoop up a scant 1/4 cup of the latke mixture and gently drop it into the oil. Use a fork to spread the batter into a 4-inch pancake and cook until deeply golden brown, about 5 minutes per side. Depending on the size of your skillet, you can fry 2 or 3 latkes at a time. Transfer the latkes to the paper towel-lined sheet pan and sprinkle each with salt. Repeat until the batter is used.
Let a latke cool slightly, then transfer to your sandwich. This recipe makes about 12 latkes, which is of course too many for one sandwich. To save yourself some work the next time you crave a LEC, let the latkes cool completely, wrap tightly, and freeze. To reheat, defrost and warm in a 300ºF oven until crispy and heated through.

Mass protests for reproductive rights erupt in Poland: Why Americans should learn from them

Just as voters in America were taking part in a historic presidential election, the women of Poland were taking to the streets. Up to a million people daily have taken part in mass demonstrations against Poland’s near-total ban on abortion and the ultra-conservative regime that imposed it.

The ban, approved by the country’s constitutional tribunal, outlaws abortions even in cases of serious fetal abnormalities. The response has been the largest mass protests since the Solidarity movement brought down the communist government in the 1980s.

Led by a grassroots group called Ogólnopolski Strajk Kobiet (All-Polish Women’s Strike), the demonstrators have also taken aim against the government’s authoritarian and anti-democratic policies more broadly. Poland’s ruling Law and Justice party is conservative, patriarchal and closely tied to the Catholic church. It won a razor-thin victory in July on a platform rife with anti-LGBT and anti-Semitic sentiment and continues to pursue a strategy intended to motivate its conservative base.

If any of this sounds familiar, it should. President-elect Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump was an enormous relief, but having a supporter of abortion rights in the White House should not make us complacent. With conservatives holding a majority on the Supreme Court and in state legislative chambers nationwide, Americans should be ready to agitate, organize and protest like our rights depend on it.

First, the fight for reproductive rights is inextricable from the global effort to advance human rights. What’s happening in Poland is a reminder that when authoritarian regimes undermine democratic values, attacks on reproductive rights often follow. It is no accident that the countries that joined the Trump administration in repudiating the right to abortion at the United Nations were largely repressive governments with records of violating human rights. Freedom cannot exist without reproductive freedom.

That is why abortion rights must be situated within a broader framework of human dignity, individual autonomy and civil rights. Polish demonstrators’ demands extend well beyond reproductive rights – to LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, greater access to health care and more separation between church and state. Abortion access is fundamental not only to women’s ability to participate equally in society, but also to all people’s right to be themselves.

Second, mass demonstrations work – especially when they are organized from the ground up. In response to the All-Polish Women’s Strike, Poland’s ruling party has paused implementation of the ban and is calling for talks. Adam Mrozowicki, a sociologist at the University of Wrocław, described the protests to the Guardian as “decentralized, locally based, grassroots. And personally, in 20 years, I’ve never seen anything like these numbers.” Harvard University’s Erica Chenoweth has found that catalyzing meaningful political change takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in protests, or about 11 million people in the U.S. This is not an insurmountable goal. Polling suggests that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States participated in Black Lives Matter demonstrations over the death of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others.

Finally, the Polish demonstrators belie the notion that the left should soften its stance on abortion or avoid talking about the issue of abortion altogether. The Polish demonstrators’ symbols and language are raw, unapologetic and confrontational. The primary symbol of the protest is a red lightning bolt, created by designer Ola Jasionowska, who says that it symbolizes “watch out, beware, we won’t accept that women are being deprived of their basic rights.” Among the protesters’ most widespread slogans has been “Wypierdalać”, a vulgarity that translates roughly as “Fuck off.”

As right-wing politicians here in the U.S. strengthen their hold on the Supreme Court and state capitals around the country, it is clear they have every intention of using that power to dictate women’s personal medical decisions and criminalize abortion care. It would behoove us to remember that this is not just some abstract policy making exercise, but rather, these policies dramatically affect the lives of real people trying to access reproductive health care.

Poland’s mass demonstrations remind us of the power of protest, even in the most hostile political environment.

Don’t put away your pink pussy hat yet. Winter is coming.

“Wolfwalkers”: Cartoon Saloon’s Irish folklore trilogy ends with the best animated film of the year

Editor’s note: This review was originally published at the 2020 Toronto International Film Festival. The film will start streaming on AppleTV+ on Friday, December 11.

Irish animation studio Cartoon Saloon may not be able to match the impact or consistency of Japan’s Studio Ghibli (who can?), but the Kilkenny-based outfit has gradually emerged as one of the world’s last and most valuable bulwarks against the crude and craven soullessness that has defined the post-“Shrek” era of mainstream animated movies. Rooted in Celtic mythology and drawn to look like a moving stained glass window, 2009’s Oscar-nominated “The Secret of Kells” stood apart from its computer-generated 3D contemporaries for its warmth and its beauty. While the likes of “Bolt” and “Kung Fu Panda” offered all the magic of a trip to the mall, Cartoon Saloon’s breakout almost seemed holy by comparison.

If subsequent efforts “Song of the Sea” and “The Breadwinner” were even prettier but less enthralling, the studio’s potential only grew stronger as it doubled down on a steadfast commitment to stories rich in cultural history (as opposed to, say, “what if ‘American Idol,’ but with animals?”). And the lushly imaginative 2D animation that brought those stories to life was rich in a cultural history of its own.

With “Wolfwalkers” — the final installment of the studio’s informal trilogy of films about Irish folklore — Cartoon Saloon has realized its true potential at last. Far and away the best animated film of the year so far (one worthy of such hosannas no matter how limited the competition has been), this heartfelt tale of love and loss is the most visually enchanting feature its studio has made thus far, as well as the most poignant.

Set in the same county of Kilkenny where Cartoon Saloon would set up shop almost 400 years later, this 17th century saga winds the clock back to 1650, when English general Oliver Cromwell completed the main thrust of the Parliamentary invasion of Ireland that he launched in a violent effort to “tame” the locals and annihilate the Catholic Church. Voiced by a holier-than-thou Simon McBurney with such loathsome relish that you can practically smell the colonization reeking off the screen, Cromwell has walled himself inside a heavily fortified Irish hamlet when the story begins.

He may insist that his soldiers and the townsfolk they’ve subjugated refer to him as “lord protector,” but the stockades alone make it clear that he isn’t there to keep people safe.Cromwell motivates with fear and follows through with murder, and even some of the Englishmen who’ve been forced to tag along on his campaign of terror are only doing so to keep their families from harm.

That’s especially true of the well-meaning widower Bill Goodfellowe (Sean Bean, delivering a Boromir-worthy degree of agonized sweetness), a hunter tasked with killing the wolves who live in the woods of Kilkenny. Bill doesn’t seem all that passionate about liquifying the lupine population that have lived in the area for God knows how long — even if they travel in scary, gnashing packs that are closer in spirit to the sacred wildlife of “Princess Mononoke” than the talking creatures found in most Disney cartoons — but any resistance poses a direct risk to his spirited young daughter Robyn (a plucky and expressive Honor Kneafsey), a tow-headed tomboy who so closely resembles Saoirse Ronan that the “Little Women” star might deserve some royalties. Bill’s entire purpose in life is to fulfill the promise he made to his late wife and keep their daughter from harm, but there’s only so much a dad can do to keep a curious kid away from an enchanted forest, and it isn’t long before Robyn develops an unusual connection to the very wolves that Bill has been tasked with wiping out.

