Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

In defense of fruitcake, the holiday’s most misunderstood punchline

The holidays always bring up conflicts — not just about family or politics, but important things like which seasonal treats are disgusting and which are delicious. Strong feelings tend to arise when we’re confronted with peppermint or eggnog. But there’s no holiday food that riles people up quite like fruitcake. An easy punchline, a dish Woman’s Day has said "everyone secretly hates," The Root calls "the worst" and Delish recommends you simply "throw in the trash," fruitcake still somehow never dies. In 2021, PBS reported that 2 million of them are sold each year. It can’t all be hate gifting, right?

As someone who recoils at the mere thought of candied peel or maraschino cherries, I too have reflexively avoided fruitcake for most of my life. But this year, I started wondering if maybe I’d been too hard on the treat all this time. Maybe fruitcake has its reputation as a bad tasting brick because a few bad fruitcakes have sullied its name. Maybe, not all fruitcakes?

“Fruitcake is interesting,” says Rick Meyer, president of the Beatrice Bakery Co., a Nebraska company whose popular fruitcakes are made from a family recipe that dates back to 1917. “It can be really bad or really good.” Meyer thinks part of the bad rap comes from one of the cake's make attractions — its near indestructibility. "Experts say that fruitcake was started clear back in ancient Egypt. And in Roman times, they fed soldiers that because it lasted forever, because sugar is a preservative." With its hearty mix of dried fruits, nuts, alcohol and sugar, its a dish designed to go the distance and fill you up — a rough ancestor of the Power Bar. Meyer speculates that "Through time, somebody's got to find something to say. 'That's impossible, because today's foods don't last like yesterday's foods. There's no way that can be good.' And then pretty soon, it's a doorstop." 

We need your help to stay independent

Kevin Turner, founder and CEO of The Grilling Master, similarly wonders if the cake's durability has at times been its downfall. Noting that it's "deeply rooted in holiday tradition," he wonders if that's why "Fruitcake has gotten the ill reputation of being the dessert that is regifted… the first choice to be passed on."

But there are other theories about why fruitcake is so often so scorned. A few years ago, Smithsonian posited that the problems began "in early 20th century, when mass-produced mail-order fruitcakes became available, creating the regrettably classic image of a dry, leaden cake encrusted with garish candied fruits and pecans." And food writer Amy Hand, contributing writer at The Skillful Cook, thinks it comes down to expectations.

"Can I make a confession?" she asks. "I learned to make a fruitcake in cooking school and never made another for my whole career! They truly are a holiday punchline. To understand why fruitcake has become such a joke," she says, "you need to put yourself in the shoes of a small child. A fruitcake looks beautiful and scrumptious with its dark chocolatey color and white frosting. But once they take a bit it's full of dried fruits and potent alcohol; two flavors that are bound to spoil a little one's day." 

"Put yourself in the shoes of a small child. A fruitcake looks beautiful and scrumptious with its dark chocolatey color and white frosting. But once they take a bit it's full of dried fruits and potent alcohol."

My own experience of fruitcake tracks with all those disappointments — mass produced confections that looked cool but tasted aggressively awful. And while I usually just limit myself reactions to a simple, "Thanks but no thanks," the feelings these things provoke can be outsized. As Dean Harper, founder at the private chef services brand Harper Fine Dining, notes, "There is a community in America that annually gathers to launch fruitcakes into extinction."

Yet surely fruitcake, with its long, purposeful history and eternal popularity, can't be all bad. Rick Meyer suspects that the cake's harshest critics either have never even tried it, "or they have eaten some form of a fruitcake somewhere that wasn't very good." As with most things, it comes down to how it's made. "It's the citron and the orange peel and the lemon peel and some of those old school preservatives; that's what makes a fruitcake tastes terrible," says Meyer. "And I'm with you. Any fruitcake I've ever tasted that had any of that on there, if you expect it to taste anything other than awful," he chuckles, "you're gonna let yourself down."

Instead, if you're fruitcake curious, try one from a bakery where you know what the ingredients are, and approve of them. Beatrice Baking Co., for instance, offers not just a traditional cake with raisins, cherries and nuts (with no green chunks anywhere) but other versions like pineapple and macadamia. They recommend serving it chilled, so it doesn't crumble. Or make one yourself — there are loads of recipes out there for homemade fruitcake that sound amazing — moist and dense and just the right amount of boozy.

"It's often the strength of the alcohol that makes fruitcake so intense," says Amy hand. "I recommend being stingy with your alcohol and using the minimum required in your recipe. Don't be like Grandma and spill a little extra booze in there for luck." And Kevin Turner suggests experiment with different ingredients. "Use your creativity in making your fruitcake a dessert that everyone enjoys," he says. "I skip the processed candied fruits and opt for high-quality, naturally sweet ingredients. Dried fruits like apricots, dates, and figs add a rich, natural sweetness without the need for excess sugar. I also incorporate fresh fruits like apples or oranges, finely diced for a burst of flavor. This not only enhances the taste but also provides a more vibrant and wholesome sweetness."

And Sunita Yousuf, creator of The Wannabe Cook, warns that "You must soak the dry fruits before mixing them with the batter," adding, "but it can be tricky. Soaking the dry fruits for a few seconds will turn them into colorful stones after baking while over-soaking them will destroy the taste. Soaking the fruits overnight will be enough to get the perfect chewy consistency of the fruits from fruitcakes." She also calls for a restrained approach to fats. "An excess amount of greasing makes the fruitcakes dry — especially on the top part. Over-greasing a pan can cause the crust to practically fry, and if the flour is added, it can burn, leaving the finished fruit cake with a hard, dark crust. The cake's crust gets tougher and drier as it cools, gets stored, or is served."

Once you find or create a fruitcake you love, there's no law that says you have to confine it to one short time of the year — not any more anyway. "The tradition of fruitcakes dates back centuries," says Dean Harper, "though their association with Christmas only became widespread in the Middle Ages. Obscurely enough, England passed some laws that prohibited the use of cake outside of holidays, leading many to treat it as a celebratory treat. On top of that, England saw an emerging tradition of eating the Twelfth Night cake to commemorate the end of the Christmas season. Naturally, this transitioned to the USA during the period of colonialization." We're a free country now, who says we can't enjoy a fruitcake that actually tastes good, all year long? It's just about having an open mind, and the right cake. "I sometimes tell people that marketing a really good fruitcake, it's like reading the book 'Green Eggs and Ham,'" says Rick Meyer. "You don't know what you don't know."

Biden campaign issues statement in response to Trump’s Hitler rhetoric

During a campaign event in New Hampshire on Saturday, Donald Trump made a series of controversial anti-immigrant comments in which he, yet again, quoted Hitler and praised other like-minded dictators. 

In response to this troubling recurring theme, Ammar Moussa, spokesperson for the Biden campaign, issued a statement denouncing Trump's comments, saying he "channeled his role models as he parroted Adolf Hitler, praised Kim Jong Un, and quoted Vladimir Putin while running for president on a promise to rule as a dictator and threaten American democracy."

Going into the cause and effect of Trump's repeated rhetoric of this nature, Moussa furthered that he "is not shying away from his plan to lock up millions of people into detention camps and continues to lie about that time when Joe Biden obliterated him by over 7 million votes three years ago. He is betting he can win this election by scaring and dividing this country. He's wrong. In 2020, Americans chose President Biden's vision of hope and unity over Trump's vision of fear and division — and they'll do the same next November."

In The Guardian's coverage of the comments that set this all off, in which the GOP frontrunner paraphrased Hitler by saying that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country," they call it "dog-whistling," writing, "The former US president’s comments were the latest example of his campaign rhetoric that seemed to go beyond the lies and exaggerations that are a trademark of his stump speeches and instead go into territory of outright extremism or racism."

 

A season of speculation: Impeachment, campaigns and Biden. Oh my!

It’s that time of the year.

In New Hampshire, the temperature is hovering around the freezing mark. The halls are decked with boughs of holly. The lights have been hung with care.

And, of course, it’s because the presidential candidates will be trudging through the underbrush engaged in their usual political folly.

Among them is Dean Phillips, who launched his long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination by saying that he agreed with President Joe Biden, had no plans to undermine him, “demean” or “diminish him”, but wanted to be a younger, mainstream voice that could carry the party into a generational change.

Speculation is wild while the weather is mild.

Politicians are jolly with their favorite holiday folly.

And the national mood is tense with voters sitting on the fence.

But the holiday season has brought about some changes, and it is not just a case of spiking somebody’s eggnog. CNN reported this week that Phillips, “On his largely self-funded swing last week through New Hampshire,” began raising doubts about Biden’s physical capacity and began calling the president “a threat to democracy,” in a series of speeches and attacks that “right-wing media and Donald Trump all feed on.”

Phillips says he has earnestly been shocked by what he says is Biden’s “deluded” threat to democracy by running at the risk of losing. Phillips also apparently said how much he now believes the president is not up to campaigning, while also criticizing “the Democratic establishment he was proud to be a part of,” for working against the people.  

