Spring Offer: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The cruel joke of cashing in on Lunar New Year

New year, new marketing scheme. This is essentially the motto for Western brands when Lunar New Year comes back around. Just look at the limited-edition Lunar New Year Stanley cup, a cream or red tumbler with some dragon scale detailing, that sold out in 30 minutes.

Judging by Lululemon, companies are able toput their anti-Asian racism aside for the blatant cash grab that is Lunar New Year.

The 3,500-year-old holiday was celebrated over the weekend in China, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and other diasporic communities. While each culture has their own traditions to honor the new year according to the lunisolar calendar, the holiday is largely about attracting luck, wealth and good health for the future. Unsurprisingly, the West has taken the holiday for itself and managed to use it to its own advantage. With brands dropping successful Lunar New Year collections, it’s predominantly white people who are raking in the cash for the holiday despite not finding any meaning in it.  

Gaining mainstream popularity in America, the holiday has prompted marketing that is rampant and omnipresent. Here Lunar New Year means simply reselling items in a new red colorway or slapping a zodiac animal on a bag and selling it for $895 (yes, this is real, and yes it is sold out at Coach). NBC has traced the commercialization of the holiday to the ‘90s when China became a powerful economic player, and the aggressive selling tactics have clearly paid off. Nike, Stanley cups, Barbie, H&M, Kate Spade – brands big or small, luxury or fast fashion have dropped collections for 2024’s Lunar New Year. 

The fashion industry in particular cashes in on the holiday — even Lululemon, the athletic apparel brand whose founder dismissed valuing diversity and chose the brand’s name in order to laugh at how Japanese people can’t pronounce the “L” sound. Their special Lunar New Year collection was just their pre-existing legging, puffers, and sweaters in . . . red. Maybe they’re also celebrating Valentine’s Day.

Judging by Lululemon, companies are able to put their anti-Asian racism aside for the blatant cash grab that is Lunar New Year. When considering fashion’s history with perpetuating Asian stereotypes, and in particular myths about Asian women, this phenomenon proves to be the rule rather than the exception. 

This history is unpacked in Anne Anlin Cheng’s “Ornamentalism,” a book that explores how the West’s notion of Asian women is constructed through a relation to objects, hence the title’s portmanteau of orientalism and ornament. Cheng's book begins on August 24, 1924 when a ship carrying almost 600 Chinese passengers landed at the San Francisco harbor and everyone was approved to disembark except 22 young Chinese women. The reason is a tale modern women know all too well: they were deemed “lewd” because of the way they were dressed. The women, including a woman named Chy Lung, were believed to be prostitutes despite carrying proper paperwork. What followed was the first time a Chinese litigant appeared before America’s highest courts. In Chy Lung v, Freeman, the defendants, lacking any real evidence for their decision or understanding of Chinese dress codes, used the women’s fashion as an argument as to why they are prostitutes. Floral patterns on clothes, accessories in the hair, silk fabric: the horror! Clothing-related condemnations created a lasting impression on the American people’s early understanding of the “dangerously immoral” Asian women, even after the court ruled in favor of Lung in the highly public trial.

The fashion industry has continued to hypersexualize Asian feminity, notably through the prevailing sexualization of traditional Asian dresses like China’s qipao or cheongsam. A 2022 article from Gal-Dem, “When will fashion brands stop sexualising the cheongsam?” notes that many are sold under the lingerie category but even before that, they were a site of sexual and fetish fantasies. In 1977, Yves Saint Laurent debuted a Chinese collection replete with cone-shaped hats, qipaos, and exposed midriffs and yet . . . no actual Asian women in sight. Jean Paul Gautier took a similar route in his 2001 collection, featuring see-through tops with Mandarin collars and pankou (the knotted fastenings used on qipaos), form-fitting cheongsams and skirts and dresses with slits aplenty. The models for the collection were not Asian yet Vogue still described them as “Gaultier’s Far-Eastern courtesans.” 

The ultra-luxury nature of many of these holiday drops further the idea of Asian people as lavish, like everyone is a “Crazy Rich Asian.”

Fast forward to 2015 and things have only become more blatant. An exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, “China: Through the Looking Glass” featured esteemed fashion houses — Alexander McQueen, Yves Saint Laurent and John Galliano — whose designs can only be called a feast of aesthetic Asian clichés. Roberto Cavalli’s evening dress is decked in porcelain-like patterns. Valentino’s evening dress from the Shanghai Collection deals in traditional Chinese brocade. Saint Laurent and Tom Ford continue to weave the same silk Lung and her contemporaries were condemned for. Elsewhere, dragons run amok. The introductory sign at the exhibit happily notes that these so-called Asian aesthetics are not meant to be authentic: “For the designers in this exhibition, China represents a land of free-floating symbols […] Like Marco Polo or Gulliver, they are itinerant travelers to another country, reflecting on its artistic and cultural traditions as an exoticized extension of their own . . .” 

The same introduction could hang in front of the 2024’s Lunar New Year collections. Authenticity is nowhere to be found in fashion’s take on the multicultural holiday which manages to be simultaneously marketed toward consumers of Asian descent yet does not engage in any real history or tradition. In making their products geared towards Asians, these brands reveal their own stereotypical beliefs. Fendi’s Asian-ification resulted in a Pokemon collab, while Loewe leaned into jade, and Nike delivered a garishly gold brocade sneaker, because anime for Asians? Groundbreaking.

When Cheng describes the Met collection — “ [It] rehearses [. . .] that opulence and sensuality are the signature components of Asiatic character; that Asia is always ancient, excessive, feminine, available, and decadent; that material consumption promises cultural possession; that there is no room in the Orientalist imagination for national, ethnic, or historical specificities” — it’s easy to believe she’s describing the multitude of designers’ Lunar New Year collections today. The ultra-luxury nature of many of these holiday drops further the idea of Asian people as lavish, like everyone is a “Crazy Rich Asian.” Bottega’s Veneta’s Lunar New Year collection features a take on their Jodie bags with scale-like detailing to honor the year of the dragon, yet it’s noticeably more expensive than the bag’s regular price point. In the mid-size version, the Lunar New Year bag is $4,700, up from the regular bag of the same size’s $3,500. Loewe, on the other hand, partnered with Chinese jade masters to create pendants for the small price of $14,061 a piece. 

Hollywood taught us that characterizations can fall prey to stereotypes of Asian people, but so too can aesthetics. Not only are these visual motifs neither contextual nor representative of China, much less the many cultures that celebrate Lunar New Year, but they also perpetuate the “Asia is ancient” belief that Cheng describes. The multitude of centuries-old or traditional patterns and materials in the collection continues to depict Asia as a folkloric, kung fu land, perpetuating the idea that non-white cultures are stuck in the past, lagging behind the technologically advanced and oh-so-civilized West. 

While these collections may not be as engaged in the explicit hypersexual dress codes as the Met exhibit, they continue the Met's and fashion’s strategy of using fantasies of Asia to sell products, to literally objectify Asia. This is true even for the Asian collaborators of fashion’s holiday collections, where they come to serve a secondary purpose. Lululemon debuted their collection in collaboration with "Everything Everywhere All at Once" Oscar winner Michelle Yeoh, as if to disguise the company’s racist history. Many brands, Aritzia for example, use this time as an opportunity to perform allyship by working with an Asian designer, nevermind that their clothing has been called out for misrepresenting Asian culture. Even in Aritzia’s own drop, people have called out how Chinese iconography and traditions are conflated with Korean culture. Once again, to be Asian is to be the accessory to a Western goal, to be put to use. 

These drops continue the idea that Asian people are exotic, decadent, and thus something to possess, which, as events from the past few years like 2021’s Atlanta spa shooting prove, create dangerous narratives. One in three Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders still reported facing racial abuse in 2023.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


The fashion industry’s commodification of a cultural holiday descends from a long lineage of crafting Asian personhood through objects. The Lunar New Year collections take this one step further, turning not just people but an entire swath of Asian cultures into its own monolithic aesthetic. When white consumers purchase these collections, they do so without knowing or caring about the holiday’s meanings and history, merely seeing the culture as a style that they want to try on. The marketing is so vast and popular, some Asian consumers can’t help but to buy into this fantasy of their own culture too, coughing up hundreds of dollars to brands who are exploiting them. The fashion industry has turned Lunar New Year into its own cruel joke: in giving these brands money, prosperity and blessings are the last things being bestowed on the people who actually celebrate the holiday .     

 

“Trump is out of money”: Republicans fear Trump will drain RNC funds to pay his own legal bills

A crop of senior GOP officials fear that Donald Trump's effort to pack the Republican National Committee with his preferred picks could give way to the former president using the RNC to cover his legal bills — again. Their worries come on the heels of Trump's endorsements earlier this week of his daughter-in-law, among other allies, to assume leadership roles at the committee. "While those endorsements have been well-received by many committee members — who note that it is customary for a presidential candidate to put his imprint on the party’s main campaign apparatus — others fear a potential misallocation of party resources," Politico reports

Henry Barbour, a Mississippi committee member, told the outlet that he thinks “most RNC members will go along” with Trump's committee lineup "unless there is a play to use RNC funds for President Trump’s legal bills.” Another member who has been critical of the former president, Oscar Brock, told Politico that the RNC's recently passed budget did not allot any money for Trump's legal fees. Brock did recognize, however, the potential for the committee to reconfigure its financial plan to do so upon request, which the Tennessee committeeman said he'd be against. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for the committee to pay the legal bills for things done outside the work of the committee,” Brock told Politico.

Chris LaCivita, a senior Trump campaign strategist, called the concerns about the committee paying Trump's legal fees "manufactured." Instead, the money would come from other avenues, including Trump's Save America PAC and his own pocket, senior campaign advisors told Politico. In 2021 and 2022, the RNC forked over nearly $2 million to two legal firms working on the former president's cases but stopped once Trump launched his current presidential campaign. It will still have a legal fund intended to handle lawsuits, recount efforts and typical legal business for the party. 

Lara Trump this week vowed that "every penny" at the RNC would go toward helping Trump.

Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that Trump is on pace to drain his war chest for his legal fees this summer after already spending more than $50 million on legal bills. 