Well, maybe it’s a bit longer than you might expect. “Wolfwalkers” is briskly paced from start to finish (perhaps even too hectic as it dashes through a pivotal second act), but the film doesn’t arrive at its magical conceit until around the halfway point. First, Robyn has to get lost in the woods and strike up a friendship with the feral, flame-haired child she meets within the dense maze. Her name is Mebh MacTire (Eva Whittaker), and she’s one of the last surviving Wolfwalkers: Mythic shapeshifters who appear human when they’re awake, assume wolf-form when they’re asleep, and will continue to serve as a necessary life line between civilization and nature until someone like Cromwell burns that bridge down once and for all. And as Robyn later discovers as part of a twist that elegantly pulls the movie together and cinches it around the waist (a stark contrast to how “Brave” got tripped up by a similar turn), Mebh’s powers are contagious.

Will Collins’ fable-like script might follow an uncommonly roundabout path to its final destination, but it’s hard to imagine that anyone will complain about “Wolfwalkers” taking the scenic route. Not when there’s this much to see along the way. Co-directed by Cartoon Saloon co-founder Tomm Moore and recently promoted art director Ross Stewart, every frame of this movie is a feast for the eyes in a way that makes the studio’s (gorgeous) previous work feel like glorified sketches of a fuller vision to come.

It’s not just that the entire film seems like a lushly animated storybook brought to life — its autumnal palette creating a yellow and green ombré of infinite possibility that allows Robyn’s story to grow between the cracks of history and folklore — or that you can feel a lingering human touch in all of its characters. It’s not even that similar care extends to the lupine characters too, though we can’t overstate the transformative effect that all has on Robyn herself, a familiar heroine who radiates with the precocious self-possession of someone who doesn’t realize that she’s an archetype, and wouldn’t accept it if she did.

It’s also that every frame is dense with the kind of detail that makes them all more transportive, and every detail is arranged in a way that makes the story they’re telling feel like a natural extension of its design and vice-versa. The town where Robyn lives is puritanically rigid and straight; a veritable prison that flattens into a cold iron box whenever it’s used as a backdrop, but also reveals a number of memorable chambers over the course of the movie (the colorless scullery is a standout). Mebh’s forest, by contrast, is a verdant kingdom of curved lines that lead to unexpected places and stretch full of secrets.

The animation isn’t just pretty, but also smart and active and even synesthetic in how it visualizes scent when Robyn turns into a wolf (wolfvision assumes an awesome, trippy black light aesthetic that could set kids on a path towards Pink Floyd fandom if their parents aren’t careful). A clever use of split-screen allows Cromwell’s threat to cut into the forest with hegemonic force, while one particularly ominous scene is framed with an ever-thickening border of black paint that threatens to blot out Mehb’s tribe as if they were never there in the first place. Small moments radiate such ache and agency throughout; a quick beat in which Robyn casually brushes Mehb’s thick mane of red hair adds bounce to a scene that other movies would surrender to its exposition.

But the film’s animation is only worth celebrating because of how it serves a moving story that reflects the nature of fear against our fear of nature, and leverages a potentially staid father-daughter saga into a film that weaponizes the wonder of the unknown against the evils of colonialism without talking down to the older kid audience at which it’s aimed (“what cannot be tamed must be destroyed” Cromwell barks at one point in a tale that takes great pleasure in neutering those words). The relationship between Will and Robyn may not boast a Shakespearian complexity, but “Wolfwalkers” is powerfully attuned to the protective bond that connects parents with their children, and how easy it can be to exploit that bond through fear. the dynamic between Mehb and her mother is best left unspoiled, but it’s drawn with an emotional fullness that reminded me of Frida Kahlo as much as any Celtic influences.

And even when Mehb tips over from cute to cloying, Robyn’s path strays into Disney princess territory, or the movie’s plot is overburdened by the rules of its magic — some of which pay off, and others which feel like they’re being rewritten on the fly — such ordinary missteps only focus our attention on how “Wolfwalkers” forges its own trail without stepping over the stories that came before it. Here is an animated film that finds new beauty in ancient traditions; a film that fights back against the temptation to surrender what little magic this world still has left, and fulfills Cartoon Saloon’s promise along the way.

Grade: A-

“Wolfwalkers” premiered at the 2020 Toronto International Film Festival. It will receive a theatrical run from GKids later this year ahead of a streaming release on Apple TV+.

Trump is “infuriated” by Bill Barr’s handling of election and Hunter Biden investigations: report

President Donald Trump is angry that Attorney General Bill Barr knew about investigations into Hunter Biden but did not make them public until after the election, according to a new report by The Wall Street Journal.

“President Trump has expressed interest in pursuing the appointment of a special counsel to investigate allegations of fraud in the November elections and issues related to Hunter Biden, according to people familiar with the matter. In recent days, the president has directed advisers to look for people who could serve in such a position, one of the people said, as lawsuits and other efforts by Mr. Trump and his campaign to reverse the election results founder,” the newspaper reported Friday evening.

There might be two special counsels appointed.

“White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has told people that the president is interested in pursuing a special counsel to investigate election fraud and wants to act quickly, one of the people said. Senior White House officials have also discussed the possibility of pursuing a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, expressing frustration over Attorney General William Barr’s handling of investigations into Mr. Biden’s business and financial dealings and concern that the incoming administration of Joe Biden could seek to shut down any probes into Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, an administration official said,” The Journal reported.

“Mr. Trump has expressed rising frustration with his attorney general in recent months, privately and publicly, according to aides, as efforts by the president and his supporters to overturn the election have repeatedly failed,” the newspaper reported. “Mr. Barr’s announcement that the Justice Department hadn’t found evidence of widespread election fraud that would reverse Mr. Biden’s victory infuriated the president, the aides said, and Mr. Trump has openly accused the Justice Department of being involved in the election fraud he has alleged.”

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump’s move to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

With the Trump circus finally ending, can America ever get back to useful politics?

To the “average” American, the typical political conversation on television must sound like advanced Martians communicating in code. Over the past four years, our culture has experienced an avalanche of ostensibly political content — stacks of bestselling books and lengthy, much-discussed articles documenting Donald Trump’s perpetual fiasco of lunacy, endless hours of cable news commentary dissecting exactly how one human being could so singlehandedly combine the qualities of stupidity and danger and, even more vexing, how tens of millions of seemingly functional human beings could applaud his every move, even as he threatens to kill their loved ones by subverting public health agencies during a global pandemic.

The problem is that none of these conversations are “political” in the classical sense of the term, meaning the public activity pertaining to a shared societal interest in pursuit of stability, happiness and justice. They are necessary attempts to navigate a president’s (and a nation’s) four year psychotic episode, and in the most noble cases, attempts minimize the collateral damage. Donald Trump’s desperate play for a coup d’état is almost too imbecilic to qualify for comment. Rudy Giuliani’s on-air flatulence, with a mortified reaction from his deranged co-counsel, Jenna Ellis, would provide a comprehensive summary if it were not for the frightening fact that almost the entire Republican Party is tacitly cooperative with an overt campaign to demolish what remains of American democracy. Sen. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee just eight years ago, was correct to call the behavior of his own political party “madness.”

Even that madness must feel remote and almost meaningless to many ordinary Americans. Imagine a recent college graduate who cannot obtain a job in his field, yet still has to make a monthly student loan payment. Since his bachelor’s degree has not resulted in suitable employment options, he is waiting tables — or at least he was, until indoor dining came to a screeching halt. Although he is healthy, he is paying an exorbitant monthly premium for a health insurance policy with a massive deductible, essentially emptying out his bank account each month for medical coverage he will not and cannot use. Home ownership and a mortgage seems like a pipe dream, and he’d better hope that rusty car he drives around town, belching exhaust and making an odd noise during ignition, can stay alive another few years.