Meanwhile former White House CorrespondentsAssociation President Tamara Keith at NPR wrote that Phillips said, "Voters want choices, especially in a year like this where the risk of losing to Donald Trump is a huge concern to many of us and I think the future of our country." 

And, in an interview with NPR, Phillips went so far as to say that he thinks Biden should drop out if — by May or June — polls show him trailing Trump.

"I don't know why you would run if you are the one who is going to lose, and ruin your whole legacy against the most dangerous man in the world," Phillips said.

At the same time, other members of the Democratic Party have questioned if Biden still has a “fire in his belly” after two statements the president made last week concerning his re-election bid. He said the only reason he was running was because Trump was running, while also noting that there were probably “50 other” Democrats who could defeat Trump.

That set the stage for Dr. Jill Biden’s trip last week to Los Angeles where she discussed new women’s health initiatives at Cedars-Sinai. Dr. Biden, her husband’s greatest defender and promoter wasn’t shy in touting the president’s commitment to women’s health issues.

“When I talked to Joe about this issue a few months ago, he listened. And then he took action. This is what Joe does – he learns about a problem, and then he gets to work tackling it,” she told a crowd of about 150 doctors, and members of the media.

“That’s why, last month, we launched the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research,” she said to smiles and polite applause.

President Biden issued a presidential memorandum asking federal agencies to look at their programs, how they deal with mental health and put doctors and policy makers on notice that they had just 45 days to present their findings to the president.

“On December 28th, the White House will review their recommendations on how to make the policy changes necessary to advance women’s health research,” Dr. Biden explained.

We need your help to stay independent

Why the rush? According to the First Lady, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, who spoke after Dr. Biden, the President is eager to make up for lost time.

Becerra joked that this was “No pressure.” And “The Biden Train is moving out.”

After the ceremony concluded, the First Lady shook hands and met with the assembled guests. As she approached, I asked her candidly if she supported her husband’s re-election bid. She looked at me briefly, then said nothing.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in D.C. politics the Republicans in the House voted this week to open an impeachment inquiry into Biden, mostly based on the business dealings of Hunter Biden. The Republican leadership in the House candidly admit they have nothing to go on, but an election year is coming and Donald Trump needs to raise money on the accusation that Biden and his son are terminally corrupt. 

Even FOX News has called out the Republicans for their supercilious stupidity. Senator Chuck Grassley was right there with FOX. “I have no evidence of it,” Grassley told CNN, just hours before House Republicans were set to vote to formalize the Biden impeachment inquiry. “I’m just going to follow the facts where they are, and the facts haven’t taken me to that point where I can say the president is guilty of anything.” Not a damn thing, but the ball continues to roll.

Some wags in Washington have speculated that the idea behind the worst Congress in our history pushing for impeachment is merely an attempt to drive Biden off the ballot, while most of us capable of cogent thought know it’s also another excuse to be used by Trump to grift his supporters out of more money.

In addition, the president isn’t even on the ballot in New Hampshire. That’s because the Democratic National Committee ordered a shake up of the order of  primaries in 2024. Biden backed the move to have the South Carolina primary first in order to better empower Black and other minority voters deemed “crucial to the party’s base.” New Hampshire balked at that and Biden responded by walking away from New Hampshire  ( although more than 100 Biden supporters want to engage in a write-in campaign.)

This, of course, has led to speculation about Biden “historically snubbing” tradition and further concerns that Biden doesn’t have the energy to conduct a campaign for re-election, due to age, health, perhaps arrogance or a combination of all three. “Lions, and Tigers and Bears, oh my!” One senior Biden official laughed when I asked about the upshot. “The President is committed to doing what’s best for the country.”

Phillips seems intent on embarrassing Biden into pulling out of the race, and opening it up for other, younger candidates. He is among those who contends Biden is not physically capable of a robust campaign and CNN reports that, “With a good poll for Biden these days being one in which he is over 40 percent, Phillips sees himself as like the boy in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” who makes the rest angry by being the only one brave enough to point out problems anyone can see.”


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


For the rest of us, caution should prevail. Reading tea leaves at this point in a race that is only just beginning in earnest is a bit like trying to swim through political quicksand.

Dr. Biden’s Los Angeles trip is interesting because the sense of urgency on that issue is unusual from a president in his first term – who usually worries more about getting re-elected than taking care of policy. It has sparked some speculation that Biden’s urgency is because he likely won’t end up running again.

“The fact that the First Lady didn’t answer your question speaks volumes,” I was told by a leading Democrat. Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps the President and the First Lady will spend the holiday season discussing the future of the Biden candidacy and administration. Maybe not. Plenty of people think California Governor Gavin Newsom is waiting in the wings to jump in the race – which is why he recently went to China and debated Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on FOX television.

Some called Newsom’s trip to China in October “hypocrisy” while others said it “helped thaw” relations with the United States. Immediately prior to visiting China he also visited Israel, drawing similar criticisms.

Trump supporters, at least those who continue to labor for Trump for pay and under the delusion that Trump is a “senior statesman with impeccable credentials,” say Newsom’s travels are a clear indication that Biden is failing and the Democrats need new blood. Privately, many of them fear that infusion of new blood. Trump has been running against Biden for nearly five years – even though he’s confused him for Obama on occasion. To pivot now could mean the end of Trump, the ascendency of Newsom and may signal an end to Biden’s re-election.

Then again, it could mean none of those things. It’s just as likely to mean nothing. The president, so far, has been adamant about staying in the race, and even though The First Lady avoided the question, what that means is merely idle speculation until she speaks on the subject anew.

Yes. It’s that most wonderful time of the year.

Speculation is wild while the weather is mild.

Politicians are jolly with their favorite holiday folly.

And the national mood is tense with voters sitting on the fence.

The facts are clear, however. Donald Trump is running for office because it is his best chance to stay out of prison. He gave up defending himself in his New York civil trial for fraud. His former lieutenants continue to get ground under the bus, and as much as he screams, the long arm of the law is reaching out with a death grip for Trump’s corrupt activities.

The facts also show that Biden continues to poll poorly – particularly in swing states. He has accomplished great things in his time as president, and the First Lady and Secretary Becerra both spoke within the last week about his efforts which have come with great alacrity.

Soon, if he is to stay in the race, Biden must show that type of energy in what is sure to be a historic and grueling campaign. 

America needs and demands it.

“This insatiable thing in us”: Tegan and Sara reflect on their drive and making music in their 40s

Tegan and Sara Quin have built their career on a foundation of vulnerability, between their music and things like their memoir, “High School.” In the new Audible Original “Under My Control,” the twin sisters get even more personal about their life and music, delving into the pivotal moments that have shaped them through deep conversations with journalist Laura Snapes.

“Under My Control,” which is the latest volume in Audible’s “Words + Music” series, also features eight new recordings of songs from the band’s catalog, including “Where Does the Good Go,” “Walking with a Ghost” and “Back in Your Head.” 

On a recent afternoon, Tegan and Sara hopped on Zoom to discuss “Under My Control.”

What stories were most important for you to tell in “Under My Control”?

Tegan Quin: We spent quite a bit of prep time with [journalist] Laura Snapes talking through the beats we wanted to hit. We had a pretty good idea of what music we were going to rework and record, so obviously we use those as tentpoles. 

But we've done a lot of retrospectives. There was a book that came out that looks at our entire career, but more through a critical music lens and talks more about our place in the industry. [And we had] “High School,” the memoir, we covered that. 

Leading into this project, we tried to fill in the gaps. We still wanted to tell the story of our career for this project and not miss anything, especially [because we were] hoping that new people will listen and people who haven't necessarily indulged in all these other projects. But we definitely wanted to cover new ground. 

I think because we had the luxury of time and so many hours and hours and hours and hours over multiple days with Laura, we were able to cover stuff that we wouldn't in a traditional interview setting.

It did end up feeling very conversational and, for us, we wanted it to feel like a really heartfelt look at our career. Weaving together with the music, we wanted it to feel like you could really walk away with a deep understanding of what the last 25 years looked like for us.

Sara Quin: It was really important for us to work with somebody on this project who also was really familiar with our band [and] wasn't a completely new person, but who also had some objective distance from us. She's written both positively and critically about our band over the years. I would say I think she's more a fan than not a fan. But it was really important to us that we work with someone who could push us and who we would feel comfortable being pushed by to talk about these things, hopefully with more texture than we have before publicly.

Between doing this Audible Original and then “High School,” what have been the most surprising or gratifying things that you've discovered — or uncovered — about yourself?

"The most miserable parts of our career were where we were most popular."