"Trump is out of money which is why he is going hard at Ronna Romney so he can take over the RNC treasury," tweeted former Trump White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci.

“This is a crime”: Legal analyst torches Trump’s “tired and tiresome” courthouse rant

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday lashed out over his upcoming trial stemming from hush-money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Trump attended the hearing Thursday morning where Judge Juan Merchan rejected his motion to dismiss the case and set a trial date for March 25.

“It’s not a crime. This is not a crime,” Trump said, falsely claiming that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is targeting him while “violent crime is at an all-time high.”

“There is no case,” Trump claimed. “We’re here for something that is not a crime. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it.”

Trump also baselessly claimed that the case is “election interference” being “run by Joe Biden” and his White House.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig called out Trump’s “tired and tiresome claim that this is all coming out of the Biden White House.”

“This is a state case. There’s zero evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden or the administration had anything to do with this prosecution,” he said.

He also pushed back on Trump’s claim that “this is not a crime.”

“There’s a fair debate about how serious this is, but this is a crime if proven as alleged in the indictment,” he said. “There’s some question about whether it would be just a misdemeanor, falsification of business records, or a higher level felony. But under any reasonable construction, if proven, this is a crime.

“And the third thing Donald Trump said that I noted is he said there’s absolutely no case here,” Honig continued. “This is a debatable case. It will be tried to a jury, but this is a case that has a good faith basis. There’s a basis of fact in the indictment. It will be up to a jury.”

The secret to better pancakes is breakfast cereal

To all of the parents who work so hard for their children's approval, I am happy to say that I have a simple pancake recipe that will both awaken the kid in you and be sure to make those crumb-crushers love you for life — I guarantee it.

This dish would normally be served for breakfast; however, it could also be a delicious dessert.

My teenage diet largely consisted of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Golden Grahams, Captain Crunch and any other sugar-packed form of cereal that made its way into our kitchen — and I was not ashamed. It didn't matter if it was for breakfast, lunch or dinner, when my mom would say things like, “I made spaghetti,” or, “I just whipped up some French toast,” it was always easy for me to pass because I knew I had cereal.

Fortunately, we age. 

Unfortunately, aging means we have to eat vegetables, pay attention to our diets and give up glorious habits like living off of bowls of sugary cereal. Now, you still can have cereal, but it does get extremely boring, as delicious brands like Cookie Crisp and Cocoa Puffs get replaced with Cheerios and Raisin Bran. 


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


Organic health mega-franchises like Whole Foods do offer some semi-healthy options that will give you a slight opportunity to relive some of your youthful munching pleasures, such as 365 Organic Peanut Butter & Cocoa Balls and Organic Cocoa Rice Crisp. I do sneak and eat these sometimes, with sugar-free almond milk (and luckily for me, my daughter loves those boring Cheerios, so I don't have to share). 

The only problem that I would run into is that my Cascadian Farm Organic Graham Crunch Cereal would go stale, because I'm the only one at my house that eats it. I no longer have that problem, because I had the bright idea of mixing this area into my pancake batter . . . and let's just say a heavenly comfort food was born. 

If you are eating these for breakfast, just serve with maple syrup. But if you 're looking for a sweet dessert, serve with whipped cream and a scoop of vanilla ice cream.

We need your help to stay independent

Graham Crunch Pancakes
Yields
5 to 7 pancakes
Prep Time
5 minutes
Cook Time
15 minutes

Ingredients

2 cups all-purpose flour

2 eggs

2 cups organic oat milk

1 1/2 teaspoons salt

6 teaspoons baking powder

2 teaspoons vanilla extract

3 tablespoons melted organic butter

3 teaspoons cinnamon

3 teaspoons sugar

1 1/2 cups Cascadian Farm Organic Graham Crunch Cereal

1 lemon, juiced

 

Directions

  1. Pour all of the ingredients, except the lemon and Cascadian Farm Organic Graham Crunch Cereal, into a mixing bowl. Whisk until well combined.

  2. Once the mixture is smooth and creamy, squeeze in the lemon, add the Cascadian Farm Organic Graham Crunch Cereal and whip slowly. Do your darndest not to break up the cereal. 

  3. Heat a pan or skillet over medium-low heat. Add a pat or butter or some cooking spray, lower the heat to low, and cook pancakes in batches. This batter should make about 5 to 7 pancakes. 

  4. Serve with syrup for breakfast or ice cream for desert. 

“Stop interrupting me”: Judge tells Trump lawyer to “have a seat” in fiery courtroom exchange

Things got heated between former President Donald Trump’s attorney and the judge overseeing his Manhattan criminal case on Thursday.

Judge Juan Merchan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the case and ordered jury selection to begin on March 25, adding that the trial is expected to last six weeks. Trump is charged with covering up hush-money payments he allegedly made to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche at Thursday’s hearing complained that the date puts Trump in an “impossible situation” given his many criminal and civil court cases, according to Just Security’s Adam Klasfeld.

"You don't have a trial date in Georgia. You don't have a trial date in Florida,” Merchan told the lawyer.

“Stop interrupting me please,” Merchan told Blanche as he tried to push back during the hearing.

Blanche also claimed that the case against Trump was “completely election interference” and complained about the “media saturation” surrounding Trump’s recent civil fraud and defamation trials in New York.

Merchan said he would not wait for the buzz to die down.

“Mr. Blanche, please have a seat,” he told the attorney when he tried to push back.

“I interpose!”: Trump makes another gaffe as he insists his Haley-Pelosi mix-up was intentional

Donald Trump on Wednesday offered an explanation for his mix-up last month of Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, at a New Hampshire rally: he did it on purpose. The former president claimed at a South Carolina rally Wednesday night he actually intended to "interpose" the women's names during the Jan. 6 gaffe, HuffPost reports

“It’s very hard to be sarcastic when I interpose," Trump told the crowd. "I’m not a Nikki fan and I’m not a Pelosi fan. And when I purposely interpose names they said, ‘He didn’t know Pelosi from Nikki from tricky Nikki, tricky Dicky."

“I interpose and they make a big deal out of it," the former president continued. "I said, ‘No, no, I think they both stink, they have something in common, they both stink.’ And remember this, when I make a statement like that about Nikki that means she will never be running for vice president.”

Trump's comments came over a month after he said Haley was the person "in charge of security" during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Even with the name mix-up, the House Speaker does not have the power to direct the National Guard and doesn't head the Capitol's security, HuffPost notes. 

Critics mocked the former president online, with some leaping to point out that he also incorrectly used "interpose" in his excuse. "Tell me you don't know what the word 'interpose' means without telling me you don't know what the word 'interpose' means (Then do the phrase 'support hose')," political commentator and sportscaster Keith Olbermann said on X/Twitter. "Not only is Trump losing it, he assumes his audience is too," tweeted Eric Columbus, a former congressional lawyer for Pelosi and the Jan. 6 Committee.

Biden and Trump are both too old – but only one is a traitor

If you are a partisan and you’re not angry by the time you finish reading this, then I haven’t done my job.

After a special prosecutor recently made an issue of Joe Biden’s age and mental acuity, several reporters pressed him on the issue during a gathering at the White House. Biden fell into a trap and lost his temper. Who the Hell is prepping this guy? They aren’t doing their job.

The president could have responded with something like, “Most Americans might think it silly to ask me about my age when the former president is pushing sedition and fascism, backing up Vladimir Putin, putting our international allies – especially in NATO – at risk and there are two dangerous wars being waged; one in Gaza and one in Ukraine. At home, Roe V. Wade has been overturned, the Republicans have created a false narrative about the U.S. Southern border, and we have to deal with racism, misogyny and climate change. I’m dealing with real issues while you’re chasing shadows. Go ahead. Question my mental acuity. But are there any real questions from the press?”

I’d love it. You just know some reporter wouldn’t get it and would re-ask the question. 

Sigh. But that didn’t happen. 

Unfortunately that only leaves Biden on the ballot as someone who can give us hope that our democracy survives another year. If that doesn’t reassure you, I understand.

We need to see younger, more vigorous candidates run for president. Of course, that’s not on the table right now. John Stewart just spelled out the difference between the two presumed candidates. So, let’s deal with what we’ve got: the choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. 

“One of those guys has accomplished things for America,” Michael Cohen told me. “The other guy is a traitor and didn’t accomplish shit.”

Biden is an aging politician who in his hubris tells us he is more qualified than anyone else I’ve known in my life for the highest office in this land. Sure,he has served as president, vice president, a senator and is empathetic towards the needs of most Americans. He opposes monopolies, has brought down prescription prices, signed into law an unprecedented bipartisan infrastructure bill, supports marginalized groups and women,and has stood fast against our enemies. But there are others who could do his job and a few who could probably do it better than him. 

Donald Trump, of course, is not one of them. Not even close, though in his hubris he claims he’s the only one who can save us. 

When Biden was found to possess sensitive government documents that he should have turned over to the National Archives, he sat down and answered questions for five hours on two days during the middle of an international crisis, admitted his mistake, accepted responsibility, and thus avoided prosecution. 

Special prosecutor Robert Hur found no reason to charge Biden with a crime, but according to former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin,who served as special counsel investigating George Herbert Walker Bush, Hur also took a cheap shot at Biden in his report. “The biggest problem is this one sentence where he said (Biden) would likely present himself to the jury as an elderly, nice guy with a bad memory,” Zeldin explained. “Hur has no idea how Biden would present himself to a jury. So he's offering speculation and that’s not what his job is. His job is to say, ‘Did he willfully possess; did he willfully distribute? Can I obtain a conviction and sustain that conviction?’ And if he can't, then the case is done. We don't need him to editorialize about the mind of a hypothetical juror in a hypothetical case.”

Meanwhile, if you don’t want to vote for Biden, then you can vote for Trump. But he’s a traitor.

At a recent rally in South Carolina, Trump said that he would not do a damn thing to help a NATO ally who wasn’t current on their NATO dues if they were attacked by Russia. In fact, he said he’d encourage Russia to do whatever in the Hell they wanted. “You got to pay your bills,” he said. This from a guy who never pays his bills. So, he’s also a deadbeat traitor. Worse, he’s trying to blackmail our allies by threatening them with Russia and acts like our allies personally owe him money. What a rube. Biden, on the other hand, according to National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby, “will defend every inch of NATO territory,” no matter what.