That down-and-out 20-something, even with all of his struggles, might appear to have a life of luxury to his cousin, a slightly older woman who works multiple low-wage jobs merely to cover the essentials. The scenario I am sketching is not merely hypothetical for the millions of Americans who fall into the category of the “working poor,” or for the 40 percent of Americans who have no savings, or the seemingly middle-class families that subsist on credit card debt. Maria Leonor Fernandes, a 32-year-old New Jersey woman, was one of the many Americans suffering through the contradictions and lies of the “land of opportunity.” Despite speaking four languages and impressing her co-workers with her intelligence and charm, she worked at the three Dunkin Donut shops, often juggling multiple shifts in the same day. One of her colleagues reported that she always looked “exhausted.” It was hardly surprising that she fell asleep in her vehicle between shifts, but it did shock and hurt her friends when she died after inhaling exhaust fumes during her nap. Those friends told reporters that, even in poverty and under stress, Fernandes was always generous with her time and the little resources that she had.

A record-shattering number of Americans, approximately 13 million, of us currently hold multiple jobs, to say nothing of the innumerable “gig economy” freelancers who are one contract or one vendor away from slipping into dire poverty.

When someone like Maria Leonor Fernandes turns on the television or radio, during one of her fleeting moments of leisure, what might she hear? An incoherent nutjob with the title of “president” boasting about the “greatest economy the world has ever seen,” business analysts making orgasmic groans over the Dow Jones average, millionaire pundits examining the diversity of Joe Biden’s cabinet selections. They might also catch discussion of the rules regarding signatures on absentee ballots.

Even during the Democratic National Convention, a multi-night platform for the party to present its case for election to the average voter, most of the message centered on the highly abstract notion that Joe Biden was a good man who could “restore the soul of America.”

Maria Leonor Fernandes might well have asked, while she slugged the last few drops of cold Dunkin Donuts coffee out of a Styrofoam cup, “What does that have to do with me?”

It’s a good question.

When I interviewed Delmarie Cobb, a journalist and political consultant who worked as press secretary for the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign, for my book, “I Am Somebody: Why Jesse Jackson Matters,” she explained that the reason why Jackson’s 1984 and 1988 bids for the presidency resonated with a large and multiracial coalition of voters was his articulation of a “politics of usefulness.” By making the case for a robust social democracy, and outlining a program of socialized medicine, subsidized child care, debt-free higher education and full employment through infrastructure renovation projects, Jackson sought to demonstrate to ordinary voters — from the unemployed Black steelworker in Chicago to the white family farmer facing foreclosure in Iowa — how government could directly benefit their lives.

Jackson would often tell audiences, “If we can leave the racial battleground to find economic common ground, we can reach for moral higher ground.”

The convergence of several crises — the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme inequality, the recrudescence of racist and fascist movements, and the existential danger of climate change — demands something like that today. We could call it the reassertion of the politics of usefulness.

Many Americans express a general aversion to politics, finding the entire spectacle boring or pointless, while right-wing commentators are fond of lamenting the “politicization” of pop culture. They aren’t objecting to politics, exactly; they are rejecting what our culture advertises as politics.

Gore Vidal was correct when he told an interviewer in 2003, “We don’t have politics. We have elections — very expensive and very corrupt ones.”

Last month we ended an election that felt as if it lasted forever in which the “debate” was between a fascist who recommended bleach as a cure for a virus and a qualified candidate who expressed decency and empathy for Americans suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, poverty and racial injustice, but who also told a room full of rich donors that if he is elected president “nothing will fundamentally change.”

The “politics of usefulness” demands substantive and sweeping change. It demands a Green New Deal, which will secure clean and suitable employment for thousands of people while saving the planet. It demands a publicly funded universal health care program, which will liberate working parents from determining whether they can afford to take their sick child to the emergency room. It demands subsidized child care, which will spare those same parents from financial punishment for even having children. It demands equity and excellence in public education and affordability in higher education, which will mean that those children have a shot at success. It demands the increase of the minimum wage to $15 per hour, which means that other women in the position of Maria Leonor Fernandes will live rather than die poor, alone and exhausted at the age of 32.

It demands a return to the intelligence, ambition and compassion of the New Deal and the New Frontier. During his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention of 1960, John F. Kennedy described the New Frontier as not territorial, but as “the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus.” There can little doubt that during a pandemic, as we witness the destructiveness of climate change, struggle against the escalation of extreme inequality, and seek to beat back the threat of white nationalism, that Kennedy’s crises are our own.

The politics of usefulness must locate “economic common ground,” as Jackson implored, and must resurrect an expansive vision of democracy according to the old socialist slogan, “liberty, equality, fraternity.”

The politics of usefulness is the only thing that can save a crumbling country.

Ilhan Omar rips Congress for approving $740.5 billion Pentagon budget while skimping on COVID relief

After the Democrat-controlled House on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a $740.5 billion budget for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2021, Rep. Ilhan Omar slammed the warped priorities that have led lawmakers to pass with few objections a “bill to appease defense contractors and special interests” while skimping on badly needed coronavirus relief.

“It is unconscionable to pass a Pentagon budget that continues to fund unnecessary projects and endless wars during a time of widespread suffering across our country,” the Minnesota Democrat said in a statement. “Thousands of Minnesotans are struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. We should be investing our resources here at home — not increasing our already exorbitant Pentagon budget.”

Omar was one of just 37 House Democrats to oppose the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which passed by a vote of 335-78 — a veto-proof majority. The legislation is expected to easily clear the Senate despite President Donald Trump’s threats to veto the measure over objections unrelated to the size of the proposed Pentagon budget.

See the full roll call for the House vote here.

“This bill further commits our servicemembers to escalations abroad — including a now-two-decade old unpopular war in Afghanistan,” Omar said. “Every dollar we spend on endless wars is another missed opportunity to invest in our communities. Shamefully, this bill does nothing to stop arms sales to some of the most corrupt and brutal regimes in the world, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.”

If Congress can afford to spend $740.5 billion on a Pentagon Authorization bill, we can afford stimulus checks for the American people.

Congress should focus on responding to the urgent needs of the American people—not passing a bill to appease defense contractors. pic.twitter.com/ib705TRddY

— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) December 9, 2020

Passage of the sprawling defense bill came as congressional leaders and the White House continued to negotiate the details of a coronavirus relief package that progressive lawmakers have decried as woefully inadequate to address the needs of countless sick, hungry, and eviction-prone Americans.

A $908 billion bipartisan relief framework unveiled last week would not provide direct stimulus payments to U.S. households, while an $916 billion offer put forth by the White House late Tuesday would not provide a weekly boost to unemployment benefits. Both plans fall well short of the $3-4.5 trillion stimulus that experts say is needed to relieve widespread suffering and prevent a prolonged economic recession.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., joined Omar in voting against the NDAA on Tuesday, declaring that Congress “should be cutting down the Pentagon’s budget — not increasing it… again.”

“Let’s put the priorities of the American people above the profits of defense contractors,” Pocan added.

Pocan over the summer led an effort with Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., to cut the bloated Pentagon budget by 10% and invest the savings in housing, healthcare, and education. As Common Dreams reported at the time, the amendment ultimately failed thanks to opposition from 139 House Democrats and 185 Republicans. A similar amendment led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was voted down in the Senate.

Earlier this month, Sarah Lazare of In These Times contrasted the ongoing “stalemate over coronavirus relief with bipartisan support for the U.S. war machine,” which reliably receives an injection of hundreds of billions of dollars in funding each year with little opposition.

“We should not allow bipartisan agreement on military spending to simply fade into the background, as an unremarkable and immutable fact of U.S. politics,” wrote Lazare. “That we can find the money for war but not for coronavirus relief exposes the moral rot at the center of U.S. politics, a rot that must be dug out and expunged if we are to get through this crisis.”

What critics got wrong about John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s “Double Fantasy”

Released on November 17, 1980, John Lennon and Yoko Ono‘s “Double Fantasy” had scarcely been in stores for three weeks before the former Beatle’s senseless murder on December 8. In spite of the incredible buzz surrounding their first new album release in more than five years, the early reviews were lukewarm, if not outright caustic.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Steve Pond panned the album, warning that “those expecting the return of the mythical Lennon – a man with an insightful, brilliant mind and a biting wit – will be sorely disillusioned by ‘Double Fantasy.'” Pond concluded that “the worst thing about ‘Double Fantasy’ is that it simply makes John and Yoko look like a pair of aged, lost hippies.”