Tegan Quin: Well, I can say for myself, I just feel like we’ve always…we joke about it, but it's not untrue. But we're unwell. We're just constantly going and going and going. We're like, “Another tour, another tour, longer, a book now, this thing, that thing. Another record.” We just went so hard for so long that when in 2018 we stopped everything and started writing the book, it was possibly the first time we'd sat with our career up to that point. Which technically in 2018 was 20 years since we'd graduated high school. 

It was the first time we'd been reflective on the beginning part of our career, on coming out — in a more expansive way than just spending 10 minutes talking to a journalist about our coming out experience or something. Just sit for a year and write hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages about why we started playing music and who we are and our relationship as siblings and what it was like to come out and what it was like to start our career.

That was truly the first time we'd done that. That work meant we did a lot of work internally in our relationship, in our band, in our work relationships. It really got the ball going the last couple of years to be more reflective on all areas of our career, on all areas of our life. 

I won't go so far as to say that working on the memoir inspired us to move back to Canada and [inspired things like] Sara [having] a baby and [us begging] to be released from our major label contract. 

But it did light the flame of: Can we take control back? Can we have control over our life? Can we stop this? This insatiable thing in us, but also this thing around us that's constantly, “Go, go, go, go, go. Come on, come on, come on, come on! More, more, more! Post, post, post! You can do it. You can do it. Let's try to sell it out.” 

When I say that my cortisol levels and my adrenal glands are f**ked, I really mean it. It was constant. I just believe we hit a point in our career a few years ago where we were like, can we get control of this? Can we stop all of this? Can we produce music and be creative? And keep working, but in a way that allows us to have a different kind of life. 

I think these projects — starting with “High School and then [the graphic novel] “Junior High” and now “Under My Control,” but also the TV show — even just the press we choose to do, the podcasts we appear on, the way we write on social media — it has all been a concerted effort to try and voice what it's like to be in our band. What it's been like to be in our band for the last 25 years.

To say the things that were really scary to say. To casually mention in press: Yes, it was very troubling and hard to be in our band at first because the misogyny and sexism and homophobia that was in our press was laughed about and just written off. “Oh, don't worry about it” and “Who cares?” and “Just keep going.” There was so much that we never processed properly, so to take this time through these projects to tell our story has been so rewarding and fulfilling.

But even more so, which I did not think about, was how rewarding and fulfilling it is for other people who come to us. Musicians, other queer people who've come to us and been like, "Oh my God, thank you for saying what happened to you. Thank you for telling your story. Thanks for sharing your experience. I relate to it." You're like, oh my God. Then that becomes very addictive too, where you're like, “Let's do it more! Let's tell more stories!”

But I think this project specifically with “Under My Control,” this is super important to us to put in our own words what we are, who we are, why we are, and to timestamp that, this is a very important time in our life. 

We've technically entered the second part of our life. We are in the second half. We're middle-aged. It's wild. I think to tell our story now as opposed to waiting until we retire, I think it's important. We're going to process it again and we're going to see it differently probably in a decade or two. But right now with this perspective — COVID, taking time off the road, leaving a major label, Sara having a kid, moving back to Canada, making a concerted effort to slow down. This felt like the right time to zoom out and tell the story.

Tegan & Sara "Under My Control"Tegan & Sara "Under My Control" (Courtesy of Audible)

There's so much risk as a musician, especially now, to say, “I need to slow down and go out of the spotlight.” Because you're like, are people going to forget me? There's that pressure. It's such a hard balance, but then you're like, “Wait, I have to take care of myself so in 20 years I can still be there.” I feel like that's a microcosm of what so many people have to realize when they hit their 40s.

Tegan Quin: You are resistant. I want to resist it of course. I want to be like, “No, no, no, no, we're not being cliché.” For me it happened a year or two ago where I was like, “Let's lean into legacy.” I don't want to be 25. The most miserable parts of our career were where we were most popular. We didn't like it. I didn't like being on TV. I don't like going to radio stations. I don't want to play arenas. Why can't we be honest? Why can't we look at each other, first and foremost, then our team and then the world and be honest about why we are the artists that we are?

"Music is the most precious and most intimate of the art forms that we dabble in."

Again, can we get control of that narrative? Because the narrative for a long time was like, pop. It was us saying, “Why can't we be in the pop mainstream? We're queer and there's no one there. Why can't we? We want bigger. We want better. How come we can't want more? Women aren't allowed to want more. We want more.” We did that for so long and then all of a sudden I was like, "Excuse me, excuse me, sorry, sorry, sorry. We want less. Is there any way we could have less? Can we do less? Can we back up? Can we stop?" That's hard. But it is cliché in a way. But it's a rite of passage to get to this part of life and say, “I want different things.”

We need your help to stay independent

How have you found that reaching this point has influenced the songs you're writing and the way you're approaching writing going forward?

Sara Quin: I've always had periods of time where I don't write very much. I am not currently writing very much music or at all. I make little instrumentals where I put things down, but I haven't sat down to write songs in a long time, which is not new. Throughout my life, I've had periods like this. But I've never before felt so cognizant of . . . I don't know if I have anything to write about right now. Before when I wouldn't be able to write, I would say, “Oh, it was because I was busy” or “I was depressed” or “I didn't have time.”

I have lots of time. I probably could sit down and write music. I admit the compulsion to do it has changed. That could be age. That could be because our creative flow is directed in so many other directions right now. It's hard for me to creatively really sit down and write music. Because I'm doing stuff like this or I'm working on other projects or I'm working on a TV thing. I'm doing all this other stuff.

I find that music is the most precious and most intimate of the art forms that we dabble in. I just don't have enough intimate dabbling time, so I just haven't been working on anything. In the past, when you're young, I don't know, it's like the crazy stuff's always happening. You're getting broken up with, you fall in love, you feel everything at a 10 all the time.

There's just this part of me that's like — it's not that I don't feel enough or that I don't have this desire to put my emotion somewhere. But I think this is healthy, but I think I've just found other ways and other places to put my energy. Whereas before, the outlet I needed or the only outlet I had on some level, was music. Now I'm like, I don't know, I can put it somewhere else. It's hard. I can see how as you get older your output slows because there's a different editing process. I don't know — but we'll see.

Tegan Quin: I was going to add to something you said a second ago. But you said it's like music is the most vulnerable of the creative paths that we take — and it's true. I wonder if some of this too, is us still adjusting to a world where music has been cheapened down to, like, it’s worthless. We stream music. Like, it's nothing. It's not a product anymore. Most people don't pay for it. There's just so much music coming at us.

And I don't mean to sound like an old person here, I don't mean it in that way. I love the technology. I love streaming. I love the way it's opened up music. It's made it so that many things can be popular at the same time. It's actually been a gift to us. 

But I just wonder. We used to put everything into making music. Everything. The story and the artwork and the merchandise, the commitment to our fanbase, two-and-a-half-years a cycle touring around the world. We only know that way of making music.

I feel like we're on the high diving board right now. The top board, looking down trying to decide what to jump into next. I think when it comes to music, we're going to have to learn a new way. I don't think that old school way is worth it anymore. I think we did it a little bit with our latest project “Crybaby.” It is an album. It's a coherent album from start to finish. It's made in the way that we want. We produced it, we took control, we left a major label, we own it. We made the music videos. We went out and toured it.

People seemed to really like it, but it's different. It feels different. I wonder if some of our not writing music, it's not so much a block as it is . . . It’s an end. That kind of making of albums in that world, it's over.

“Under My Control” feels like an end to those chapters of our career. I'm very excited. We're going to turn around and look forward any day now and the next thing of the future will come. But when it comes to music, I agree with what you're saying Sara, around it is the most vulnerable and intimate thing we do. And right now, music, it feels like the opposite of that. 

"We've been in a tug of war with ourselves and our audience for many, many, many years over production."

I think we have to figure out how to navigate that. We can't put everything we are into something and then put it out and it's like, “It's over.” Literally the week our album came out, our managers showed up backstage and said, "The record company want to know if you guys want to go in the studio and work on some new music." It was literally like three days after the album came out. I'm not mad at that.

Sara Quin: To be fair. To be fair, the campaigns are so different now.

Tegan Quin: That's the thing is—that I'm not mad at it. It's a whole new way. The whole campaign leading up is the promotion of the album and then the album's out and it's over. It's fine. Like I said, I'm not mad at it. This process of recording “Under My Control” I was like, “Wow, we really have done a lot.” We made 10 albums. That's not including live albums and single releases and collaborations and remixes and co-writes. We've made a lot of music, and it's all been really special.

I think whatever we do next, it has to be really meaningful and it can't be the same approach that we've applied in the past, because it won't work. And that's exciting. 

That, for the first time in a long time, has got me feeling really excited. I feel musically how we do it, what we do, all of it — it'll be really different. It's got to be. This feels very similar to times in our career where we have literally burned everything down to the ground and started again. I feel that's very much what we have to do now.

That's very exciting because you're taking the time to be deliberate about it. You're not just jumping off the high dive just to see, I don't know what's down there. You're being really careful about that. 