As president, Trump promised us an infrastructure bill every week for four years and didn’t deliver. He was impeached twice, instigated an insurrection, and obstructed justice – according to his own Department of Justice. When Trump was found to have sensitive material that belonged in the National Archives, he lied and said he didn’t have it. Then he said the government planted the info. Then he said he had it, but returned it. Then he admitted he hadn’t returned it, but claimed he didn’t have to because he declassified the sensitive material with a Vulcan mind meld. He claimed unlimited immunity against prosecution for several felonies. His claimed immunity is so broad that his attorney said Trump could use Seal Team 6 to kill his opponents. 

Trump cuddled with dictators, including Vladimir Putin. He had a private meeting while President with Putin and to this day no one knows what was said in it – not even his own staff.  He tried to dismantle NATO and sided against supporting Ukraine after it was invaded by Russia. He took credit for repealing the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. His infamous “tax break” was exclusively for the rich. His family personally made bank on patents in China. He has been found responsible in civil court for rape, defamation, and in New York, he’s going to pay a heavy fine for fraudulent business practices and perhaps will be banned from doing business in the state altogether.

Trump and Biden are the two oldest men to ever be sworn in as our commander-in-chief. Will they even survive the campaign ahead, much less the next four years in the most stressful job on the planet? 

We need your help to stay independent

Trump is nearly as old as Biden and is also in questionable health despite former White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson once telling us with a straight face that the former president could live to be 200. It only makes you wonder what medications “Dr. Feelgood” Jackson was ingesting the day he came to the briefing room and spread that charm. Those are some Hunter S. Thompson-grade hallucinogens right there.

Recently Trump has struggled with facts at his rallies, seems more irrational, doesn’t remember events of which he was a part of, and has looked sluggish and tired. He’s approaching 80 and the results of his annual physical more than 5 years ago showed signs of heart disease. His diet is disastrous and he gets little exercise. His cognitive abilities appear to be declining. He’s as unstable as uranium 238 and his anger and rage, combined with the fear he has of going to prison for the rest of his life, are stress factors that could severely limit his life span – no matter what Dr. Jackson claims. 

And, of course, he’s a traitor.

The Democrats are a different brand of insanity. They are “Ridin’ with Biden.” Biden wisely didn’t commit to a second term when he first ran for president. His age is an issue as is his physical health. It’s as much of an issue as Donald Trump’s. But members of the White House press corps, including myself haven’t spent much time in front of Biden. I’ve asked every two months in the White House Brady briefing room for Biden to visit with us. I told former Press Secretary Jen Psaki this within the first six months of the Biden administration. Biden has refused. White House press secretary Karine-Jean Pierre claims we see him often, but we don’t.

This has caused Biden immense problems. On occasion, he looks physically fragile. Is he mentally competent? He certainly appears more so than Trump, though some of my colleagues in the press think otherwise – or are they pushing ratings by saying so? Do we know

Not really. Hidin’ Biden or Biden hidin’ is killing Biden’s chances at re-election  – and the administration either doesn’t understand that or does and is avoiding press interaction precisely because Biden is mentally compromised. It’s one thing to attend fundraisers and campaign events where your fans turn up and cheer your every word and forgive your gaffes. It’s another thing to show up and take questions from reporters who aren’t there to kiss your ring. The facts show Trump showed up in front of the press far more often than Biden has. 

Trump, of course, lied about everything when he saw us. After all, he is a traitor.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


But, Biden also has trouble with the truth in a few key areas. The first is when he speaks about his age. Jean-Pierre claimed Monday that Biden does more in an hour than most people do in a day. He could have said that himself if he had done an interview before the Super Bowl. It was a large, diverse audience in a perfect venue but he passed. So much for transparency.

The other key problem for Biden is in regard to the Middle East. The Houthis are firing at us. We’re firing back at them. We’ve expanded the scope of the conflict in the Gaza war to include firing at Iranian targets and assets. We’ve been told this is not an escalation of the war, and that by destroying military elements we’re actually contributing to a de-escalation. That’s just a bad lie.

Sure. We don’t have boots on the ground, and hopefully won’t in the future, but we have boots at sea and in the air. The conflict is volatile and appears to be growing. The Republicans have, rightly or wrongly (in some cases both) used this effectively against Biden. People are worried, especially because few believe Biden on the matter. As for the bombing of innocent civilians in Gaza? Biden won’t even address that issue.

There is further nuance here worthy of scrutiny. If the “No Way” I mean “No Good” or “No Name”, oh wait “No Labels” party jumps into the fall political race, well that could mix things up and strip the Democrats of their mojo – particularly in the seven states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Minnesota) that many political pundits believe will decide the outcome of the 2024 election. The weaker Biden appears, the more “No Navels”, I mean “No Labels” will have an influence on the outcome of the presidential election.

Robert Kennedy Jr., 70,  also threatens to make a difference in the race as an independent candidate. Then again, after plagiarizing one of his Uncle John’s television ads from 1960 and airing it during the Super Bowl, RFK Jr. seems less like a viable option and more like a manipulative lunatic.

That is where we are today. Three old white guys: one really old guy, one really traitorous old guy, and one really nutty old guy. All of them sound like a grumpy old fart who would open their front door and shout,  “You kids get off my lawn!” How many voters this fall will do just that – and simply not show up to vote?

I don’t know about the “youthful” vigor of a man or woman in their mid-40s or 50s, but it’s better than most people in their 70s and 80s – unless you’re Keith Richards. And he can’t run for president; he wasn’t born here.  

Unfortunately that only leaves Biden on the ballot as someone who can give us hope that our democracy survives another year. If that doesn’t reassure you, I understand. As a man wiser than I recently said it would be nice to have a president who, because of their age, will likely be around to see the consequences of their actions. 

But, if you ever saw a plate spinner at the circus or on the old Ed Sullivan show, then you know that with this much going on, anything can happen and it usually does. Especially in the 2024 political circus of America

Nice to have John Stewart back.

“No place is safe”: At least 1 killed, more than 20 injured at Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl parade

Officials in Kansas City, Missouri on Wednesday said at least one person was killed and another 21 people were injured in a shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs' Super Bowl victory parade, with multiple in critical condition.

The police said three people had been taken into custody.

The shooting took place near Union Station, where a rally was held following the parade to celebrate the football team's victory on Sunday.

A spokesperson for University Health told The New York Times that four people had been taken to the hospital with gunshot wounds and eight people were there being treated for other injuries. Chaos erupted at the rally when the shooting began, causing thousands of fans to flee.

The shooting took place on the sixth anniversary of the Parkland, Florida shooting at a high school, which launched a nationwide student-led effort to push for tighter gun control regulations.

"As we wait for more details, we know this: We are horrified by the American nightmare that is gun violence," said March for Our Lives, the group founded by Parkland survivors. "NO PLACE IS SAFE."

The parents of Joaquin Oliver, one of the young students killed on February 14, 2018 in Parkland, were scheduled to appear on CNN as the news broke about the Kansas City shooting.

Manuel Oliver and Patricia Padauy-Oliver were there to discuss "The Shotline," a new program that uses artificial intelligence technology to recreate the voices of gun violence victims and demand action from lawmakers.

“Turned on their heads”: Legal experts say Jack Smith just used Trump’s “best argument against him”

Special counsel Jack Smith on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to let the prosecution of former President Donald Trump move forward, rejecting his immunity claim in the D.C. election subversion case.

Smith’s team in a filing asked the Supreme Court to let stand a unanimous ruling from a D.C. Circuit panel that shot down Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

The prosecutors argued that Trump’s “alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law.”

Trump asked for the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the case before the Supreme Court takes it up but Smith requested an expedited schedule with oral arguments in March if the court takes up the case, citing a public interest in a “speedy and fair verdict.”

Trump’s lawyers in their filing argued that prosecuting the leading Republican candidate would violate the First Amendment rights of millions of American voters.

“To the contrary, the charges here involve applicant’s alleged efforts to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters,” Smith’s filing said.

Smith’s team also pushed back on Trump’s claim that a former president cannot be prosecuted unless he is impeached and convicted first.

“The separation of powers involves checks and balances — not a blank check for crimes a President might commit through official acts so long as he resigns from office, avoids impeachment and conviction, or conceals his criminal conduct until after the expiration of his term,” Smith’s filing said.

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal told MSNBC that Smith’s team “did a very good job of taking Trump's best argument and using it against him.”

Katyal said Trump’s lawyers had seized on Smith’s argument that the Supreme Court does not need to hear the case after the court of appeals rejection after he previously asked the Supreme Court to bypass the appeals court and hear the case on an expedited basis.

"What Smith said is basically, 'No way,'" Katyal said. "The way the Supreme Court operates is they consider themselves a court of review, not a first view; that is to say, they like legal issues to percolate in the lower courts and get ventilated between the different judges before the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved.

We need your help to stay independent

"And what Smith said is, 'That's what's happened now. You had this unanimous decision in the Court of Appeals, our nation's second highest court and on that panel of judges was a really diverse group of judges. It wasn't just liberal judges, it was one very prominent conservative judge as well," he continued. "Everyone agreed Trump's claim was bogus. So you don't need the Supreme Court to rule."

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin agreed that Smith “effectively subverted and turned on their heads some of the arguments that former President Trump and his lawyers were making.”

"One of the things that echoes throughout the briefs that former President Trump has submitted is a president is special. He should be treated specially and differently. And Jack Smith sort of doesn't disagree with that. He just takes a different tack at it” by arguing that Trump’s alleged crimes are of "unparalleled gravity that necessitates trying this case as quickly as possible, not the delay that you are begging for,” Rubin explained.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Rubin noted that Trump also argued that American voters would be deprived of their First Amendment rights by not being able to hear his political messages.