The Washington Post’s Richard Harrington mined a similar vein, writing that “$8.98 for a flaccid look at a family scrapbook is too much to ask,” describing “(Just Like) Starting Over” as “an embarrassing pastiche of 50s and 60s influences.” Harrington dismissed John’s work as suffering from “a general lack of substance, lyrical directness, and undistinguished melodies.”

By contrast, the UK press was downright merciless. In the intervening years since John’s last solo album, the county had become swept up in the scrappy, often violent punk movement and its growing clash with the industry’s privileged, seemingly less-relevant mainstays. Clearly working from this perspective, an unsigned reviewer in Melody Maker commented that “the whole thing positively reeks of an indulgent sterility. It’s a godawful yawn!”

Love the Beatles? Listen to Ken’s podcast “Everything Fab Four.”

Writing in the November 22 issue of NME, Charles Shaar Murray continued the excoriation: “Lennon and Ono appear on the cover clamped in a passionate embrace,” Murray writes. “The album celebrates their mutual devotion to each other and their son Sean to the almost complete exclusion of all other concerns. Everything’s peachy for the Lennons and nothing else matters, so everything’s peachy QED. How wonderful, man. One is thrilled to hear of so much happiness.”

Murray was complimentary of Yoko’s tracks, observing that her “music sounds vastly more modern and considerably more interesting than Lennon’s.” In his summary, Murray admits that “I look forward to Yoko Ono’s solo album,” while wishing “that Lennon had kept his big happy trap shut until he has something to say that was even vaguely relevant to those of us not married to Yoko Ono.”

In retrospect—as we reflect in sober backcast on the album’s 40th anniversary—it is useful to recall that in 1980, no one believed that rock ‘n’ roll would be a middle-aged passion, that folks like John Lennon would still be plying their trades in their 40s and beyond. In this context, Lennon, once again, was on the vanguard, sharing his state of mind, as he had nearly always done, at a key point in his life as a father and husband.

What is far more perplexing is the manner in which the initial critical onslaught largely failed to account for Lennon’s exquisitely crafted melodies in such tunes as “(Just Like) Starting Over,” “I’m Losing You,” “Watching the Wheels,” and “Woman.” These are class compositions in any era and by nearly any measure.

In the all-too brief period in which Lennon knew about the critical backlash, he seemed to take it in stride, even finding the humor in it all. Indeed, at 40, he seemed to have found a new centeredness, an understanding that the journey involved in making “Double Fantasy” was what truly mattered.

A few days before his death, Lennon and photographer Bob Gruen discussed the LP’s early notices, with John assuring his friend that the mixed nature of the “Double Fantasy” record reviews had left him unscathed. As Gruen later recalled in Ken Sharp’s 2010 book “Starting Over,” Lennon “wasn’t sorry that reviewers said Yoko’s songs were more avant-garde, modern, and interesting than John’s songs, which they described as being more MOR, middle-of-the-road. And he said, ‘That’s fine because we’re going right down the middle-of-the-road to the bank.'”

And later still, when Yoko commented on the sluggish sales of the “(Just Like) Starting Over” single, worried that he would be upset by reception of their new work, her husband didn’t miss a beat. In olden days, he might have taken it personally, ranting and raving about the fickle nature of the chattering class, but not anymore. Looking up at his wife, as she later told Rolling Stone, he said, “It’s all right. We have the family.”

From a fertility doctor with a god complex to “Wonder Woman,” here’s what’s on HBO Max in December

HBO Max’s December release calendar is really strong. There’s jaw-dropping true crime docuseries, like “Heaven’s Gate: Cult of Cults” and the finale of the poignant, engrossing “Murder on Middle Beach.” For something a little more upbeat, there’s “Full Bloom,” a floral design competition, Meryl Streep’s latest, “Let Them All Talk,” and the new “docusoap,” “House of Ho.”

But the service also has some tremendous stuff on their “last chance to watch” list. I’m going to personally set aside a night or two to watch a few classics like “An American in Paris,” “Bringing Up Baby” and “Dr. Zhivago.”

If, while you’re waiting for the new “Wonder Woman” movie, you want to take in some films that are action-packed. “Batman & Robin,” “Batman Forever” and “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider,” are all available until the end of the month.

Here’s everything that is on our watch list on HBO Max for December:

“Baby God,” Dec. 2

For many couples who were struggling to conceive, Dr. Quincy Fortier was a miracle worker. Through his fertility clinic, he oversaw the pregnancies of dozens of women — but, as this new documentary by Hannah Olson details, Fortier actually used his own sperm to impregnate them, without their knowledge or consent.

“‌Following several of his biological children as they grapple with new information about their origins and their own identities, the film examines the morality of one doctor who used science and status to exploit innumerable women — and further his own genetic legacy — over nearly half a century,” says HBO Max’s description of the film.

“Full Bloom,” Dec. 3

If you found yourself engrossed in Netflix’s “The Big Flower Fight” (or are simply looking for another soothing show in the vein of “The Great British Bake Off“), HBO Max’s “Full Bloom” belongs on your December watch list. The reality competition series centers on 10 talented and innovative up-and-coming florists who compete in a series of challenges that determine whose “stems get cut” — and who remains in running for the career-changing $100,000 grand prize to kickstart their business.

“Heaven’s Gate: The Cult of Cults,” Dec. 3

As I wrote earlier this month, “Many people first became aware of the Heaven’s Gate cult in 1997, when — after an anonymous tip was called into the San Diego Police Department — the bodies of 39 men and women were found in a rented seven bedroom mansion. Each of the bodies were dressed in androgynous outfits with matching haircuts and Nike sneakers. On their arms were ‘Star Trek’-inspired bands that read ‘Heaven’s Gate Away Team,’ and in their pockets were $5.75.”

This series, which was spearheaded by documentarian Clay Tweel, carefully dismantles and subverts the obvious question asked about the cult members: “How could they be easily taken?” It’s a thoughtfully paced, four-episode series, rich in original source material and striking watercolor animations in place of reenactments.

“La Leyenda Negra,” Dec. 4

Patricia Vidal Delgado’s “La Leyenda Negra” centers on Aleteia (Monica Betancourt), an El Salvadorian student and young activist who, after immigrating to and growing up in the United States, begins attending a Compton high school. There, she struggles to make friends and, when her Temporary Protected Status is compromised, her future becomes deeply uncertain.

This film is a timely, coming-of-age story that lifts the voices of Latinx youth.

“Euphoria” special episode, Dec. 6

As Salon’s Melanie McFarland wrote of “Euphoria,” the show’s early depiction of out-of-control, neon-hued teen suburbia soon transformed into “an empathetic portrait of what it means to be a kid born in the shadow of disaster and growing up in an era informed by it. Rue’s (played by Emmy®-winner Zendaya) formative disaster is 9/11, and we meet the party-drug loving teen in her mother’s womb — the last time, she explains with melodramatic teenage angst, that she was happy, content.”

This holiday special focuses on the aftermath of Rue being left by Jules (Hunter Schafer), her best friend-turned-romantic interest, at a train station after she backs out of their drunken plan to run away and live in another city.

This special, titled “Trouble Don’t Last Always,” is written and directed by Sam Levinson and also stars Colman Domingo, who appeared in season one.

“40 Years a Prisoner,” Dec. 8

As Salon’s D. Watkins wrote, this documentary features “an all-star ensemble of producers including The Roots, Common and John Legend.”