Tegan Quin: It's not a panicky state that we're in. We're in a very like, “Wow, this is awesome. We've got a lot.” What do we do next? We're thinking a lot about it.


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


Of the eight new recordings you did, do either of you have a favorite of the ones you redid? When you recorded them, how did you want to approach the songs?

Sara Quin: Well, we didn't overthink it. We wanted to be, I guess more . . . not improvising, but we just were like, “What if we just go in using [a] very simple template?” Like try a little bit of acoustic, try a little bit of keyboard. We wouldn't go overboard thinking about anything. We just would strip it back to the basics. We worked with John Congleton and Luke Reynolds who actually had worked with us on “Crybaby,” so we were really familiar with them.

The song that I was most happy to redo was “My Number.” I think because it's certainly the oldest song . . . and it's weird, it's like muscle memory. It's as if Tegan wrote it yesterday. But then also we haven't played it with any consistency for 20-something years. It was very familiar to go back to, and yet it just felt like, I don't know, it was the easiest. It's just such a beautiful song. I think now to be in our 40s, I think objectively, I can say, what a fantastic song to have written at such a young age.

Tegan wrote that when we were barely out of high school. It’s like, what a spectacular song. As a result of recording it for this project, we played it all summer and fall, we played it live. It just kills every night. We can hold the attention of 800 people or in some cases 10,000 people. It's just a testament to the strength of the lyric and the song. It's definitely, for me, the standout of the piece.

Tegan Quin: Yeah, I'd say that going that far back into our catalog was really exciting and fun. It's nice to remember, “Oh yeah, songs can just be good songs.” I was also really excited to record “Under My Control.” That was my favorite song from “Crybaby.” I liked the idea of including something new. I thought the recording of it was really beautiful, and we kept it really simple. 

I think we've been in a tug of war with ourselves and our audience for many, many, many years over production. Because fans will just tell you, "We just want to hear you guys. We just want it to be acoustic." And you're like, “No, I want to go in the studio and experiment and make wildly different kinds of records.” It's why you can look at “So Jealous” and “Heartthrob” and they're different bands almost. But that's how we keep our fans interested, I think. 

But I do think there's something to be said — Sara and I have this ability to strip it right down and it's us and our voices and the words we say. It is captivating, and it's nice to be reminded of that from time to time. We're still going to probably mess around with lots of different kinds of production. But I think the recording of “Under My Control,” the song, reminded me that first and foremost, Sara and I are storytellers, and our songs are the vehicle to do that. [It’s] important to remember that when we're submitting music for new records.

Listen to the Audible Original "Under My Control" for free now.

Let’s stop funding George Santos’ theatrical dishonesty – he’s not even a good liar

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bulls**t requires no such conviction.” – Harry Frankfurt, author of “On Bulls**t”

“Hey, Julia! I’m here to wish you congratulations on getting your driving test. You’ve proved that even the legally blind can do it. I know that it's a bummer that right after you got the test, and you showed that you weren't a quitter, you got into that little accident. . . . You will rock this as soon as you're out of that body cast because you’re awesome, and Jesus and President Trump will make sure that you're back on the road soon. . . . I want you to never give up on your dreams, because you are not a quitter, Julia, and I love you. Byee!” – George Santos, creator of Cameos

America loves scammers, glamour and shamelessness. America also has a spot softer than a newborn’s fontanelle for shallow nonsense. So when we say we get the impulse to fork hundreds of dollars over to former New York Congressman George Santos so he’ll call your best friend a filthy hooker, we’re not endorsing that choice. It simply indicates we know what kind of market is out there.

So does Santos, a con artist extraordinaire facing a 23-count federal indictment for wire fraud, identity theft and other crimes, which each count linked to some crazy story. He isn’t above ripping off a disabled U.S. Navy veteran or writing bad checks to an Amish man, both over transactions related to dogs.

Criminality is merely a speed bump in our national popularity pageants, especially if the crooks can make corruption look super-duper fun. And Santos certainly has. It takes a certain type of ballsiness to not only improperly use campaign contributions but to spend those funds on shopping, Botox treatments and OnlyFans.

America also has a spot softer than a newborn’s fontanelle for shallow nonsense.

Observing Santos’ flaming burn through his 15 minutes made me revisit philosopher Harry Frankfurt's 1986 essay “On Bulls**t.” He expanded into a book nearly two decades hence, but the original take does a fine job of breaking down what Santos is and why he’s ultimately doomed to disappear. In short, he’s not a skilled liar, made obvious by those charges piled on him. If he were, we’d be more concerned about Santos building a semi-respectable post-government career after this burst of notoriety passes.

That the public is enabling him in at all points to his partial competence as a bulls**t artist. Frankfurt distinguishes between the two thusly:

The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is true. And in order to invent an effective lie, he must design his falsehood under the guidance of that truth. On the other hand, a person who undertakes to bulls**t his way through has much more freedom. His focus is panoramic rather than particular.

. . . This freedom from the constraints to which the liar must submit does not necessarily mean, of course, that his task is easier than the task of the liar. But the mode of creativity upon which it relies is less analytical and less deliberative than that which is mobilized in lying. It is more expansive and independent, with more spacious opportunities for improvisation, color, and imaginative play. This is less a matter of craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the “bulls**t artist.”

From what we’ve seen of Santos' brazen fibs, his artistry is lacking; his embellishing brushwork lacks precision and shadow. Paint-by-numbers is more his speed, proven by his willingness anything to make a fast buck or explain his way out of a situation, making him simpatico with Cameo, the platform through which celebrities sell personalized videos to anyone willing to pay for them.

On a recent episode of CBS New York’s “The Point,” Santos claimed to host Marcia Kramer that in a matter of days, he’s made more money than in $174,000 annual salary. He threw a “that is actually factual” in there so we know he means business. 

According to what Cameo’s founder and CEO, Steven Galanis told Semafor, he may be telling the truth this time. At least this money grab is aboveboard and the exploitation is somewhat mutual.

On recent episodes of his ABC late-night show Jimmy Kimmel revealed that he paid for a "big stockpile" of Santos Cameos under fake names, each request more ridiculous than the last, to fuel a limited-series mid-monologue gag titled “Will Santos Say It?”

Kimmel claimed a curiosity as to whether Santos would follow his instructions verbatim to validate handing money to an alleged fraudster. That's a reason, along with the standard mission to mine for LOLs. But we all know Santos can be bought for the right price. Seeing that proven on TV is more entertaining than hearing about it secondhand.

Kimmel’s fake requests include messages of encouragement for an imaginary Arby’s employee who came out as a furry – a "beav-a-pus," to be more precise – and for a woman who finally cloned her beloved dog Adolf with the help of “Doctor Haunschnaffer.” The roaring reactions to Santos enthusiastically feigning enthusiasm through imbecilic, badly improvised dialogue are purely reflexive. After that first airing, Santos demanded Kimmel pony up $20,000 for his efforts, to which Kimmel replied in his monologue, “Can you imagine if I get sued by George Santos for fraud? Man, how good would that be? It would be like a dream come true.” Then he shared a few more videos.

Kimmel’s exercises at Santos’ expense will get old, but not before he assists in making the sixth congressman to be kicked out in the 234-year history of the House of Representatives temporarily well-off. No lawyer is going to work for him pro bono. Luckily for him, Santos is in high demand, in part because of the free or inexpensive exposure Kimmel and others have provided.

Since joining Cameo, he’s jacked up his rates from $75 a video to $500 for a few seconds of custom-ordered blather.  

His success is not entirely Kimmel’s doing/fault. In the year or so since he sashayed onto the national stage, Santos has styled himself as a theatrical prevaricator and a maximalist, slathering himself with illusionary power like a “Drag Race” contestant layers on cream eyeshadow.

He says all the things he believes his constituents and fellow Republicans want to hear without understanding or caring what the true definitions of terms such as “constitutionalist” mean. Grifters wager on their marks’ ignorance, and in this respect the odds were ever in his favor. The House Republican circus backed him until it was no longer advantageous, throwing him out in the cold.

But like Brer Rabbit hitting the briar patch, Santos has landed in a spotlight that is, for now, warm and inviting. Preceding Kimmel in platforming Santos is Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who funded a Santos Cameo to troll his Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who is currently facing federal bribery and corruption charges and is refusing to vacate his seat.

We need your help to stay independent

The New Yorkers who elected him may not have much love for the guy, but the entertainment world sure does. Santos has filmed an interview with satirical interviewer Ziwe Fumudoh, which she has teased will run on YouTube after initially proposing featuring it on pay-per-view. HBO Films plans to adapt Mark Chiusano’s recently released book about Santos, “The Fabulist,” to be executive produced by Frank Rich (“Succession”) and Mike Makowsky (“Bad Education”), who is writing the screenplay.