"And again, Jack Smith and his team turned that on their head," Rubin said. "They say the public's interest in a speedy trial here is greater than any interest that Trump could have in delaying it, particularly given that what he is accused of doing here is subverting the democratic will of tens of millions of voters. In other words, you claim to stand for the interests of a certain segment of voters. But the accusations at the heart of this case are about your willingness to disenfranchise the tens of millions of people who never voted for you in the first instance."

New GOP conspiracy theory: Babies are getting abortions!

There are many questions that immediately crop to mind upon hearing state Sen. Bill Eigel, R-Mo., claim that a "1-year-old could get an abortion under" a Democratic proposal for rape and incest exceptions in the state's near-total abortion ban. 

The first, of course, is whether Eigel is ignorant enough of human biology to believe babies can get pregnant. It's a possibility, putting his claims in the echelon of idiotic beliefs Republicans have about reproduction, from claiming a woman can't get pregnant from "legitimate rape" to arguing it's "abortion" to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Then there's the second question: Assuming that babies could get pregnant, is Eigel arguing that it would be a good thing to force a baby to deliver another, barely smaller baby?

On the latter question, we do have an answer, though it is stomach-churning: Yes. Eigel's stance is that forced childbirth in very small children (and, though impossible, babies) is a good thing. Nor is he alone in this view.  Earlier this month, Republicans in the Missouri state Senate voted down the proposal to allow rape and incest victims access to abortion. In the process, Republicans repeatedly argued that being forced to give birth to a rapist's child is good for a rape victim, regardless of how young they are. 


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


The entire debate was a stark reminder of the misogyny that drives the modern GOP. It's why the party is lining up eagerly behind Donald Trump, a man who a jury recently found liable for sexual assault, a crime he's been caught bragging about on tape. Republicans increasingly have no limits when it comes to tolerating sexualized violence against girls and women. 

"You’re OK with forced birth of a child being raped, right?" Democratic state Sen. Doug Beck asked Eigel

Earlier this month, Republicans in the Missouri state Senate voted down the proposal to allow rape and incest victims access to abortion.

Eigel insisted, "I don’t support the institutions of rape or of incest," though his loud, continued support of Trump tells another story. But on the topic of forced childbirth for rape victims, he was blunt: It's for the best. He falsely claimed allowing child rape victims to get abortions would lead them to commit suicide, saying, "I can't imagine Missouri will be a better place tomorrow if we have individuals inflicting abortion on kids."

Eigel speaks of abortion like it's robbing a child rape victim of a precious opportunity. Sadly, Eigel's view that it's good when small children (and apparently, babies) are forced to give birth is not a rare one in the GOP. Throughout the debate, Republicans spoke of forced childbirth as if it's a beautiful gift they're granting rape victims. Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin, for instance, argued that being forced to give birth to a rapist's baby "may even be the greatest healing agent you need in which to recover from such an atrocity." 

In defending her belief that it's good to force rape victims to give birth, Republican state Sen. Sandy Crawford argued that "God is perfect. God does not make mistakes." She allowed that being raped might be "mentally taxing" for victims, but shrugged it off with, "Bad things happen." 

The callousness towards rape victims isn't just a failure of empathy, however. Despite the rise of the #MeToo movement within liberal and even centrist circles, for the MAGA right, it's still rape victims who are held responsible for rape. And unwanted childbirth is viewed as a sacrifice the victim should endure to redeem herself. 

When the subject shifts from imaginary pedophilia to real instances of child rape, it's Republicans who resist all efforts to relieve the suffering of the victims.

If that sounds harsh, I invite readers to revisit the CNN town hall Trump held right after a jury found him liable for sexually assaulting journalist E. Jean Carroll. Trump offered his glib denials, of course, but then immediately pivoted to basically admitting it happened — and blaming Carroll for it.

"What kind of a woman meets somebody and brings them up and within minutes you're playing hanky-panky in a dressing room?" Trump sneered. The MAGA audience roared with approval. 

The notion that rape happens because the victim "caused" the rapist to "stumble" is widespread on the Christian right. The public was reminded of this in 2022 when a 300-page report about sexual abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention was released. It featured an almost numbing parade of stories of victims being told that they were to blame for the rape. In many cases, the victims were forced to apologize to their rapists or stand in front of the congregations to "repent" for tempting the rapist. In other cases, the church used its resources to cover up for the rape and pressured the victim to pretend it never happened. Either way, the message is clear-cut: The real victim of the rape is the rapist, who was "tempted" by a loose woman, or in many cases, a child. 

We need your help to stay independent

I'm far from the first person to note that conservative rhetoric is replete with psychological projection. Put more simply, with Republicans, every accusation is a confession. Certainly, this enthusiasm for forced childbirth on rape victims is a proof point. The MAGA right has become fond of lobbing the word "groomer" at every liberal who advocates for LGBTQ equality, free speech, or reproductive rights. The implication is that these things are all cover for the supposed liberal desire to inflict sexual violence on children. But, of course, when the subject shifts from imaginary pedophilia to real instances of child rape, it's Republicans who resist all efforts to relieve the suffering of the victims. Instead, they treat the victims like they're the real perpetrators.

Frankly, I don't think Eigel is stupid enough to believe 1-year-olds can get pregnant. I certainly doubt he sincerely thinks there are 1-year-olds picking the phone, calling the clinic, and scheduling an abortion. Instead, like many Republican conspiracy theories, it's more symbolic than literal. The newly invented myth of the abortion-getting baby is a stand-in for a larger constellation of GOP outrage over what they perceive as liberals "teaching" women and children to disobey the stringent patriarchal rules governing their behavior.

It's much like the right-wing myth that elementary school kids are using litterboxes for mysteriously sexual reasons. It's about stoking this hysterical view of what happens if liberals' ideas about women's equality and children's rights are allowed to prevail. Why, next thing you know, babies will be aborting their own babies! It's just an especially grotesque way to paint the oppressors as victims and recast actual victims as the villains. 

“Freezing” Trump’s Jan. 6 trial is “alarming,” says expert, could lead to “dire consequences”

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court gave special counsel Jack Smith a week to respond to former President Donald Trump’s request to keep his federal criminal trial on election-subversion charges on hold. This comes after Trump's lawyers appealed a circuit court ruling that found he has no immunity for alleged crimes committed as president.

Chief Justice John Roberts gave Smith until 4 p.m. on Feb. 20 to file a response to the former president’s request. The court would typically ask for a more timely responses to an emergency applications on what critics call its "shadow docket." But as The New York Times reports, nothing prevents Smith from filing more rapidly.

“The Supreme Court is not blind to Trump’s strategy to delay his trial as long as he can," said Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, in an interview with Salon. "My sense is the court appears to want to move this case quickly. A one-week timeline for Smith’s response is not unreasonable, although Smith probably will file his response within days.”

Smith had earlier asked the Supreme Court to take up the immunity case even before the D.C. Circuit appeals court reviewed the matter, but that request was denied.

In Trump's appeal, filed on Monday, his lawyers asked the high court to block the lower-court ruling that rejected his argument that he had full presidential immunity for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results (and presumably for any other alleged criminal offenses). The former president insisted that a trial would “radically disrupt” his reelection bid.

The legal proceedings against Trump for attempting to undermine the 2020 election will remain on hold until the immunity issue is resolved. If the justices don’t move quickly, the trial could extend into the core of the 2024 election season, or possibly beyond the November election.

“President Trump’s claim that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts presents a novel, complex and momentous question that warrants careful consideration on appeal,” Trump’s application said.

His lawyers argued that the court should consider the context of the election campaign and what they asserted were Smith's political motivations in seeking expedited action.

"The Supreme Court is not blind to Trump’s strategy to delay his trial as long as he can, [and] appears to want to move this case quickly."

"Conducting a monthslong criminal trial of President Trump at the height of election season will radically disrupt President Trump's ability to campaign against President Biden — which appears to be the whole point of the Special Counsel's persistent demands for expedition," the filing said.

In fact, as a special counsel Smith operates independent of the Justice Department, and is not under the direct supervision of Attorney General Merrick Garland or President Biden.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the Washington, D.C., circuit court delivered a strongly worded unanimous opinion that rejected Trump’s immunity claim. 

“Former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the judges wrote, adding that they did not accept Trump’s claim “that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results.”

That was the second time since December that judges have found that Trump can face prosecution for actions taken during his time in the White House and leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The Supreme Court justices are “clearly aware” that Trump spends much of the time “campaigning” in courtrooms, Gershman said. They are also “acutely aware” that prosecutors, most prominently Smith, have brought serious criminal charges against Trump and want to resolve those charges “expeditiously," he said.

While there is no set timeframe for the court to act, Smith's team has vigorously pushed for the federal Jan. 6 trial to occur this year, while Trump's lawyers have consistently tried to postpone the proceedings by various means.

“The court certainly does not want to be seen as enabling Trump’s manifest manipulation of the justice system to try to run out the clock before the election,” Gershman explained. 

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump receives any “criminal justice” at all, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Salon. Substantively, they could decide that he is immune from prosecution, though most legal observers find that unlikely. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Procedurally, however, if the justices stay the D.C. Circuit Court ruling and set the case on Trump's immunity for a normal schedule of briefings and oral arguments, it will become “far less” likely that Trump will face trial before the November election. “And if he wins," Rahmani, "a sitting president can’t be prosecuted" under long-standing Justice Department rules

The actual question of whether a former president should be immune from criminal prosecution is “an easy call,” Rahmani added. The Supreme Court's task is to balance “the havoc” that Trump is creating within the justice system, and the vital interest in “speedy justice,” against what he called Trump’s “novel weak, and momentous legal arguments.”

"The trial court and an appeals court have already spoken decisively against Trump. There is no sufficient reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in."

“Freezing a trial of this magnitude” until all possible legal issues are sorted out is “unusual and alarming,” Gershman explained. Many courts, he suggested, would decline to entertain this kind of pretrial litigation and allow the trial to proceed, taking up these issues on appeal in the event of a conviction. 

“The trial court and an appeals court have already spoken decisively against Trump,” Gershman said. “There really is no sufficient reason for the Supreme Court to weigh in now.”

Trump's federal trial in Washington was originally scheduled to begin on March 4, but has been removed from Judge Tanya Chutkan's schedule. Should the justices reject Trump's request for a stay, it will be rescheduled.