“’40 Years A Prisoner'” is a compelling film about the horrors of America’s criminal justice system,” Watkins wrote. “The story begins in 1978 when Philadelphia police raided MOVE, a back to nature organization based on love, among other peaceful principles. Africa’s parents, two MOVE members, were arrested during that raid on trumped up charges and convicted before he was born. In the film, Oliver documents Africa Jr.’s life pursuit of freeing his parents, along with other MOVE members, and a decades-long battle with the Philadelphia police department.”

“Alabama Snake,” Dec. 9

While “Alabama Snake” isn’t a total success as an illuminating documentary on the place and position of snake handling in the American South and Appalachia, nor as a tight true crime tale, the premise is captivating. It delves into the events surrounding the 1991 conviction of Pentecostal preacher Glenn Summerford after he was found guilty of attempting to murder his wife, Darlene, with a rattlesnake that he used in church services.

“House of Ho,” Dec. 10

Over the last several years, major networks have invested in culturally specific reality series about ultra-wealthy families. There’s Netflix’s “Fabulous Lives Of Bollywood Wives” and Bravo’s “Mexican Dynasties.” HBO Max joins the trend with “House of Ho,” an eight-episode “docusoap” following the intergenerational culture clashes of the Houston-based Vietnamese multibillionaire Ho family. Amid an opulent backdrop, the series takes a stab at examining how traditional, patriarchal expectations fit within the family’s lifestyle.

“My family is Vietnamese, but loves being American. My brothers are named Washington and Reagan,” says Judy, the eldest and only daughter, in the trailer. “I was a disappointment because I was a girl, so I’m named Judy.”

“Let Them All Talk,” Dec. 10

Meryl Streep and Steven Soderbergh pair up in this character-driven comedy-drama wherein Streep plays Alice Hughes, a world-famous author who has been asked to go to England to accept an award. She can’t fly, so she opts to take the Queen Mary across the ocean (and somehow convinces the award-givers to also pay for her three closest friends to accompany her). There’s Roberta (Candice Bergen), Susan (Dianne Wiest) and her nephew Tyler (Lucas Hedges).

And — without Alice’s knowledge — her agent, Karen (Gemma Chan), hitches a ride on-board as well in an effort to find out what the author is working on.

“The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend a Broken Heart,” Dec. 12

During the late 1960s and the 1970s, the Bee Gees — brothers Barry, Maurice, and Robin Gibb — had a meteoric rise to fame. They were the kings of disco, but then disco died. This documentary, details how the trio went on to adapt in the music industry, writing over 1,000 songs, including 20 No. 1 hits.

“Wonder Woman 1984,” Dec. 25

In this sequel to the 2017 hit “Wonder Woman,” Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) is set to face off against two main villains: Cheetah (Kristin Wiig), a friend of the heroine’s who covets her power and turns evil, and Max Lord (Pedro Pascal), a charismatic businessman and entrepreneur who is famous for TV infomercials, but secretly harbors delusions of grandeur. Amid it all, Diana’s love interest, Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), returns — despite the fact that he was presumed dead.

“Conan Without Borders,” Dec. 31

As Max Cea wrote for Salon in 2017, Conan O’Brien’s travelogue “has gone to Germany, South Korea, Armenia, Cuba, and Qatar. These specials are somewhere between Anthony Bourdain’s ‘Parts Unknown’ and an episode of ‘Laurel and Hardy.”

He continued: “Conan explores a foreign nation and finds humor in his cultural ignorance and physical difference. The mere sight of the gangly red-haired giant in the Noryangjin Fish Market, for instance, is funny. But the humor is always more at Conan’s expense than at that of the foreign culture.”

The first season of the series features the late-night host in Aremenia, Qatar, Australia, Berlin, Ghana, Greenland and Japan.

Here is everything that is coming to HBO Max this month.

Dec. 1
“3 Godfathers”
“40 Days And 40 Nights”
“Absolute Power”
“Adam Ruins Everything”
“The Adventures of Pinocchio”
“Amanpour: Sex & Love Around the World”
“Amistad”
“Annabelle: Creation”
“The Bay”
“The Beguiled”
“Beyond Reasonable Doubt”
“The Bishop’s Wife”
“The Blind Side”
“Blow-Up”
“The Book Of Henry”
“Bright Young Things”
“Bundle of Joy”
“The Carbonaro Effect”
“Chasing Life with Sanjay Gupta”
“Cinderella Story: If The Shoe Fits”
“Code 46”
“Comedy Knockout”
“Contraband”
“Crimes of the Century”
“The Crow”
“The Crow: City Of Angels”
“The Crow: Wicked Prayer”
“Dead Wives Club”
“Death Row Stories”
“De Blanco La Patuda”
“Deep Blue Sea”
“Demolition Man”
“Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: Dog Days”
“Fallen”
“Falling Skies”
“The Family Man”
“Father of the Bride”
“Fifty Shades Of Black”
“Final Destination”
“Final Destination 2”
“Final Destination 3”
“The Final Destination”
“Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact, Forgery”
“Freelancers,”
“Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home”
“Free Willy 3: The Rescue”
“Free Willy: Escape from Pirate’s Cove”
“The Girl With All The Gifts”
“Gladiator”
“Gun Crazy”
“Harry And The Hendersons”
“Hell in the Heartland”
“Hero”
“The History of Comedy”
“Holiday Affair”
“Hot Fuzz”
“How It Really Happened”
“The Human Stain”
“The Hunt with John Walsh”
“Inside Evil with Chris Cuomo”
“It Happened on Fifth Avenue”
“Joe Versus the Volcano”
“Juice”
“Just My Luck”
“Kung Fu Panda 2”
“Laff Mobb’s Laff Tracks”
“The Last Samurai”
“La Unidad”
“Logan’s Run”
“Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring”
“The Man Who Came to Dinner”
“Mars Attacks!”
“Meet Me in St. Louis”
“Michael Clayton”
“Misery”
“The Misery Index”
“My Dream is Yours”
“Nancy Drew”
“No Blade of Grass”
“Omega Man”
“On Moonlight Bay”
“Outbreak”
“Paid Off with Michael Torpey”
“Phantom Thread”
“Period of Adjustment”
“Pope: The Most Powerful Man In History”
“Project X”
“Rachel Dratch’s Late Night Snack”
“The Redemption Project”
“Risky Business”
“Robots”
“Rock Of Ages”
“Romance on the High Seas”
“Room for One More”
“Sanctum”
“The Sentinel”
“Sex and the City”
“Sex and the City 2”
“Shaun Of The Dead”
“The Shawshank Redemption”
“Shop Around the Corner”
“Snakes on a Plane”
“Snow White And The Huntsman”
“Something’s Killing Me”
“Southland,” Seasons 1-5
“Soylent Green,”
“SPAWN”
“Stargirl”
“Striptease”
“Susan Slept Here”
“Talk Show the Game Show
“Tea for Two”
“Those Who Can’t”
“Three Godfathers”
“THX 1138,”
“Timeline”
“Tom and Jerry: A Nutcracker Tale”
“Tom And Jerry: Santa’s Little Helpers”
“True Grit”
“Unfaithful”
“Unmasking a Killer”
“Very Scary People,” Season 1
“The Wedding Date”
“Westworld”
“What Bitch?”
“Wrath of the Titans”
“Wrecked”
“Yogi Bear”
“Young Man with a Horn”

Dec. 2
“Baby God”

Dec. 3
“Full Bloom” season finale
“Heaven’s Gate: The Cult of Cults”
“Looney Tunes Cartoons, Bugs Bunny’s 24 Carrot Holiday”
“My Gift: A Christmas Special From Carrie Underwood”
“Stylish with Jenna Lyons,” Series Premiere

Dec. 4
“Beyond the Spotlight,” Season 1
“Bright Now: Alien Worlds”
“Engineering the Future”
“JUJUTSU KAISEN”
“La Leyenda Negra”

Dec. 5
“The Photograph”