Professional comics love him for the same reason they love all bulls**t artists, which is that they’re constantly generating material. In her recent “Amber Says What” segment on “Late Night with Seth Meyers," Amber Ruffin referred to Santos as “her favorite messy diva.” Bowen Yang slayed with a Broadway-style farewell to Santos on a recent “Saturday Night Live.”

“Santos clearly didn’t deliver for his constituents, but he delivered hard for the rest of us,” said “Last Week Tonight” host John Oliver shortly after he was kicked out of Congress. “And I don’t want him to be in my government and I don’t want to sit next to him on an airplane, but I definitely want him in [Bravo producer] Andy Cohen‘s menagerie of damaged human beings.”

By that, Oliver was referring to Cohen’s “Real Housewives” franchise, which has already survived its share of felons and cheaters. Cohen wisely shot down those hopes on his Sirius XM show. “Let me be clear: we don’t want him.”

From what we’ve seen of Santos' brazen fibs, his artistry is lacking; his embellishing brushwork lacks precision and shadow.

Cohen is playing the long game, as should the levelheaded among us, anticipating that this Santos obsession is a fever that will break if it doesn’t kill us. Is there really any danger of that? Not from Santos, maybe. But we should recognize what this success re-confirms about the state of our politics and us, an audience of voters.

These jokes can serve a purpose, understand. Santos, a formerly elected government official, is showing us he’s willing to say or do anything to keep his name in our mouths. That is what politicians do, of course. But he’s also nakedly performing the strategy that may return Donald Trump to power and, more frightfully, keep him there, which is that he follows orders like a champ.  

Pay him enough, and he will do or say anything. On Cameo, that may be gut-busting. If he follows through with his threat to dish on members of Congress on a subscriber-based X channel, what he says will strain credibility. But if the goal is to continue Steve Bannon’s misinformation strategy of “flooding the zone with s**t,” Santos may get somewhere by blending his funhouse with an outhouse.

But his success has so far relied on other people’s ideas. He’d never heard of Cameo until an aide to Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., suggested he open an account.

“Is the bulls**tter by his very nature a mindless slob? Is his product necessarily messy or unrefined?” Frankfurt asked. “The word s**t does, to be sure, suggest this. Excrement is not designed or crafted at all; it is merely emitted, or dumped. It may have a more or less coherent shape, or it may not, but it is in any case certainly not wrought.”

Blithe predictions that Santos will follow in the footsteps of Sean Spicer and Rudy Giuliani and appear on “Dancing with the Stars” and “The Masked Singer” are not off base. He is a few degrees less radioactive than Spicer, who normalized Trump’s lying, or Giuliani, who strategized to subvert democracy. Both were incredibly bad at these endeavors, but still.

Santos’ rise to power is a symptom of that cancer, i.e. the vomit and diarrhea caused by the illness. The good news is that means he's flushable.  

Santos has styled himself as a theatrical prevaricator and a maximalist.

He may be smart enough to steal puppies but he probably lacks the intelligence to headline an interview program on Newsmax. He might end up co-starring in one of The Daily Wire’s throwaway movies. This explosion of Santos' media saturation is filling his coffers in the short run. It’s the holidays, and there are plenty of folks out there who may consider a short video from him to be a delightful gag gift.

Once that passes like a bad cold, it’s time for TV and the public to stop enabling him and let nature take its course, sending Santos slithering back the state he fears most — obscurity.

The US Army’s World War II warning comes back to haunt us

The fascist tide is rising in America and around the world. Many Americans are drowning in it.

Donald Trump leads President Biden in the early 2024 polls. The Republican fascists are poised to impeach Biden for non-existent “high crimes” as a way of distracting the American people and delegitimating any future attempts to hold a president accountable for their real crimes against democracy and the rule of law. As shown by public opinion polls and other measures, there is a growing sense and almost palpable feeling of dread and despair, that something is fundamentally broken in American society and culture. Moreover, the country is on the precipice of a repeat of 2016 when the professional smart people and pundits in the news media and political class said it would be impossible for Trump to become president because of “the character” of the American people and “the institutions” and “the system” – and then it happened, and these same people were on the TV news that night, slack-jawed and shocked at how very wrong there were.

Unfortunately, the news media and other elites did not learn from their many mistakes in 2016, which they continued throughout Trump’s presidency. Except now, matters are even more dire and serious as Trump has announced his plans to be a dictator and that he has been chosen by “god” and “Jesus” to be the next “president.”  

The answers and what to do about the American and global democracy crisis are readily available and apparent.

For those of us who have been sounding the alarm throughout the Trumpocene about the rising fascist tide and national emergency, this is all very exhausting. We have not been listened to. We have encountered great resistance from those whom we have been trying to help, yet we persist. In so many ways it feels like we the alarm-sounders and other pro-democracy voices are lifeguards who are trying to save a drowning person. Such moments are very dangerous for the lifeguard because the drowning person, irrational and possessed by panic, may doom them both.

There is less than one year left to stop the Trumpists and other neofascists and that may be enough time – but only if we use that time now and smartly to organize and counterattack with a clear strategy for victory in the long term. Pro-democracy Americans must also refuse the temptation, born out of desperation for some type of win in these dark times, to confuse limited tactical victories on the state and local level with strategic victories on the national level (defeating Trump and then rolling back the Republican Party and “conservative” movement and the related institutions and donors that have been working for decades to end multiracial pluralistic democracy). Both types of victories will be necessary, but we cannot confuse the two with being the same or somehow equivalent.

In addition, one of the most important lessons to internalize in this time of democracy crisis is that the myth of American exceptionalism will not save us. Instead, pro-democracy Americans must learn from other countries, places, peoples, and times about how to resist and defeat fascism and authoritarianism and similar political formations.

As I try to do that hard work of making sense of the Trumpocene and how best to escape it, I have been rereading Sinclair Lewis’s classic book “It Can’t Happen Here” about an America taken over by fascism-fake populism in the 1930s. I underlined the following passages decades ago, when the Age of Trump would have been viewed by many as some type of bad speculative fiction instead of a reasonable prediction about the future:

“Under a tyranny, most friends are a liability. One quarter of them turn “reasonable” and become your enemies, one quarter are afraid to stop and speak, and one quarter are killed and you die with them. But the blessed final quarter keep you alive.”

“Why are you so afraid of the word ‘Fascism,’ Doremus? Just a word—just a word! And might not be so bad, with all the lazy bums we got panhandling relief nowadays, and living on my income tax and yours—not so worse to have a real Strong Man, like Hitler or Mussolini—like Napoleon or Bismarck in the good old days—and have ‘em really run the country and make it efficient and prosperous again. ‘Nother words, have a doctor who won’t take any back-chat, but really boss the patient and make him get well whether he likes it or not!”

“Why, America’s the only free nation on earth. Besides! Country’s too big for a revolution. No, no! Couldn’t happen here!”

“A country that tolerates evil means- evil manners, standards of ethics-for a generation, will be so poisoned that it never will have any good end.”

I have also begun reading Paul Lynch’s 2023 Booker Prize-winning novel “Prophet Song," which is a mediation on life in a dystopian near future society, “The Republic of Ireland”, that has been taken over by totalitarianism.

The Guardian profiled Lynch here:

Lynch has called the novel an “experiment in radical empathy” – and it is impossible to read the scenes of a city under siege, shelling and walls plastered with photographs of missing loved ones, without thinking of the conflict zones in the world right now. Not to mention the refugee crisis and the rise of the far right. Just last week, Dublin was shocked by anti-immigration riots. “To see this now is a wake-up call,” says Lynch. “The far right is here. It’s small, but it’s here.”

Back in 2018, though, the situation in Syria was very much on Lynch’s mind – in particular the tragedy of Alan Kurdi, the Syrian toddler found washed up on a Turkish beach. “The question I asked myself was, ‘Why don’t I feel this more than I should?’ I started to think about how I’m desensitised by the news. Even now, watching TV, we’re starting to switch off from the Middle East in the same way we switched off from Ukraine. It’s inevitable. If we were to truly take on the enormity of the world and its horrors, we would not be able to get out of bed in the morning.”…

He also wanted to show that the idea of the end of world reoccurs throughout history. “This idea of the armageddon is actually a fantasy; the idea that the world is going to end in some sudden event in your lifetime. But the world is always ending over and over again. It comes to your town, and it knocks on your door.”

I have also been watching movies and films to help myself make sense of the growing dread and despair in the collective mood.

We need your help to stay independent

Joshua Oppenheimer’s 2012 documentary The Act of Killing about the death squads in Indonesia during the 1960s is a chilling depiction of casual violence and human loss – and grief and trauma. Given Donald Trump and the American neofascists’ Hitlerian rhetoric and embrace of eliminationist and other mass violence, The Act of Killing seems less foreign every time I watch it.

In these challenging times, it is also important to reaffirm our life energy.