“It may seem hackneyed, but the Supreme Court is well aware of the motto, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied,’” Gershman said. “Justice surely must be accorded to criminal defendants like Trump, but justice must also be accorded to the government prosecutors. Trump and his lawyers see only one side of the balance; hopefully the Supreme Court will see the larger picture, and the dire consequences to the rule of law and timely justice if they drag their feet.”

Ill-gotten gains: Why does American society coerce us to work while sick?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may soon remove its five-day isolation guidance for people who are infected with COVID-19, according to a recent report in The Washington Post. The alleged change has been attributed to several unnamed CDC officials. At the moment, the CDC hasn't officially confirmed the report and instead has said that there are "no updates to COVID guidelines to announce at this time.” Still, the news follows similar guidelines enacted in California and Oregon last month, all of which has led to a major upset among many who are expressing feelings of defeat and disappointment.

Currently, when someone tests positive for COVID-19, the CDC recommends staying home for at least five days to reduce the chances of spreading the virus to others. However, sources told the Post that the change will rely on symptoms instead. If a person doesn’t have a fever or their symptoms are mild and resolving, they can still return to work or school if it’s within a day of testing positive. This change could come as soon as April, according to the report. 

Notably, the science on how COVID-19 spreads hasn’t changed, which occurs via airborne particles and droplets. As to how long an infected person remains contagious is nuanced, and depends on how severe the infection is and the variant that caused their infection likely plays a role in all this as well.

One study found that some people could still carry the virus up to 37 days into their infection. The CDC even states that people with severe COVID-19 might be infectious after 10 days and might have to extend isolation for up to 20 days. What’s with the possible change then? Speculation is that it could reflect the reality that many Americans weren’t isolating themselves for five days anyway. But as one epidemiologist told NPR: "It's like saying, well, people aren't really wearing a seat belt, so I guess we can say seat belts don't matter.”

A reversal in guidance like this will certainly “force people to work while sick.”

This change in guidance — if it occurs — seems reflective of one of the most toxic parts of American work culture — one that health advocates say is deeply harmful, impossible to shake and positioned to put lives at risk. It is, of course, America’s problematic "work-while-you're-sick" culture, also known as presenteeism. Leanne DeRigne, a professor at Florida Atlantic University whose research focuses on labor participation and healthcare policies, told me in a phone interview a reversal in guidance like this will certainly “force people to work while sick.”

“If you have no protections to either guide you to stay home, and you have no way to recoup lost wages if you are sick, then I think this increases presenteeism,” DeRigne said. “More people will be working while they're sick.”

Before the pandemic, Robert Half published results from a survey showing that nine out of 10 employees go to work sick. According to the survey, more than half of those who go to work sick said they go when they have a flu or cold because they have too much work on their plate. Another 40 percent, in the survey, said they go to work while ill because they don't want to use up their sick time.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


However, once the coronavirus began to spread, many wondered if presenteeism would wane as the public grew more fearful of those with a cough or sniffle — but that didn’t seem to last long. In one survey from the end of 2020 in Tennessee, 53 percent of participants admitted to going to work with COVID-19. And now, the continuous rollbacks in surveillance and policies to stop the spread of COVID-19 continue to put workers in vulnerable positions.

Currently, there is no federal sick leave program to protect workers who are infected with COVID-19. While some states have taken on various iterations of a COVID sick leave, not all workers have the option. As more middle-class workers do their jobs remotely — creating a culture of working from home while you’re sick — it leaves hourly paid workers who have to be physically at work without any safety nets. It’s this problem, DeRigne said, that perpetuates presenteeism.

“This really becomes a class issue and it's concerning,” DeRigne said. “If it came coupled with a commitment to a federal guarantee of paid sick leave, that might be okay.” 

“This really becomes a class issue and it's concerning.”

She added that this work-while-you’re-sick culture is deeply rooted in the American psyche. As some have pointed out, the Protestant work ethic is still very much alive today. It carries an attitude that places immense value on the idea that hard work, discipline, and frugality are a result of a person's values.

“I think we're all committed to this idea that one of the ways we judge whether we're worthy is whether we're busy, whether we're hard at work, and I think that just extends over into illness,” DeRigne said. “There’s something really embedded in our American psyche that being sick is seen as being weak and choosing to take care of yourself is the wrong priority.” 

But it’s logically bad for business and the economy to have a bunch of sick people working, infecting one another and making more people sick. In fact, a recent systematic review published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine last year found that paid leave was associated with numerous positive consequences for businesses — like increased job satisfaction, increased job commitment, increased firm performance, and improved retention.

DeRigne, one of the coauthors of the study, emphasized that such a change in policy will be “especially scary” for those who are vulnerable — like those who are immunocompromised or those who have long COVID, in which the symptoms of COVID-19 last for months or even years. Not every infection from SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the disease, is benign or short-lived.

Angela Meriquez Vázquez, former president of the advocacy group Body Politic and a long COVID patient and advocate, agreed.

We need your help to stay independent

“The CDC is creating an insurmountable policy barrier for low-income and working class communities of color to both recover adequately from an infection and also prevent exposing their colleagues and the community members they interact with in service of bottom-lines and corporate profits.” Vázquez told me in an email. “The near-elimination of isolation protocols for infectious individuals compounds the health and well-being harms to people with Long COVID, especially those who are from low-income or communities of color.”

She added this potential change is “a clear example of how corporate interests are driving public health policy."

As to how to unravel this systemic issue, DeRigne said nothing is ever going to change until there is a guaranteed federally paid sick leave in America — and to be effective, it has to be longer than five days. 

“You’re really only moving the needle on job issues when you are giving them access to 10 or more days of sick leave or paid time off,” she said. “But if everybody had it, and we all started using it, would we get some better understanding that it's just a normal part of life that some people are gone occasionally because they have to take care of themselves?”

“Serious national security threat”: Fears rise over reports Russia plans to put a nuke in space

House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) called on President Joe Biden to declassify all intelligence reports related to an unnamed "serious national security threat" on Wednesday, as reported by ABC News. Jake Sullivan, White House national security adviser, addressed the remarks in a press briefing, assured reporters the country faced no imminent threat of attack, and confirmed that he reached out to congressional leaders. Sullivan offered no further details of the supposed threat. 

According to ABC News, two sources familiar with deliberations on Capitol Hill told the outlet that the classified intelligence involved Russian ambitions to put a nuclear weapon into space — not to drop a nuclear weapon onto Earth, but rather to possibly use against satellites. "It is very concerning and very sensitive," one source reportedly told the outlet, calling it "a big deal."

"Current and former officials said the nuclear weapon was not in orbit," The New York Times reported, confirming ABC News' report. Turner's warning comes ahead of a previously planned Thursday meeting on the topic between congressional leaders and Biden's top security advisers which Turner is scheduled to attend. Sullivan said he "was a bit surprised that Congressman Turner came out today."

"We have confidence that we believe that we can and will and are protecting the national security of the United States and the American people," Sullivan told reporters at the briefing. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) confirmed he would attend the meeting and sought to "assure the American people there is no need for public alarm … We are going to work together to address this matter as we do all sensitive matters that are classified." Connecticut Democratic Rep. Jim Himes, also on the House Intelligence Committee, told ABC News that the threat is "significant" but "not a cause for panic."

"As to whether more can be declassified about this issue, that is a worthwhile discussion but it is not a discussion to be had in public," Himes said. 

 

“We were never afraid of anything”: “Finding Your Roots” reveals Dionne Warwick’s enslaved ancestry

Icon Dionne Warwick is a timeless national treasure with hit songs like "Walk on By" and "Say a Little Prayer." While she's known for breaking through the 1960s predominantly white music industry to become one of the first mainstream Black female artists, Warwick didn't know much about her ancestry.

On Tuesday's "Finding Your Roots," the singer came closer to understanding herself and her family's deep Southern ancestry. Like countless Black people in the U.S. who are unable to trace back their ancestry because of how slavery ripped families apart and erased histories, Warwick knew very little about her family lineage.

Host Henry Louis Gates Jr. said that the brick wall of slavery made it difficult to go back generations in her ancestry paternal grandfather's side. However, on her paternal grandmother's side, a door into her family's history blew wide open. 

The show's researchers found her great-great-grandparents, Guy and MaryAnn Russ, listed in the 1870 census, living in Jackson County, Florida with their five children. The census was recorded five years after emancipation, meaning that the pair were likely enslaved at some point.

Warwick said, "You know I felt there had to be some sort of relationship to slavery within my family. There's no way that it could have been gotten around."

The show then set out to find more evidence of Warwick's ancestors before emancipation. Since some enslaved people took the surname of their owners, the show's researchers looked for any white farmers in Jackson County with the surname Russ.

While the process was difficult, on the 1860 census they found a slave schedule for a white farmer named Joseph Russ. It listed 31 enslaved people not by name but only by age, race and gender. Each person was represented by a dash.

Gates said that Guy was born between 1814-16, so when the census was taken, Guy would have been between 44-46. On the list, there was one Black male at the age of 46, which the show believed was Warwick's ancestor.

Warwick said it was "ugly" that Guy wasn't named on the list. "The only way those that were purported to own a human being could exist, was by transferring their name, and I only think it's because they only couldn't pronounce ours. That we had certain regality to our own," she said.

"The names were brought on the ships," Gates said.

"Language that we brought with us. They could not understand. 'How could you dare have something that we don't have?'"

"And they took it all away," Gates stated.

"They tried to," Warwick answered.

Warwick's ancestor likely had five more years of enslavement on Joseph Russ' plantation. The show even found the location of the plantation where Guy was likely to have picked cotton for Russ. Gates showed Warwick a picture of Russ. "It puts a face on slavery," he said.

"Yeah, it does. It's not a pretty face either. It's a very ugly face," she said. 

In Tallahassee, Florida, emancipation was proclaimed on May 20, 1865. When the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865 slavery was abolished. Guy was roughly 50 years old when he received his freedom. However, this didn't mean formerly enslaved people were safe from the rampant increase of brutal violence enacted by the KKK, who were unwilling to give up their power in the South.