Dec. 6
“Euphoria,”
“Murder On Middle Beach” finale

Dec. 7
“Axios” finale

Dec. 8
“40 Years A Prisoner”
“La Jauria”
“One Night in Bangkok”

Dec. 9
“Alabama Snake”
“The Trial of Christine Keeler”

Dec. 10
“4 Blocks,” Seasons 1-3
“Esme & Roy” holiday special episode
“Haute Dog” holiday special episode
“House of Ho”
“Let Them All Talk”
“Summer Camp Island,” Season 3 premiere
“Veneno” season finale
“Valley of Tears” season finale

Dec. 11
“Adult Materia”
“Midnight Family”
“One Way Or Another”

Dec.12
“The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend a Broken Heart”

Dec. 15
“Real Sports With Bryant Gumbel”

Dec.16
“The Art Of Political Murder”

Dec.17
“CNN Heroes: An All-Star Tribute”
“The Flight Attendant,” series finale
“Homeschool Musical Class of 2020”
“Love Monster,” Season 1-2
“Sesame Street: Holiday at Hooper’s”

Dec. 18
“Diego Torres Sinfonico,” Season 1
“Hasta Que La Boda Nos Separe”

Dec. 19
“Wendy”

Dec. 20
“I Used To Go Here”

Dec. 23
“Squish,” Season 1

Dec. 25
“The West Wing,” Season 1-7
“Wonder Woman 1984”

Dec. 26
“Independence Day”
“Road Trip,” Season 1

Dec. 28
“His Dark Materials,” Season 2 finale

Dec. 29
“Los Dias De La Ballena”

Dec. 31
“The Champ”
“Conan Without Borders”

Government study shows taxpayers are subsidizing “starvation wages” at McDonald’s, Walmart

Millions of Americans employed at some of the country’s largest companies have had to rely on food stamps and Medicaid, with giants like Walmart and McDonald’s employing the most workers whose income is subsidized by taxpayers, according to a new study.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, released a study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., last month based on data provided by 11 states.

The report found that, in every state studied, Walmart was one of the top four employers whose workers rely on food stamps and Medicaid. McDonald’s is among the most subsidized employers in at least nine states.

Walmart employs about 14,500 workers in Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee and Washington who rely on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the study showed, while McDonald’s employs about 8,780 SNAP recipients in those states.

More than 2% of the Walmart workforce in states like Georgia and Oklahoma have had to rely on Medicaid benefits, a number that rises to more than 3% in Arkansas, where the company is based.

Other corporate giants who have a large number of workers relying on federal benefits included Amazon, Dollar Tree, Dollar General, Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, Subway, Uber, FedEx, Target, Dunkin’ Donuts, CVS, Home Depot, and Lowe’s.

The report cited data taken before the coronavirus pandemic hit, noting that the issues have likely grown worse.

“The economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic have further exacerbated conditions for these workers, increasing the importance of federal and state safety net programs to help them meet their basic needs,” the report said.

Sanders said the report showed that America’s largest companies are relying on “corporate welfare from the federal government by paying their workers starvation wages.”

“That is morally obscene,” he said in a statement. “U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America.”

Sanders noted that the companies have reaped “billions in profits and giving their CEOs tens of millions of dollars a year” while failing to pay workers a “living wage.”

Walmart reported more than $5 billion in net income in the last quarter while McDonald’s reported more than $1.7 billion during that time frame.

Walmart spokeswoman Anne Hatfield said the company helps many workers get off government assistance.

“If not for the employment access Walmart and other companies provide, many more people would be dependent on government assistance,” she told The Washington Post, which first reported the study. “A small percentage of our workforce comes to us on public assistance, and we remove employment barriers and create opportunities for individuals that too many overlook. Walmart has invested more than $5 billion in increased pay, expanded health benefits, and a debt-free college program over the past five years and our starting rate is more than 50% higher than the federal minimum wage, which Washington hasn’t changed in more than a decade.”

McDonald’s spokeswoman Morgan O’Marra argued that the data was misleading.

“The average starting wage at U.S. corporate-owned restaurants is over $10 per hour and exceeds the federal minimum wage,” she said in a statement. “McDonald’s believes elected leaders have a responsibility to set, debate and change mandated minimum wages and does not lobby against or participate in any activities opposing raising the minimum wage.”

The company had long opposed increases to the minimum wage but said last year that it would stop lobbying against such measures.

The GAO report shows that 70% of the 21 million SNAP or Medicaid recipients work full time.

The data dovetails with previous research.

A 2013 study from researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that 73% of people receiving government benefits were from “working families” but had “jobs that pay wages so low that their paychecks do not generate enough income to provide for life’s basic necessities.”

The study found that the average frontline fast-food worker earns just $8.69 per hour and that about 87% of them did not receive health benefits, leaving them to “rely on taxpayer-funded safety net programs to make ends meet.”

The researchers released another report in 2015 showing that more than half of all fast-food workers were in families where at least one member relies on public benefits, costing taxpayers more than $150 billion each year.

Part of the problem is that wages have not kept up with growth in productivity and corporate profits for decades, researchers say. Another key issue is that the federal minimum wage, which is far below the rate it was for decades when adjusted for inflation, has stayed the same for over a decade and has been increased just once in the last two decades.

“Wages at the bottom and middle of the income spectrum have been essentially flat since the late 1970s,” Ken Jacobs, the chairman of U.C. Berkeley’s Labor Center and a co-author of the earlier reports, told the Post. “As productivity has increased, pay has stayed very low, and again, our federal minimum wage is well below where it would have been if it kept up with inflation and very far where it would have been if it kept up with productivity growth. So many families earn too little to get by on what they earn from their jobs.”

There has been growing support to raise the minimum wage to $15. President-elect Joe Biden has called for a $15 federal minimum wage. The House of Representatives voted last year to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 but the proposal was shot down by Senate Republicans. Florida voters overwhelmingly voted to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 over the next six years. Companies like Amazon and Target raised their minimum pay to $15 earlier this year.

Seattle lawmakers voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2017 five years ago. Despite concerns that businesses would leave the city and workers would see their hours cut, the results have largely been positive. There has been no great business exodus from the Emerald City and while there was a rise in workers who had their hours cut, their salaries largely stayed the same while the vast majority of workers “enjoyed significantly more rapid hourly wage growth,” according to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2018.

Another study from Berkeley looked at minimum wage increases in Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Chicago, and Washington D.C., which ranged from $10 to $13 in 2016, found that the increases did not result in widespread job losses.

“We find that they are working just as the policymakers and voters who enacted these policies intended,” Sylvia Allegretto, the co-author of the study and co-chair of Berkeley’s Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics, told the Seattle Times. “So far they are raising the earnings of low-wage workers without causing significant employment losses.”

An analysis of 138 state-level minimum wage increases between 1979 and 2016 published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics last year found that the loss of jobs that paid below minimum wage was offset by new higher-paying jobs.

Betsey Stevenson, an economist at the University of Michigan who served on President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, argued that the best way to approach a minimum wage hike amid the coronavirus pandemic was to couple it with targeted aid for struggling small businesses.

“The federal minimum wage is currently set way too low,” she told the Post. “We really don’t want workers to be bearing the increases of those costs. As a society we should be sharing that.”

Trump complains he “can’t get ‘standing’ before the Supreme Court” in rant about election results

President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election were officially rejected by the United States Supreme Court on Friday.

After midnight, Trump sadly complained about the result on Twitter.

“So, you’re the President of the United States, and you just went through an election where you got more votes than any sitting President in history, by far – and purportedly lost. You can’t get ‘standing’ before the Supreme Court, so you ‘intervene’ with wonderful states that, after careful study and consideration, think you got ‘screwed’, something which will hurt them also. Many others likewise join the suit but, within a flash, it is thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!” Trump posted.