Hayao Miyazaki’s new film The Boy and the Heron has been a source of such positive energy for me, and I am sure many others. The Boy and the Heron is one of the best films in recent memory and an almost transcendent spiritual experience for those who allow themselves to fully surrender to it, undistracted, viewing deeply and not superficially. That skill and practice is increasingly lost in an age of empty “content” and utterly disposable (and ephemeral, quite literally) digital mass culture. In many ways, the same bad habits and broken thinking that interfere with a person's ability to properly appreciate a great film or other art have also enabled the rise of fascism, authoritarianism, and illiberalism more broadly. (Re)watching They Live, Robocop, Rollerball, Peckinpah's The Killer Elite, Michael Mann's film Thief, Blue Collar, Unforgiven, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Living, Ikiru, The Apostle, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and The Next Generation, Babylon 5, Sanford and Son, and rereading Brian K. Vaughan's "Saga" and Joe Lansdale's Hap and Leonard novels have also been helping to fuel my hope tank.

We can get fuel from many sources. What ultimately matters is that you and we are recharged for the long struggle ahead.

As I continue to search for guideposts to escape the Trumpocene, and to learn deeper lessons about this crisis and what to do about it, I'm reminded of how during the Second World War the United States government actively took on the responsibility of educating military personnel (and the general public) about the dangers of fascism and other forms of authoritarianism. My adopted uncle, who, like my father, was a World War II combat veteran, would tell me about such flyers, handouts, movies, and meetings. My uncle (who was a captain) also had stories about how there were a few men under his command who were “dumb” and “gullible” and that he believed could be “duped” by Hitlerism or “Stalin and the Reds.”

One such attempt to educate military servicepeople about the perils of fascism was “Fact Sheet #64: Fascism!”, which was published in March of 1945. In an essay at History News Network, historian Alan Singer provides these details:

Discussion leaders were alerted “Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze; nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism, in order to combat it.”…

Four key points were addressed in the Army fact sheet to be included in discussions.

(1) Fascism is more apt to come to power at a time of economic crisis;

(2) Fascism inevitably leads to war;

(3) It can come to any country;

(4) We can best combat it by making our democracy work.

The fact sheet described findings by war correspondent Cecil Brown who toured the United States after leaving Europe. Brown discovered that most Americans he talked with were “vague about just what fascism really means. He found few Americans who were confident they would recognize a fascist if they saw one.” The War Department was concerned that ignorance about fascism could make it possible for it to emerge in the United States and issued recommendations for how to prevent it.

Singer continues:

The War Department acknowledged that the United States had:

native fascists who say that they are ‘100 percent American’ . . . [A]t various times and places in our history, we have had sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilantism, terror, and suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which experience has shown can be properly identified as ‘fascist’….

An American fascist seeking power would not proclaim that he is a fascist. Fascism always camouflages its plans and purposes . . . Any fascist attempt to gain power in America would not use the exact Hitler pattern. It would work under the guise of ‘super-patriotism’ and ‘super-American- ism’….

[I]t is vitally important to learn to spot them [the fascists], even though they adopt names and slogans with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag, and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democracy they are trying to destroy . . . In its bid for power, it is ready to drive wedges that will disunite the people and weaken the nation. It supplies the scapegoat — Catholics, Jews, Negroes, labor unions, big business — any group upon which the insecure and unemployed are willing to blame.

They become frightened, angry, desperate, confused. Many, in their misery, seek to find somebody to blame . . . The resentment may be directed against minorities — especially if undemocratic organizations with power and money can direct our emotions and thinking along these lines.

This warning from almost eight decades ago is an eerily accurate description of Trump's  MAGA movement. The answers and what to do about the American and global democracy crisis are readily available and apparent.

I am far from certain that the American people will make the correct choice by reelecting President Biden and thus securing more time to rehabilitate and save their democracy. In fact, I am increasingly sure there are enough Americans, the people my uncle warned me about those years ago, who will not. But premature surrender is not an option. We, the pro-democracy Americans and other people of conscience, must do the hard work necessary in the time remaining to prevent such an outcome — even if those we are trying to help and save may end up drowning us along with them.

Shocking verdict against Rudy Giuliani serves as a warning shot for Donald Trump

On Friday, a jury in Washington, D.C., spoke for fairness,  the rule of law and everyone who is ready to stand up to the cruelty and deception of the MAGA crew. 

After a weeklong trial, the jury ruled that Rudy Giuliani has to pay up. The former mayor of New York now owes $148 million for the damage his lies caused two Georgia women, Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shaye Moss. In the weeks after the 2020 election, he had widely broadcast false accusations that the two election workers had stolen ballots under the table in Atlanta’s election center and changed them from Trump votes to Biden votes. 

No, Rudy Giuliani can’t pay anything close to a $148 million judgment. That isn’t the point. 

Juries have long been thought of as the conscience of the community, and the jury in the Giuliani case sent a powerful message to two courageous women, to America and to Trump. The Giuliani jury did its civic duty just like Freeman and Moss had done theirs. 

Before saying more about the significance of what it did, let’s recall the background. In making his defamatory accusations of election theft against the two women, Giuliani said they engaged in “surreptitious illegal activity and acting suspiciously, like drug dealers passing out dope.” That dog whistle was loud enough to be heard by every white supremacist in the country.

It was part of a whole Trump campaign media barrage unleashing MAGA supporters against two powerless people. Giuliani and company stirred up a frenzy to try to intimidate them and anyone else who would stand in their way. They treated Freeman and Moss’s lives like trash destined for landfill. 

The damage was swift. Racist threats to their lives chased mother and daughter from their homes, their work and any semblance of a peaceful life.

As Freeman told the House Jan. 6 select committee in June 2022, “There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere.”

Moss testified that she received “a lot of threats, wishing death upon me … I’ve gained about 60 pounds. … I don’t want to go anywhere. I second-guess everything that I do. It’s affected my life in … every way. All because of lies. For me doing my job.”

Trump himself even called out Freeman in his infamous Jan. 2, 2021, phone call with Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state. The then-president described the election worker  as “a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler.” More dog whistling.

Holding onto power was all that mattered. Collateral human damage be damned.

But even with their lives upended and with more to come, two women of immeasurable bravery did not back down. They defied the cruelty that has long been a hallmark of Trump and his minions to pursue justice. 

They brought court actions saying, in effect, We will not surrender our right to a home, to safety and to privacy without a fight. We will not leave self-interested cruelty unanswered in the hope that it might relent without resistance. 


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


That’s raising one’s voice instead of a white flag. Freeman and Moss acted like what psychologist Catherine Sanderson calls “moral rebels” — people “who have the courage to stand up and say that something is wrong even though it will cost them.”

There’s a lesson here for everyone. 

On Friday, the jury in Washington heard Freeman and Moss’ call for justice. Jurors, by their verdict, told them, “You are not alone.” This courthouse, their judgment, said loud and clear that this is where accountability for Trumpist bullies like Giuliani will be delivered. 

The jury threw not just the book at him, but the entire library, including the shelves and the card catalog: awards of $16-plus million to each woman for the damage Giuliani had caused their reputations, $20 million to each for emotional distress, and $75 million in punitive damages. 

Those numbers say it all: The verdict was more about punishing Giuliani than about compensating his victims. As law professor David Owen explains: “Punitive damages serve a strong educative function…. [P]unitive damages proclaim the importance that the law attaches to the plaintiff's particular invaded right, and the corresponding condemnation that society attaches to its flagrant invasion by the kind of conduct engaged in by the defendant."

Here, the punishment warns others: “Don’t try what Rudy did.” 

As Moss told the nation after the verdict: "Our greatest wish is that no one, no election worker or voter or school board member ever experience anything like what we went through. You are all important."

The essence of Trumpism is projecting domination of the powerless by the powerful. We’ve seen it in Trump for years.  

We witnessed it early in 2015 when Trump, on video, mocked a disabled reporter by flailing his arms in spastic motions and moaning. 

Remember in 2016 when Trump told his MAGA campaign rally crowd to “knock the crap” out of protesters?

Just this May, a New York jury found him liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll in a department dressing room in the mid-1990s. That’s projecting domination in the most vicious way. Fortunately, 25 years after the assault, Carroll used her voice and the courts to restore her own power.

In September, there was Trump’s unforgettable social media threat, plainly aimed at witnesses, prosecutors and judges: “If you go after me, I am coming after you.” Just this month, that statement was central — repeated twice — in a higher court opinion sustaining a gag order against Trump.

As those last two examples and Friday’s verdict show, the rule of law offers the best answer to those who seek to exercise unconstrained power over others. In a law-bound society, courts apply the same standards to powerful people like Giuliani as they apply to those without resources or influence. No one is above those standards or beyond the reach of law’s ability to defy bullies.

Consider that foundational principle and appreciate what bad news the verdict is for Donald Trump. He faces a 2024 trial before another D.C. jury on his indictment for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. No wonder he hides from accountability by seeking to delay it.

Cardinal de Richelieu, chief minister to French King Louis XIII in the 17th century, said that “[n]othing so upholds the laws, as the punishment of persons whose rank is as great as their crime.” 