We need your help to stay independent

Despite the impending threat of racial violence and calls from Black church leaders to vacate Tallahassee due to safety reasons, Warwick's great-great grandparents remained in Jackson County.

"From the immediate family that I know grew up around and with, we were never afraid of anything. We had our own standards and lived by them. And nobody going to run me out of town. But, you know, not that we are that brave, but we believe in the right," Warwick said.

"I know I'm a strong woman. I have been strong literally from birth. I've never accepted certain things in life. The word no doesn't exist for me," she added. "The word 'can't' does not exist for me. And I'm sure that strength and the being that I am has an awful lot to do with these people who gave that to me."

“Finding Your Roots” airs Tuesdays at 8 p.m. ET on PBS.

 

 

In Western Australia, public school lunches begin to limit the inclusions of certain foods, like ham

Western Australia has introduced a limit on ham in school canteens. Parents are reportedly confused and frustrated. So what has changed and what evidence is it based on?

 

Reclassifying processed meats

The WA Department of Health has reconfigured its system for classifying food and drink in public schools. It uses a traffic light approach, allocating green, amber or red colors to foods and drinks.

Ham and other processed red meats have been moved from an "amber" label to a "red" label.

Each color is associated with restrictions on how food and drinks can be sold:

  • green items must account for at least 60% of items on a menu
  • amber items must account for less than 40% of items on a menu
  • red items cannot be on the menu.

There's one catch. The new guidelines allow ham to be sold as if it is an amber item, only two days per week, if ham was already on a canteen's menu prior to the reconfiguration.

             

Why restrict ham?

Singling out nutrients or foods as "good" or "bad" can lead to confusion and polarized views on diet. Rather than focusing on individual foods, long-term health outcomes are more closely linked to overall dietary patterns.

Ham itself is not inherently considered junk food. It's a source of protein and many other nutrients.

However, certain types of ham products – especially highly processed or cured hams – are less healthy options for several reasons:

High sodium content

Many commercially available hams, especially highly processed and cured varieties, can be high in sodium, which is salt.

Excessive sodium intake is associated with health issues such as high blood pressure and can increase the risk of heart disease and strokes.

On average, Australian children consume more sodium than the recommended upper limit: 600 mg a day for children aged four to eight and 800 mg a day for those aged nine to 13.

The World Health Organization says reducing sodium is one of the most cost-effective ways nations can improve the health of their populations.

Additives

Some processed hams may contain additives, preservatives and flavor-enhancers we should limit.

Saturated fat

While ham is a good source of protein, certain cuts can be higher in saturated fat.

Any ham sold in canteens under the new rules (where ham is treated as an "amber" food until the canteen menu changes) must have less than 3g of saturated fat per 100g.

Diets high in saturated fat are linked to an increased risk of heart disease. However, not all research supports this claim.

Processing methods

The methods to process and cure ham may involve smoking, which can produce compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In large quantities, these may cause health concerns, including increasing the risk of bowel cancer.

 

What are some ham alternatives?

Lean, minimally processed ham, prepared without excessive sodium or additives, can potentially be a part of a healthy overall diet. And parents in WA can continue packing ham in their child's lunchbox.  

When choosing ham, read the labels and select products with a lower sodium content, minimal additives and healthier preparation methods.

         

When looking for low-salt alternatives to ham, there are several options to consider:

  • turkey breast. Turkey is a lean meat and can be a good substitute for ham. Look for low-sodium or no-salt-added varieties

  • chicken breast. Skinless, boneless chicken breast is a versatile and low-sodium option. Grilling, baking or roasting can add flavor without relying on salt

  • smoked salmon. While salmon naturally contains some sodium, smoked salmon tends to be lower in sodium than cured ham. Choose varieties with little or no added salt

  • roast beef. Choose lean cuts of roast beef and consider seasoning with herbs and spices instead of relying on salt for flavor

  • homemade roasts. Prepare your own roasts using lean meats such as pork loin, beef sirloin or lamb. This way, you have more control over the ingredients and can minimize added salt

  • grilled vegetables. These can be a tasty alternative to meat. Eggplant, zucchini, capsicum and portobello mushrooms have a satisfying texture and flavor

  • beans and legumes. Beans, lentils and chickpeas can be used as alternatives in various dishes. They are naturally low in sodium and high in protein and fiber.

 

What are some other lunchbox tips?

Packing lunchboxes can be challenging and frustrating for parents.

Consider planning ahead, involving your kids, reducing pre-packaged foods, balancing cost and convenience, and giving your kids lunchbox accountability.

Many websites provide ideas for parents, including websites focused on low-cost foods.

Remember to keep portions appropriate for kids and to consider any allergies or school regulations when packing lunches.

Making the lunch experience interactive and enjoyable can encourage kids to embrace healthier eating habits.

Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

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

Oklahoma country radio station relents and plays new Beyoncé song after fan backlash

Like Thanos, Beyoncé is inevitable. It's best not to resist.

KYKC 100.1 FM announced it will play Beyoncé's new country single, “Texas Hold 'Em,” after it initially shut down a request from a fan and faced widespread criticism from Beyoncé's BeyHive. 

A fan said he emailed the Oklahoma-based radio station asking that the song — one of two country songs Beyoncé released on Super Bowl Sunday — be added to its lineup. KYKC rejected the request, responding, “Hi — we do not play Beyonce on KYKC as we are a country music station.”

A screenshot of the fan’s email and KYKC’s response quickly went viral on social media Tuesday morning as Beyoncé's ardent fan base made similar requests online. “Lots of calls coming in for Beyoncé's 'Texas Hold 'Em.' It's coming up in minutes,” KYKC wrote in a post made just a few hours later. The station also shared an image of its show schedule, which showed the song in a 2:28 p.m. time slot.  

In a formal statement sent to The Tennessean, Roger Harris, the general manager of South Central Oklahoma Radio Enterprises (SCORE), said: “We are a small market station. We're not in a position to break an artist or help it that much, so it has to chart a little bit higher for us to add it. But we love Beyoncé here. We play her on our [other top 40 and adult hits stations] but we're not playing her on our country station yet because it just came out.”

KYKC commented on Facebook that it had already played “Texas Hold 'Em” twice as of 7:19 p.m. Tuesday, NPR reported.

“Nasty commies”: Marjorie Taylor Greene slams “Curb Your Enthusiasm” episode on Georgia laws

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) launched a rant against the latest season of HBO’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which was based in Atlanta for the first two episodes. The series poked fun at the Republican-governed state of Georgia and mocked some of the state’s voting laws passed in 2021.

“I watched this week’s episode of 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' and it was a glaring reminder of why most Georgian’s [sic] resent Republicans in our state for inviting the nasty commies from California, the Hollywood elites, into our state by dishing out Hollywood tax credits,” Greene wrote in a lengthy post on X.

“This week’s episode lied and painted GA conservatives and Trump supporters as racists and rednecks and made fun of our good new law that stops the Stacey Abrams vote pandering machine and prevents voter fraud,” she continued.

The episode in question, titled “The Lawn Jockey,” sees Larry David in jail after he’s arrested for giving water to a woman in a voting line. Following his release, David is praised as a liberal icon on CNN and garners acclaim from Stacey Abrams and Bruce Springsteen.

“We in Georgia are fed up with disgusting Hollywood and their disgusting values and elite [judgment] in our state that is trying to turn GA blue!” Greene added before concluding, “Take it from me, as I fight against Democrats in Washington and their radical, evil, and America last policies I can tell you first hand that we in Georgia need to step and do more to PROTECT GEORGIA!!”

The “groupie,” the ghostwriter and me

I’m a ghostwriter. I’m not, and never was, a groupie. But my debut novel, "The Last Days of the Midnight Ramblers," features one of each, and both female characters were loosely based on me.

The ghostwriter character Mari was obvious, as I’d set out to write a novel based on my 14 years in the ghosting business, writing 21 books, five of them New York Times bestsellers. I had Mari work for a famous, enigmatic client known for high-profile relationships with three members of a world-famous band, the Midnight Ramblers. I set the book in the rock milieu because I knew it well from my career as a music journalist, which had been my dream job in my 20s — I was getting paid to write about music, which has always been a great love, and I got to frolic in this dazzling, debauched world with all of the other broken toys. (I have met a few stable, well-adjusted rock stars in my day, but people who crave this lifestyle, mostly not, at least in their younger days.)

I created the “groupie” character with the goal of writing about her life and loves in a way that gave her agency and dignity, which women adjacent to famous men often don’t receive. Just like me, Anke doesn’t think of herself as a groupie and pushes back against the label repeatedly, but it wasn’t until I had finished my publisher’s edits that I understood I had also written Anke to give agency and dignity to myself and the affairs I had enjoyed with several indie rock musicians.

While my own relationships with these men and the stories I told about them did include sex (let’s be honest, this has traditionally been the main tool young women have to gain access, whether they use it or not), sex was neither my goal nor my focus. I fell for them because I loved their music so much, and I sat at their feet because I wanted to be an artist myself — not just by mastering the craft of writing, but by having the courage, ego and sometimes self-destructive energy to break free from the typical life path and decide my stories had enough merit to be shared. And, given how insecure I was at that age, the fact that these celebrated men saw something in me galvanized me to declare myself an artist as well. (My motto in those days: “Be like a boy.”)  

Not everyone will get it, I know. But for me, this was potent stuff. At 16, I took my first fiction workshop and decided I was a writer. My then-best friend gave me a tape she had recorded of an indie rock album that had been released to fanfare. It was romantic, obsessive, full of allusions to sex, drugs and self-deception, delivered with grandiose vocals, like a back-alley opera, over chiming, churning guitars. The singer was telling me all the secrets I most wanted to know about: the essential natures of men and women, and the alchemy they can create together; the raw thrum of creativity, the cost of ambition. I listened to it on repeat for years, saw them play live — crushing on the brooding frontman — and returned always to their opus.  

I created the “groupie” character with the goal of writing about her life and loves in a way that gave her agency and dignity, which women adjacent to famous men often don’t receive.