So, you’re the President of the United States, and you just went through an election where you got more votes than any sitting President in history, by far – and purportedly lost. You can’t get “standing” before the Supreme Court, so you “intervene” with wonderful states…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2020

….that, after careful study and consideration, think you got “screwed”, something which will hurt them also. Many others likewise join the suit but, within a flash, it is thrown out and gone, without even looking at the many reasons it was brought. A Rigged Election, fight on!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2020

Psycho secession: Texas’ lost-cause lawsuit was the first shot in a new Civil War

They didn’t bother with writing articles of secession this time. No, Ken Paxton, the disgraced attorney general of the state of Texas, did that for them when he filed a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the presidential election. On Wednesday, Missouri and 16 other states filed a brief with the court seeking to join the Texas lawsuit, which alleges that the four decisive swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia violated the Constitution by allowing mail-in voting in the November election. On Thursday, a majority of the Republican caucus in the House, 126 members of Congress, signed on to the lawsuit along with the instigator in chief, Donald Trump. Twenty-five states and territories signed a brief opposing the Texas lawsuit. Friday evening, the Supreme Court rejected the suit out of hand.

The 18 states and 126 members of Congress, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise, are seceding from democracy. It amounts to nothing less than an act of sedition by the entire Republican Party, 70 percent of whom believe that Joe Biden’s election was illegitimate, according to a Quinnipiac poll released on Thursday. In contrast, 98 percent of Democrats think Biden’s victory was legitimate, along with 62 percent of independents.

The last time anything like this happened was in 1860, when the election of Abraham Lincoln led almost immediately to declarations of secession by seven states between Dec. 20, 1860 and Feb. 1, 1861. Two months later, on April 12, the bombardment of Fort Sumter began, and the Civil War was underway.

It’s not a shooting war — yet — but Texas didn’t just file a lawsuit this week, it set a match to the Constitution of the United States. It isn’t just that these Republicans don’t recognize Joe Biden as our next president. They don’t want to be part of the democracy that this country was founded on. They don’t respect the votes of their fellow citizens. They don’t want what more than 80 million people wanted when they cast their votes in this election. They want what Donald Trump wants.

Thankfully, it’s not the whole country. The Quinnipiac poll found that 60 percent of registered voters think that Biden’s victory was legitimate. But it wasn’t the whole country in 1860, either. It was only after the election of Lincoln that the Southern states seceded from the Union over the issue of slavery.

This time there isn’t a single issue, there’s a single man: Donald Trump. In this way, what’s happening right now in this country is eerily similar to what happened in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s with Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Trump has identified and used the same sort of mass hysteria Hitler did — a sense of resentment among his supporters that somehow they have been left behind and misunderstood and humiliated, and that only he, Trump, understands them and is willing to stand up for them and will bring back their rightful way of life.

So far, Trump has only played around with the kind of violence that Hitler made use of to achieve power and then consolidate it. Trump used implied violence in the chants of “Lock her up” that energized supporters at his rallies in 2016 and throughout the campaign of 2020. By staying silent this year when armed protesters occupied the State Capitol in Michigan, Trump implied his support, and his exhortations to “liberate” states that were mandating lockdowns to fight COVID were taken by many as invitations to violence.

Now armed protesters have gathered outside the home of the Michigan secretary of state, and Georgia election officials report that they are receiving death threats and racist voice mails. The Republican Party of Arizona has retweeted exhortations from those who say, “I’m willing to give up my life for this fight,” suggesting it’s time to “die for something.” The New York Times reported this week that the chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission has said that “people on Twitter have posted photographs of my house.” Another tweet mentioned her children and threatened “I’ve heard you’ll have quite a crowd of patriots showing up at your door.”

The conservative website The Bulwark reported this week that far-right websites have been posting addresses and other personal information about Republican elected officials in Georgia, superimposing target crosshairs over images of their faces. Right-wing Republicans are in full cheerleader mode trying to turn Kyle Rittenhouse, who is accused of murdering two people and wounding another at a Kenosha, Wisconsin, protest, into a hero of the Trump cause. A Democratic state representative in Pennsylvania told the New York Times that “we’ve been getting emails all the time, all hours of the day and night,” and that “they’re getting more angry, and a lot of calls are saying we won’t be forgetting.”

This kind of stuff is not a joke. The fantastic lie that has gripped the Republican Party started out with everyone going along with Trump’s fantasy and kind of humoring him. But now it’s taken a deadly turn. Trump has been calling Republican state representatives on the phone and pressuring them to go along with his demands that they ignore the votes that have taken place in swing states and appoint electors that will vote for him. If they step out of line, they’re branded as traitors, cowards, RINOs. He’s doing this kind of stuff to his own people, to loyal Republicans who have voted the party line since they were in short pants.

When you add in what’s been happening in red states with COVID, it’s jaw-dropping. Governors and Republican-controlled state legislatures are so intimidated that they won’t pass mask mandates and bar closures, not to mention rules against mass gatherings. COVID cases and hospitalizations in red states are off the charts. They are lining up refrigerated trucks outside hospitals in states like North and South Dakota. Republicans are killing their own people in craven attempts to keep Donald Trump from attacking them on Twitter. God only knows what’s going to happen in those states when the COVID vaccines become widely available, although we’re getting some idea with reports of people standing up at meetings of county commissioners pledging not only that they won’t wear masks, they’ll also refuse to be vaccinated.

The Mason-Dixon line is psychological this time. These people have lost their minds. They have seceded from sanity and reason. This Civil War isn’t being fought with rifles and pistols. It’s a war fought with lies and delusions. This week it passed the number of Americans killed in World War II, and its victims are just as dead as the bodies buried at Anzio and Normandy. Americans are dying every time Mitch McConnell stands up and blocks a COVID relief bill. They are dying every time a Republican senator like Ron Johnson presents testimony from an anti-vaxxer as if it were a sane person instead of an outright idiot. They’re dying by the thousands with their mask-less hubris. They’re dying for Donald Trump, but at least for now, our democracy has not died with them.

On way out the door, Trump EPA rejects tightening deadly soot pollution standards

President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency was accused Monday of putting “the health of tens of millions of Americans at risk” after rejecting science-backed, strengthened standards for particulate matter pollution, commonly known as soot.

“The EPA has one job: to protect public health and the environment, based on the best available science. With only a few weeks left in their tenure, President Trump’s EPA political appointees have abdicated this responsibility,” said Dr. Gretchen T. Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

“The failure to strengthen particulate-matter protections is a dereliction of duty that puts lives at risk,” Goldman said.

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler—a former coal lobbyist—signed the rule Friday, the Washington Post reported. He is expected to announce rule Monday.

The decision will keep in place 2012 standards that put the threshold of industrial soot pollution, or PM 2.5, at 12 micrograms per cubic meter. An EPA assessment from earlier this year said the current levels are associated with over 45,000 premature deaths per year and found that dropping the limit to nine micrograms per cubic meter could save over 12,000 lives annually. The assessment further said that evidence and scientific assessments “can reasonably be viewed as calling into question the adequacy of the public health protection afforded by the combination of the current annual and 24-hour primary PM 2.5 standards.”

As Rachel Fullmer, senior attorney with Environmental Defense Fund, noted, “Particle pollution is linked to asthma attacks, bronchitis, heart disease, and premature death.”

“EPA’s record also shows that communities in close proximity to industrial sources are disproportionately bearing the burden of this pollution, including Black, Latino, Indigenous, and other communities of color,” she added. “This action comes at the same time these communities are also disproportionately suffering from the Covid-19 pandemic.”

UCS’s Goldman, in her statement, also pointed to the communities most heavily impacted by particulate-matter air pollution and the interplay with the coronavirus pandemic.

“We know that communities of color are disproportionately exposed to this pollution, leading to racial disparities in health conditions like asthma and cardiovascular disease. And the latest studies suggest that particulate pollution can also increase the severity of Covid-19,” said Goldman.