In the civil law context, we’ve just seen that truth in action. May we see it again in the months again, applied to the man accused of the greatest crimes against the country in its history. 

Trump recirculates Hitler rhetoric at campaign event in New Hampshire

During his speech at a campaign event held at the Whittemore Center Arena in Durham, New Hampshire on Saturday, Donald Trump did a repeat performance of only slightly paraphrased Hitler rhetoric which garnered backlash when he first debuted the material back in October.

Speaking to a crowd of MAGA supporters, Trump said, "We got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country," which MTN points out is a near direct quote to a line in Hitler's Mein Kampf: "All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning."

"They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world," Trump said this weekend. "Not just in South America. Not just the three or four countries we think about. But all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia. All over the world. They're pouring into our country. Nobody's even looking at them, they just come in." 

Hearing this type of thing come up more and more at Trump's events, Jonathan Stanley, a Yale professor and author of a book on fascism points out the dangers of such language in a quote used by Reuters, saying, "He is now employing this vocabulary in repetition in rallies. Repeating dangerous speech increases its normalization and the practices it recommends. This is very concerning talk for the safety of immigrants in the U.S."

 

 

Hospitals may have to ration care if COVID and flu surge continues, CDC warns

Against a surge of respiratory illnesses, including flu, RSV and COVID-19, on Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned hospitals might be forced to triage care if hospitalizations continue to rise. In some parts of the country, the CDC stated, pediatric hospitals are already nearly as full as they were this time last year. If these trends continue, the situation will likely strain emergency departments and hospitals.

“Strain on the healthcare system could mean that patients with other serious health conditions may face delays in receiving care,” the CDC warned, emphasizing that the “peak” of respiratory illness activity has yet to come. This comes one week after CDC director Mandy Cohen released a video about how to take precautions this winter, including masking, as the Pirola clan outpaces previously dominant COVID-19 variants.

The CDC urged all Americans to get vaccinated against COVID-19, influenza and RSV for those over the age of 60. “If more Americans are protected against severe respiratory illnesses, we will likely see fewer hospitalizations,” the CDC stated. “Lives can be saved.”

 

Alex Jones proposes a payment plan to make good on Sandy Hook judgment

After being hit with nearly $1.5 billion in legal judgments last year for negatively impacting the lives of the Sandy Hook shooting victims' families by claiming that the tragedy was a hoax, Alex Jones hasn't really been reaching for his checkbook to make good on those payments. In fact, as recent as September of this year, Christopher Mattei, a Connecticut lawyer for the families, said that they'd yet to receive a dime. 

On Friday, Jones made his first real step towards fulfilling his obligation in this matter after hiding behind claims of bankruptcy for months. According to The Guardian, the Infowars conspiracy theorist submitted a 30-page payment plan, offering to pay a lump sum of at least $5.5m a year, to be shared among the plaintiffs. Per their reporting, "the payment would also be accompanied by a percentage of his personal annual revenue, and a slice of Infowars revenue," effectively satisfying his debt after 10 years.

“This is the first time that Alex Jones has revealed any sort of plan to pay the families back for the harm he caused them,” said Avi Moshenberg, a lawyer for family members who sued Jones in Texas.

Bath and body perks: Here’s why you should bathe with your friends this winter

“So, where do young people here go to hang out?” someone had asked from the back of the van. We hadn’t even seen a sheep, let alone another car, for miles. “The baths,” our guide had shrugged. This was Iceland, after all, where bathing is a local pastime and a tourist pursuit. But the power of a good soak in a communal setting has a near universal appeal. And as the days grow colder and the nights get longer, it’s a good time to ask yourself, when was the last time you got into some hot water with your friends?

In Iceland in November, even as earthquakes and volcano warnings kept our group from seeing the Blue Lagoon, my friends and I still managed to enjoy the country’s geothermal bounty. At the Hvammsvik Hot Springs, we alternated between plunging in to the icy waters of the fjord (I shrieked) and luxuriating in a series of increasingly warm baths. At another lagoon, we bobbed in among other groups of friends, many of whom were happily drinking beers and taking selfies. In both places, I felt a different kind of closeness with our group, a buoyancy that was as emotional as it was physical. 

There's something about hanging out in water, preferably while getting in a good sweat, that makes the body and soul go "Ahhhhhhh." And when you do it with friends, the benefits are even greater. We've have been doing it for thousands of years — just ask the Romans. And in plenty of cultures around the world, from Finland to Japan to Turkey, it remains a popular social experience. 

"The shared experience of sweating it out in the heat fosters camaraderie and relaxation, enhancing overall well-being."

Why does bathing make us feel so happy? Jeanne Cross, a licensed therapist and owner of EMDR Center of Denver, says that some of the magic is in the water itself.

"Immersing in hot springs and public baths not only provides physical relaxation but also yields mental health benefits, influenced in part by physiological responses," she says. "The warm, mineral-rich waters induce a sense of calm by promoting the release of neurotransmitters like dopamine. This natural chemical contributes to feelings of pleasure and reward, playing a crucial role in mood regulation."

That's why those first few steps into a warm pool can make you feel an almost immediate unwinding. Additionally, Cross notes, "The combination of buoyancy and heat not only soothes muscles but also enhances blood circulation, facilitating the delivery of oxygen to the brain." 

A 2018 paper from Japan in the journal Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine on the "Physical and Mental Effects of Bathing" seems to back that up, with subjects who bathed in warm water reporting "significantly better general health, mental health, role emotional, and social functioning scores." And while the benefits of throwing some cold into the mix are widely reputed but not as well proven, there is some evidence that, as UCLA Health reports, "cold water can stimulate the blood cells that fight off infection," keeping you healthier this winter.

Another key component of bathing is the company you keep. Adam Zagha, a mental health and addiction treatment specialist and the owner of Numa Recovery Centers in Los Angeles, recalls his own experience visiting a traditional Russian bathhouse (banya). "In addition to the health benefits of the heat and steam," he says, "the banya provided a unique opportunity for socializing. It was a space where people could come together, engage in meaningful conversations and strengthen friendships. The shared experience of sweating it out in the heat fosters camaraderie and relaxation, enhancing overall well-being."

We need your help to stay independent

There are other, subtler benefits as well. A few weeks after my adventure in Iceland, I had an equally blissful but altogether different experience at a Japanese springs in San Francisco. There, on one of the female communal bath days, I spent an afternoon slipping between the hot pool, cold pool, steam room and sauna in a low-lit, intentionally quiet environment. Some of the women wore bathing suits; most did not. There were no phones to check, no chatter, just a tranquil space for people of different shapes, sizes and ages to be still for a little while. It felt social in a different way, an opportunity for shared mindfulness. It was also a welcome reality check. 

"Spending more time nude with our friends helps to de-center the body as exclusively erotic."

"As a pleasure positive therapist, I talk to my patients about the relationships they have with their bodies often," says Sarah Chotkowski, a licensed clinical social worker in private practice. "What I hear is a steady litany of complaints about the reality of their own body, framed in the context of an imaginary ideal. When we spend time with real people, partially or wholly undressed, we see bodies with a variety of shapes and sizes, which can help us practice body neutrality."

It's not necessary to "like" or even "love" our appearance, Chotkowski says, but "we can find peace if we accept our bodies exactly as they are. Everyone deserves to enjoy activities like hot springs, bathhouses and saunas with abandon, regardless of what their body looks like."

She adds, "I think spending more time nude with our friends helps to de-center the body as exclusively erotic, a landscape which can be challenging for so many of us."


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


Ultimately, what makes the bathing experience so therapeutic is how it all comes together. Sarah Jeffries, a mental health first aid trainer and the founder of Basic Life Support Training in the U.K., notes, "From a mental health perspective, these activities resonate as therapeutic balms: They fuse relaxation with social interaction."

She adds, "Sharing a judgment-free space engenders acceptance and solidarity among individuals; indeed, warm water and steam often serve as catalysts for open dialogue and storytelling."

In the warmer months, it's easy to find an excuse to jump in a lake or a pool or the ocean with friends. But there's a different kind of bonding that's possible when warm water meets cold weather. "In societies that value collectivism, such as in Iceland and Japan, these baths are not mere places for relaxation but also for building social connections," says Jabe Brown of Melbourne Functional Medicine. "During the darker, colder months, communal baths offer a warm refuge that counters social isolation, which is particularly beneficial for mental health."

Of course, bathing culture today, like everything else, is colored by COVID. As cases rise yet again throughout the colder months, it's crucial to use common sense by following the facility's policies and not going out if we don't feel well.

"Embracing these practices safely in contemporary times involves adhering to hygiene standards and respecting personal space to prevent the spread of diseases," Brown advises, as a way to "ensure that these traditions continue to be a source of health and happiness, rather than a health hazard." Similarly, it's important to listen to your body — stay hydrated and avoid overheating. 