A decade later, when I was living in Boston as a freelance music journalist and aspiring novelist, I had the opportunity to interview this singer about his latest project, which I also adored, of course. I wanted to write something to capture his essence as an artist. I wanted to get his attention. I wanted to walk around in his shoes, inside his songs. I went to his house, took his drugs, undressed for him, listened to the rough mixes of his new music, took his calls from around the world for months — for years, on and off, in the end.   

I described this affair in gory detail in my 2015 memoir, "Good Girl." As a young writer, I felt I needed to be candid about the excess and lack of boundaries I was prone to before doing the work to heal from a childhood scarred by my gambling addict, wannabe mystic dad. I was also trying to write an artistic coming-of-age story, and I wanted to call out the ways male artists often get celebrated and deified for their bad behavior, while the women who choose to be the Bonnies to their Clydes are often dismissed as groupies, sluts, disposables. Even when they have their own bands, books and stories, they are usually seen in relation to their paramours. At the time, I was proud of my memoir and how raw I dared to be in it, and I felt gratified when other female artists told me they had related to my book. I was less thrilled that the men involved, for the most part, weren’t interested in reading it.  

I emailed the singer in advance of its publication, and he offered his congratulations but said he didn’t want his name or his band’s name in anyone’s book. I was hurt but acquiesced. I didn’t have the maturity at the time to understand why his privacy was so important to him. He had been in the throes of an intense drug dependency, and as I can now see, he might not have wanted someone he didn’t really know all that well to share his secrets with the world. I can sympathize with that point of view today. I also still believe my story as the young female artist, sitting at his feet, is as important as the story of the grizzled prizefighter wooing the ingenue.

I had affairs with several other musicians over the years — too many, from a literary perspective. My editor had me cut a few, feeling they covered the same ground — a young, ambitious, music obsessive and artistic aspirant uses her access to gain audiences with male artists she admires, often launching long-distance love affairs built around their inherent unavailability, mirroring her childhood relationship with her gambling dad. Some of them were addicts. They lived far away or toured constantly. They had girlfriends and women in every city. I was drinking too much and giving too much to my writing to be in any condition to have a real, intimate relationship, anyhow. (All that therapy does work eventually.)

I wanted to call out the ways male artists often get celebrated and deified for their bad behavior, while the women who choose to be the Bonnies to their Clydes are often dismissed as groupies, sluts, disposables.

Of course, I’ve had to ask myself why it mattered to me so much that they let me name them. I suppose the simplest answer is I wanted to be recognized for having a role in the story — not just their stories, but the story of the larger artistic community to which I have devoted my life. And so, eventually, I gave myself acknowledgment in the best way I could. I wrote Anke, who was famous in her own right and had more serious relationships with more famous men than I had. I also gave her greater self-worth, discernment, and restraint than young me.

Without creating spoilers, let’s just say Anke showed more reserve in her fictional memoir than I did in my real one. But then again, I’m a storyteller, and Anke was not. I believe in the redemptive and connective power of storytelling, and that it is OK to risk some exposure, within reason, in the pursuit of that connection with your readers, especially other artists you admire. Not everyone agrees. People who tell their truths in song often prefer to filter them through metaphor, the emotionality of the music itself. They may not feel as comfortable being exposed as I did; they may have more to hide. As I wrestle with the pages of "Ramblers," it does matter who gets to tell the story that becomes the official record. With greater understanding and compassion, I am grateful for the moments I shared with these men, but I realize the lessons I took from them are really my own — and were really my own all along. Even more than that, I am so glad I got to pursue my own truth, about who I am as a writer and a woman, in my own time, and to express myself as an artist without asking anyone’s permission.

“It was a big mistake”: GOPers regret booting George Santos after majority shrinks with NY loss

Several Republicans are having an "I told you so" moment after Democrat Tom Suozzi on Tuesday won a special election to win back his old New York congressional seat that was formerly held by disgraced former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y.

"So who still thinks Republicans helping Democrats kick out Santos was a good idea?," tweeted Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., following Suozzi's win.

"It was a big mistake," Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, told Axios of the decision to oust Santos, whose background was punctuated with lies and fraudulent activity.

In December, following a report conducted by the House Ethics Committee, the House overwhelmingly voted to expel him.

"Santos was a solid vote for the conservative voice and we kicked him out," a Republican told Axios. Another GOP lawmaker claimed their party is "inherently incapable of seeing the actual [problem]," adding that Republicans "will say we shouldn't have done that instead of getting our act together to do what's right." 

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., alleged, "That was a strong Democratic seat to begin with, and for however George Santos presented himself to win that seat, he was successful." Alford continued, "I think now … those who made decision that George Santos should be expelled, if they're not having second thoughts, they're maybe reevaluating the entire process. You may be able to remove someone from the House, but the repercussions could be greater than letting that person stay."

Some conservatives remained steadfast in the decision to boot Santos, however. Axios reported that Rep. Marc Molinaro, R-N.Y., told reporters that Santos "was a con man and a crook and shouldn't have been a member of Congress. Perhaps George Santos being honest would have kept one more seat in Congress." Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., told the outlet that he has "absolutely no regrets" about voting Santos out. "That we have a slimmer majority, well that's just the price you pay," he said. 

“Personal slush fund”: Lara Trump vows “every single penny” at RNC will go to help Trump

Lara Trump, the wife of Eric Trump and the daughter-in-law of former president Donald Trump, promised on Tuesday that she would use "every single penny" of Republican National Committee (RNC) funds to see Trump back in the White House if she becomes co-chair of the party.

During a recent appearance on the conservative network Newsmax, Trump claimed that “the RNC needs to be the leanest, most lethal political fighting machine we’ve ever seen in American history." 

"If I am elected to this position, I can assure you, there will not be any more $70,000 — or whatever exorbitant amount of money it was — spent on flowers," she said. "Every single penny will go to the No. 1 and the only job of the RNC — that is elected Donald J. Trump as president of the United States and saving this country.” 

The former president recently vocalized his support of Lara Trump for the position of co-chair of the RNC, referring to her as “an extremely talented communicator who is dedicated to all that MAGA stands for." 

"No one tell her the RNC is supposed to be in charge of assisting the entire party at the federal, state and local level. Not just Trump’s personal slush fund," quipped attorney Bradley Moss on X/Twitter. 

Republican strategist Bobby Trivett, a self-acknowledged Nikki Haley supporter argued that Lara Trump has "no interest in Republican Victory up and down the ballot, she just wants Trump legal fees paid."

Former Department of Defense official Mike Walker seemed to posit that Lara Trump's claim of financial support for MAGA might not be politically aligned with other conservatives, tweeting that her assertion will likely come as a "surprise GOP candidates for the House and Senate and other offices."

 

Infectious desire: How the pandemic is still negatively impacting our sex lives

When COVID-19 first began spreading around the world, and cities went into lockdown, many people joked that keeping couples cooped up in their homes would lead to a baby boom. 

Instead, the opposite happened: a baby bust. Nine months into the pandemic data confirmed such an event did not occur. While there did end up being a small bump in births in 2021, which was the first major reversal in declining domestic fertility rates since 2007, a substantial decline followed and has been sustained ever since. In May 2023, Brookings reported that birth rates were below 2019 levels again.

But the story of the baby boom and bust doesn't only expose the flaws in the American system when it comes to having and caring for kids. It also provides insight into people’s sex lives and how they’ve been impacted by the pandemic. As renowned sex therapist Ester Perel explains in her famous book “Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence,” day-to-day domesticity can feel like a cage; it’s not a natural recipe for improving sex and intimacy.

It turns out that living through a massive pandemic with a virus that’s highly contagious and often deadly, against the background of inflation, record homelessness, multiple wars breaking out globally and eroding abortion access, all while working from home with your spouse, isn’t exactly a libido booster either. Therapists and psychologists told Salon the pandemic hasn’t been great for sex and intimacy. In other words, if you haven’t been in the mood because it feels like everything still sucks — you’re not alone. 

Gigi Engle, a certified sex and relationship psychotherapist and sex expert at the LGBTQ dating app, Taimi, said she believes the pandemic changed sex and intimacy “tremendously.” Initially, when the pandemic first happened, there were two groups of people: “the lockdown horny people,” and those who felt tired from all the chaos and being locked in their home with their spouse and children all day. Indeed, months into the pandemic data revealed that sex toy sales were up.

“People were trying all kinds of interesting things with kink and sex toys and power dynamics,”  Engle told Salon. “Just getting really creative with it and seeing it as an opportunity to explore.”

If you haven’t been in the mood because it feels like everything still sucks, you’re not alone. 

Indeed, there was some sort of novelty around not having to be anywhere for some couples. Dr. Rhonda Balzarini, an assistant professor of psychology at Texas State University and a research fellow at The Kinsey Institute, told Salon the loneliness and anxiety people felt at first brought some couples closer in the absence of the other connections people engaged with in their everyday lives. Also, working from home, together, was seen as exciting to some — but the unconventionality of it all eventually faded.

“After a few weeks of the pandemic, I think the energy started to wear off,” Balzarini said, as stressors like kids not going back to school and people losing their jobs occurred. “We entered the stage of disillusionment and depression, and during this period, I think a lot of people including couples began to struggle.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


One study published in 2021 corroborated that people’s sex lives worsened during the pandemic. Specifically, researchers found that women experienced more of a disruption in their sexual desires than men. Nearly four years later, many people’s sex lives are still suffering from the pandemic. Even the sex lives of young people who are often thought to be out living stress-free lives, especially in an age where hookups can be as easy as swiping right.

But despite what "Euphoria" made us think, multiple surveys have shown that young people are having less sex than their peers of previous generations — a trend that started even before the pandemic. Engle said this is likely because the pandemic is still ongoing and people are still figuring out what their new normal is at the moment. While people can still go out and socialize in person now, they aren’t doing as much as before. Plus, there's fatigue from dating apps and meeting someone online after always being online. This is likely impacting people who are coupled, too. 

“People are still staying home a lot more, which is great in the sense that there's so much more flexibility for a lot of people when it comes to work,” Engle said. “But I do think partners are still for the most part on top of each other.”

It’s okay to not be in the mood right now. In fact, it’s normal. 