The decision, while drawing outrage from environmental and public health advocacy groups, is also seen as unsurprising; it’s completely on brand from Wheeler, who’s been seen as doing the bidding of polluting industries, and the Trump administration more broadly has repeatedly rejected science and rolled back environmental safeguards.

“Soot is one of the most understood, most dangerous pollutants around, and despite mountains of evidence that scientists and public health experts have provided him, Wheeler has refused to protect the public from soot’s frightening health consequences,” said Al Armendariz, Sierra Club’s senior director of federal campaigns.

The Trump administration is rejecting protections on the nation’s most widespread deadly air pollutant.

Trump's EPA has systematically hidden the devastating impacts of its environmental rollbacks on low-income and minority populations.

A total disgrace.https://t.co/jaoyYnrnZW

— Public Citizen (@Public_Citizen) December 7, 2020

“In its waning days, the Trump administration is still letting polluters off scot-free and leaving the rest of us to keep breathing the industry’s deadly pollution—even in the midst of a respiratory pandemic,” said John Walke, Clean Air director at Natural Resources Defense Council.

“This administration could have strengthened the limits on soot to protect our lungs and give people at the highest risk of dying from Covid-19 a better chance at fighting off this virus,” Walke continued. “But it chose not to—leaving the health of tens of millions of Americans at risk.”

Walked urged the incoming Biden administration to undo the “reckless decision.”

“It’s time polluters stopped making us sick,” he said.

John Cornyn accused of “partisan stunt” and blatant “hypocrisy” for threatening Biden picks

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has come under fire after signaling a fight over President-elect Joe Biden’s likely nominees’ past comments and business ties. Cornyn’s critics suggest he has spent the last four years defending President Trump and his appointees over even bigger ethics scandals.

Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, repeatedly criticized Democrats for delaying confirmation proceedings for Trump’s nominees in 2017. Even as Trump attempts to contest the results of the 2020 election, Cornyn has already pushed back on Biden’s Cabinet and White House selections.

The majority whip slammed Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress and Biden’s pick to head the Office of Management and Budget, as perhaps the “worst nominee so far” over her “combative and insulting comments.” Spokesman Drew Brandewie went further, declaring on Twitter that Tanden “stands zero chance of being confirmed” over her “endless stream of disparaging comments about Republican Senators.” These comments quickly drew charges of hypocrisy. Cornyn has personally attacked numerous Democrats and spent years defending, downplaying and dismissing Trump’s Twitter invective, itself occasionally aimed at Republicans.

Cornyn has also raised questions over Biden aides’ ties to consulting and investment firms and their undisclosed clients, tweeting that the “Senate is not obligated to confirm anyone who hides this information.”

“We have simply no idea what kind of business or financial relationships these individuals have with foreign powers that can influence their actions as high-ranking government officials,” he said on the Senate floor.

The comments were in significant contrast to Cornyn’s complaints that Democrats hurt government readiness by slow-walking Trump’s conflict-plagued nominees despite numerous ethics questions.

“After years of fighting tooth and nail against any transparency and scrutiny measures surrounding President Trump’s Cabinet nominees, Cornyn’s recent threats and newfound focus on the Senate’s role in scrutinizing nominees doesn’t pass the smell test,” Mairead Lynn, a spokesperson for the progressive government watchdog Accountable.US and its “Senate War Room,” said in a statement to Salon. “This is an obvious partisan stunt in an attempt to delay and deny President-elect Biden a functional government that is ready on day one to start cleaning up Trump’s disastrous pandemic response and rebuilding our economy in a way that puts workers and families ahead of corporate donors and special interest allies.”

Strikingly, Lynn’s comments seem to echo Cornyn’s complaints during the confirmation battles over Trump nominees like Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which the group detailed in a new report.

The report listed a dozen statements Cornyn released in early 2017 hammering Democrats for “stalling” Trump’s nominees, “undermining” the transition of power and “obstructing” the federal government’s work.

“They’ve tried to grind the Senate into a near halt,” he said of Democrats in February 2017, arguing that the delays were a disservice to the American people.

But many of Trump’s nominations were delayed because of ethics concerns raised inside the White House.

The Trump transition team effectively ignored then-White House ethics chief Walter Shaub, a holdover from the Obama administration, when he warned that various nominees could face confirmation problems.

“I am not sure whether you are aware that announcing the cabinet without first coordinating with OGE is unprecedented and creates unnecessary risk for both the President-elect and the prospective nominees,” Shaub wrote in a letter to Trump’s transition team. “[M]y goal here is to protect the President-elect, the prospective nominees and the executive branch ethics program by preventing real and apparent ethics issues.”

The New York Times later reported ahead of Trump’s inauguration that he had assembled “the wealthiest Cabinet in modern American history, filled with millionaires and billionaires with complicated financial portfolios” but that the confirmation process had fallen “behind where it should be in … disentangling conflicts of interest,” which contributed to the delays.

Cornyn dismissed potential ethics concerns over DeVos’ nomination, criticizing opposition to her selection as a “stunt” aimed at impressing the Democrats’ “dysfunctional base.” DeVos had reached an agreement with ethics officials to divest from 102 companies that posed potential conflicts of interest, but government watchdog groups said she had failed to provide “accurate information” about her ties to outside groups and had not disclosed her holdings in trusts where she was a co-trustee.

DeVos’ “extensive financial holdings present significant — and unresolved — conflict of interest issues,” warned Norm Eisen, the co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Richard Painter, the group’s former vice-chairman, in a joint op-ed in 2017. “She also failed to provide the Senate with accurate information about her involvement with outside organizations. We have regretfully come to the conclusion that these concerns disqualify DeVos for that cabinet position.”

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, criticized Republicans for rushing DeVos’ confirmation through the panel before senators had her ethics paperwork, and then rejecting follow-up hearings after the paperwork was submitted.

“She has simply not provided the Committee with the required financial disclosures,” Murray said at the time, citing DeVos’ “tangled finances and conflicts of interest.”

Cornyn also strongly pushed back on concerns over Sessions’ nomination as attorney general, arguing that holding up his confirmation was “irresponsible” and “dangerous.” He also dismissed concerns raised by Democrats that they needed more time to review material Sessions submitted to the Senate. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, submitted a letter calling for additional time to review Sessions’ documents after saying the records he had provided “were not complete.” Among other things, Sessions failed to disclose his ownership of oil interests for more than 600 acres in Alabama as required by federal law.

Cornyn also spent years dismissing calls by Democrats for Trump to release his tax returns, arguing that presidential tax returns were “not a legitimate scope of oversight,” and blocked Democratic efforts to pass a bill that would require all presidential candidates to release their tax documents.

Cornyn’s office did not respond to questions from Salon about his change in tone on Cabinet appointments.

Kurt Bardella, a former Republican House Oversight Committee aide, predicted that Cornyn and fellow Republicans’ attacks on Biden’s early picks were “just a taste” of the obstruction he was likely to face from Senate Republicans.

“Don’t let Republicans rewrite history. We can’t allow them to impose a standard of decency, morality or scrutiny that they refused to hold Trump or his Cabinet to literally for years,” wrote Bardella, who joined the anti-Trump Lincoln Project after leaving the GOP. “Every time a Republican senator discusses conduct unbecoming a would-be representative of Biden’s presidency, Democrats need to respond with a laundry list of Trump’s and his Cabinet’s unethical, immoral and even dangerous actions.”

But some on the left have warned that simply attacking Republicans for their hypocrisy on Trump’s swampy Cabinet would backfire, given the valid questions raised about Biden nominees’ ties to firms that don’t disclose their clients.

“Trump was the most corrupt president ever,” argued Jeff Hauser, the head of the Revolving Door Project, a watchdog group focused on conflicts of interest among presidential nominees. “Nonetheless, any competent political pro knows that if Biden’s team plans to rely on ‘hypocrisy’ as a shield, they’ll fail completely.”