Matt Lundquist, a psychotherapist and clinical director of Tribeca Therapy in New York City, told Salon that working from home and wearing the same clothes all day is not conducive to sex and sexuality for many. Plus, outside stressors like inflation and working more hours could be impacting how people feel about having sex. 

“I think that couples tend to have more and better sex when they're getting along well,” he said. “And I think couples bring the strain of economic hardship, job insecurity, having to work longer hours, feeling less secure about being able to pay for college — that strain shows up in the bedroom.”

Surveys on mental health in America have shown a major increase in the number of U.S. adults who have stress, anxiety and depression during the pandemic. Engle said that COVID-19 increased folks’ levels of anxiety. It brought to light our own mortality and many people lost loved ones and saw many of their friends and family suffer. 

“And I think people's mental health has not recovered from that,” she said. “And when we are in that state constantly, your sex drive plummets because your body is telling you that it's not safe, and it's not okay to be sexual.” 

Of course, there's also the physical part of COVID-19. We know that the virus spreads through particles in the saliva, mucus or breath of infected people, even when a person doesn't exhibit symptoms. This still makes sex and dating risky and that could be affecting sex.

We need your help to stay independent

“We're still figuring out what life after the pandemic means,” Balzarini said. “Do we still wear masks? Do we still need boosters? There's still a lot of uncertainty around the COVID-19 situation.”

All three experts agreed that it’s okay to not be in the mood right now. In fact, it’s normal. 

“It's completely normal that we are responding appropriately to the hellstorm of a world that we are currently living in, so there is nothing wrong with having that feeling,” Engle said, adding that for some people they are okay where they are at right now. For others who want to have more sex, the first step is to make their bodies feel safe again."

"But most importantly," she continued, "everyone should have more compassion for themselves right now. I think that there's been this very incorrect notion that like, we're supposed to just be like, ‘oh, this mess is over, I want to have sex again,' and that's not fair or realistic, or how humans work or adapt.”

“Craven rodeo clowns”: GOP called out for impeaching Mayorkas after “sabotaging” border security

House Republicans on Tuesday voted to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, accusing him of violating public trust, failing to impose U.S. border policy, and a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law.”

Conservative lawmakers attempted to impeach Mayorkas last week but were unsuccessful as three members — Reps. Ken Buck, R-Colo., Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., and Tom McClintock, R-Calif. — joined Democrats in shooting down the impeachment articles. The bipartisan move left many GOP lawmakers frustrated, as the notion of party agreement has become something of a taboo amongst some Republicans, as seen with the intense opposition to bipartisan-border related legislation only after former President Donald Trump spoke out against it.

Following the vote, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said that Mayorkas “deserves to be impeached, and Congress has a constitutional obligation to do so."

House Homeland Security Chair Mark Green, R-Tenn., who spearheaded the vote against Mayorkas, claimed, “He’s disregarding the laws that this body passed, basically disregarding the institution in the United States Congress, disregarding the Constitution in of itself, which says we write the laws and they execute them."

Multiple hearings were held to discuss Mayorkas' impeachment, during which Democrats also underscored previous and ethically questionable border proposals made by Trump, including building alligator moats along the border. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claimed that the 214-213 vote did not contain “a shred of evidence or legitimate Constitutional grounds," echoing sentiment from many Democrats who have said that the impeachment proceedings were both unfounded and politically motivated. 

“House Republicans will be remembered by history for trampling on the Constitution for political gain rather than working to solve the serious challenges at our border," DHS spokeswoman Mia Ehrenberg said in a statement, according to The Hill. "While Secretary Mayorkas was helping a group of Republican and Democratic Senators develop bipartisan solutions to strengthen border security and get needed resources for enforcement, House Republicans have wasted months with this baseless, unconstitutional impeachment."

“Without a shred of evidence or legitimate Constitutional grounds, and despite bipartisan opposition, House Republicans have falsely smeared a dedicated public servant who has spent more than 20 years enforcing our laws and serving our country," Ehrenberg continued. "Secretary Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security will continue working every day to keep Americans safe.”

We need your help to stay independent

“After Extreme MAGA Republicans’ first impeachment vote turned into an epic fail on the House floor last week, the tainted vote tonight was an absolute travesty,” Rep. Bennie Thomspon, D-Miss., said in a statement.

“Instead of providing the Department of Homeland Security the resources it needs or working together towards a bipartisan solution, they have rejected any solution for the sole reason that they can have a political wedge issue in an election year,” Thompson added. “History will judge what Republicans did tonight, and it won’t be favorably. They threw the integrity of the House, the Constitution, as well as any glimmer of hope of working together, under the bus.”

"Impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas, utterly without grounds, demonstrates again how utterly without moral values are House Republicans," claimed Norman Ornstein, a contributing editor at The Atlantic and emeritus scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "In over 50 years close to Congress, I have seen nothing close to this immoral and despicable behavior. Their oaths mean nothing to them."


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Bloomberg Opinion editor and MSNBC political analyst Tim O'Brien called the House GOP "craven rodeo clowns" on X/Twitter after the vote.

"The House — after intentionally sabotaging a bi-partisan bill meant to address the immigration crisis at the southern border — votes to impeach Mayorkas for … wait for it … failing to address the immigration crisis at the border," he wrote.

Republican strategist Susan Del Percio during an appearance on MSNBC, said the vote "will show just how ridiculous the House is acting."

"They’re trying to impeach someone who’s trying to improve our border security," she said. "We could disagree on the means but there was a bipartisan deal on the table and Republican members of the House, some of them said ‘no, we don’t think this is worth our time.’ So now they’re trying to impeach Mayorkas, which is just ridiculous.”

My wife taught me to appreciate romance — but I make these chocolate-covered strawberries for myself

Valentine's Day was never a complex sale for me; I always understood the power of love and the commercial marketing attached to it. My elementary school teachers never had to bribe me into making "I Love You" cards from my mom, and they would always blush when I asked for a little extra construction paper so that I could create cards for some of the girls at  my school.   

"I don't think you need to make cards for three different girls in this class," Miss Reynolds said to a young, confused 2nd-grade me, with sad eyes that peered over her square frames. "Just find one girl, trust me." 

I didn't know it then, but Mrs. Reynolds saved me from the torture of elementary school heartbreak. Over the years, I grew less romantic until I met my wife, Caron. There's always been something special about how she reacts to chivalry, gifts, and displays of affection. And in the sappiest, cheesiest way, I believe this is how love stories work.

Caron was the one who inspired me to overspend on that box of Venus et Fleur roses that never die, get matching tattoos, and be extra corny by whipping up heart-shaped pancakes and scribing custom love letters instead of trusting the greeting card writers who work for Hallmark. The walks, the love songs, the playlist–– my wife loves it all, and I love being the one who repeatedly tries to create these feelings. Ohh, but she hates chocolates.

Really, really hates chocolates.

It doesn't matter if they're super luxurious, handmade by somebody's grandma or gifted to her by Beyoncé — the woman does not like chocolates. She does other strange things, too, like choosing regular Cheerios over the Honey Nut. I can honestly live with the Cheerios thing because I love Honey Nut, but how can she hate a giant red heart-shaped box full of chocolates, bonbons, or anything that makes sense on the day we set aside for love? I never pick or tease, I just think it's funny how some traditions stick, while others become ridiculous at some point in our lives and we can never choose what to keep and what to let go. 

We need your help to stay independent

So, on Valentine's Day, I always try to surprise her with a nice non-traditional date: a trip to a restaurant we've never been to, or something prepared by Chef Me and the most beautiful flowers I can find. That is for her. For me, well, I am going with my chocolate fudge-covered strawberries.

I have loved chocolate-covered strawberries for years, but now I have a recipe that allows me to get the same enjoyment and not worry about the kinds of calories and sugar that forced me to eat extra healthy in the first place. Once you learn this recipe, I promise you we'll be making these all year-round and not just on Valentine's Day — they are that good, and that simple to make.

Healthy chocolate-covered strawberries
Yields
12 strawberries
Prep Time
10 minutes
Cook Time
minutes

 

Ingredients

12 strawberries

3 ripe bananas

1 tablespoon of cacao protein

1 cup of chocolate chips, melted

 

Directions

  1. Put all of the ingredients — except the strawberries — into a blender, and blend until the mixture is smooth and creamy.
  2. Pour the mix into a bowl.
  3. Dip each individual strawberry into the mix and place them about an inch apart from each other on a sheet pan or tray. Put the tray in the fridge for about 2 hours.
  4. Serve and enjoy.

 

Report reveals date of expected verdict in Trump fraud case after judge raised perjury concerns

A verdict in former President Donald Trump's civil fraud trial in New York is expected to drop at the end of the week, following a two-week delay from its initial expected release date, a source with direct knowledge of the circumstances told NBC News. “It is currently anticipated the Engoron decision will be released on Friday, barring unforeseen circumstances,” the source told the outlet Tuesday. 

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron was initially expected to issue the verdict by Jan. 31, but a spokesperson for the court system said earlier this month that it would be delayed until "early to mid-February." The ruling was delayed as Engoron sought answers about a reported plea deal being negotiated with former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, who was accused of perjury during the trial. "After some back and forth in emails, the judge made his impatience with the former president’s team clear, potentially a bad omen for Mr. Trump," The New York Times reported. 

“You and your co-counsel,” he wrote to one of the lawyers, “have been questioning my impartiality since the early days of this case, presumably because I sometimes rule against your clients. This whole approach is getting old.”

The ruling would bring to a close the monthslong trial that began Oct. 2 and saw testimony from Trump and his three eldest children, two of whom — his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. — were also defendants in the case. Closing arguments occurred Jan. 11.

New York Attorney General Letitia James brought the $370 million suit against Donald Trump, his sons and other key Trump Organization executives, accusing the group of exaggerating his assets to obtain better loan terms and make deals. James initially requested $250 million in damages and a ban on Trump's ability to do business in the state but later raised the financial penalty.

Engoron found Trump liable for defrauding banks and insurers in a September summary judgment. The three-month bench trial was held to determine the extent of the former president's punishment. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the case and called it a politically motivated "fraud on me."