It's taken me two trips to two places thousands of miles apart to appreciate how healing and grounding it is to just sit still and be present in my own body, among other people. That's why I'm going to a local bath house this weekend for a reset that only warm water seems to provide. As Zagha puts it, "Especially during the winter months, baths can be a valuable tool in combating the dark and cold weather. So, why not embrace the tradition of sweating it out among friends and reap the benefits this season?"

Why making maklouba can be a powerful gesture of solidarity when the world feels upside down

A picture of it got my attention. But it was the challenge posed by "the upside down" that hooked me.

Early in 2022's holiday season a locally owned grocery store, the Metropolitan Market in Seattle, sent out an email teasing its specials on holiday pears and charcuterie platters, along with a few recipe suggestions for holiday gatherings. Amid photographs of the usual suspects sat a gorgeously layered sight featuring golden rice, lamb and a ruby red tomato lid.

That was my initial introduction to maklouba, described in the newsletter as a Middle Eastern dish and a "showstopper" for intimate gatherings with loved ones. Maklouba is nicknamed "the upside down" due to the top layer going into a pot first before covering it with the fillings of your choice. The recipe I use calls for potatoes and eggplant to be added in an even layer next, then spiced lamb, then the rice layer. From there it's covered and simmered without stirring for about 40 minutes, with one peek to gently move the rice grains from the outside rim to the inside.

Once the cooking finishes comes the make or break of the dish, style-wise, in that you invert the pot and gently let the whole thing slide onto a very large plate or a platter, producing a savory casserole resembling a layer cake. 

Between the look of it and the spices required — turmeric, allspice, cloves, cardamom and cinnamon — how could I not try it? "Don’t be intimidated by the number of steps — it’s actually pretty easy and well worth the effort," the recipe's intro assured me.

Appropriation is so prevalent in our cuisine that we rarely think about it.

By some miracle, my first effort emerged from my enameled dish with its shape immaculately retained, strata recognizably separate. My husband, already seduced by the aromatics, took photos before we dug in. And one does dig into a maklouba since the layers tend to collapse into a heap as you plate it. Cooking the spices into the meat gives it a delicious earthiness, balanced by the soft mouthfeel of roasted cubes of eggplant and potato.

The rice layer soaks up the juices from the meat and tomato, grabbing a pleasing yellow color from both the fruit at the bottom (and the top, eventually) and the turmeric. A feast of many colors originating from one pot.

I've made the dish many times since, sometimes when my spouse and I have had a tough week; it's outstanding comfort food and yields plenty of leftovers. Over the summer I impressed the Jordanian proprietor of a Midwestern spice and gift shop when, upon encountering his ready-made spice mix for maklouba, I asked for several ounces. 

"You know what this is?" he said with a pleased note of shock. "You make 'the upside down'?" Yes, I assured him. He smiled, amazed that a non-Middle Eastern customer knew about what he described as a "very Middle Eastern dish."

But only when I searched online for other versions of the recipe months later did I find out that the origin of this wonderful meal is specifically Palestinian. That grants it additional meaning, especially now.

To its credit, the grocer that shared its maklouba recipe in the first place describes it as "traditionally served in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Syria." At least it mentioned the place that birthed it, and perhaps it wasn't aware that the third land and culture mentioned should have been given top billing.  

But that's what it is to walk the line between appropriation and appreciation. Americans tumble into the former's territory more often than we may realize. Everyday examples are woven throughout our culture. We see it in hairstyle, fashion and music trends white people crib from Black, brown, Asian and Indigenous folks. 

Food is a means by which we can experience home again and share that sense of place with others, making it vital to acknowledge where a dish began, even popular ones. But appropriation is so prevalent in our cuisine that we rarely think about it. It's commonly understood the food considered to be essentially American has European origins, but even meals and condiments in the so-called "international" aisles at our grocery store are vastly different from the versions eaten in the places from which they purport to be.

Middle Eastern cuisine comes to the plate with additional friction, particularly hummus and falafel, the origins of which are debated in Jerusalem, as Anthony Bourdain showed in his 2013 "Parts Unknown" episode on the place. Here in the U.S., one of the most popular brands of hummus is manufactured by an Israeli company, Sabra. 


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


Some who are at a loss as to how best to support the civilians terrorized in the Israel-Hamas war have been patronizing Palestinian and Israeli restaurants to show solidarity. 

I am not selling my food in an eating establishment, the arenas in which appropriation battles tend to be pitted. But I am fortunate to have a roof over my head, a kitchen and the means to cook a signature dish of a people under siege and facing annihilation. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans are starving right now, and The Guardian reports that an estimated 85 percent of its population has been displaced by Israel's relentless bombings. Maklouba is a dish made for celebrating and sustaining community, from what I understand. So is it wrong to make maklouba at a time when such concepts can feel so distant?

Not according to Reem Assil, an Oakland, CA.-based Palestinian-Syrian chef and the author of "Arabiyya: Recipes from the Life of an Arab in Diaspora." In her view, she told me via email, "Making a maklouba in solidarity with Palestinians is one of the most powerful things you can do."

Assil, who runs Reem's California in San Francisco, is closely connected to Gaza. Her grandmother, who was born in Yafa, became a refugee in Gaza when her family was pushed out of their home as part of what the U.N. describes as "the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war," also known as the Nakba.

As she observes in a profile posted on the Palestine in America website, "For Palestinians, food becomes a way we document that we exist as a people when so much around us has been stolen to fool the world into thinking we don't exist. Cooking and sharing our food becomes an act of resistance to the intentional campaign to sever us from our foodways." 

So, too, can be cooking food from a culture you may not share while acknowledging the people who gave that cuisine to the world. Indeed, make an "upside down" and sit with its aroma; savor its flavorful, consoling sustenance.  Make it for others, letting them know from whom and where it originates. Enjoy its homeyness, and set a place in your heart for those who also make it, love it and can't right now, with the hope that someday soon they can again. 

We need your help to stay independent

Maklouba (or Maqluba)
Yields
8 servings
Prep Time
45 minutes
Cook Time
1 hour

Ingredients

1 large potato, cubed (1 1/2 cups)

5 – 6 Tbsp Extra Virgin Olive Oil, divided

Kosher salt and black pepper

1/2 large eggplant, cubed (2 cups)

2 cups basmati rice

1 large onion, diced (1 1/2 cups)

3 garlic cloves, minced (1 Tbsp)

2 tsp turmeric

2 tsp allspice

2 tsp cinnamon

Seeds from 5 cardamom pods

1/2 tsp ground cloves

1-1 1/2 pounds ground lamb or beef (can omit for a vegetarian version)

2 Tbsp tomato paste

3 – 4 large tomatoes, cut into 1/2-inch thick slices

3 cups unsalted chicken or vegetable broth, at room temperature (plus up to 1 cup more, if needed as rice cooks)

 

Directions

  1. Preheat oven to 450°F. Line a baking sheet with parchment paper
  2. Place cubed potato on lined baking sheet. Drizzle with 1 Tbsp oil and sprinkle generously with salt and pepper. Roast for 10 minutes.
  3. Add eggplant, drizzle with another 1 Tbsp oil and sprinkle with salt and pepper. Return to oven for 10 minutes or until vegetables are browned.
  4. While vegetables roast, rinse rice in a strainer. Place rice in a bowl, cover with warm water, and soak for 20 minutes. (Proceed to step 4 while the rice soaks.) After 20 minutes, drain rice and season with 2 1/2 to 3 tsp salt.
  5. Heat a large skillet over medium heat. Add 1-2 Tbsp oil. Sauté onion and garlic until soft. Add 1 tsp salt, 1/2 tsp pepper, and remaining spices. Cook, stirring, for 1 minute. Add ground meat and tomato paste. Stir and cook until meat is no longer pink. Taste and adjust seasoning. Set aside.
  6. Line the bottom of a 3- to 4-quart saucepan with a tight-fitting lid with a circle of parchment paper. Brush 2 Tbsp olive oil over parchment. Arrange slices of tomato over parchment in two layers.
  7. Top tomatoes with roasted potatoes and eggplant. Spoon meat mixture over vegetables and press down with the flat bottom of a measuring cup or the back of a large spoon.
  8. Cover with drained rice. Carefully pour 3 cups room-temperature broth over rice, so as not to disrupt the grains. Do not stir.
  9. Bring contents of pot to a gentle boil, then reduce to a simmer. Cover pan with a sheet of foil, then place the lid over the foil on the pan. Crimp extra foil around the rim where the lid meets the pan to seal in the steam. Simmer gently for 15 minutes.
  10. Remove foil and lid, then carefully fluff just the top layer of rice, stirring center grains to the outside for even cooking. Recover with foil and lid and cook for another 25 minutes. Check doneness of rice. If it needs more cooking, fluff again and add a little more broth, if it appears dry. Simmer gently for another 5-10 minutes or until rice is tender. Remove from heat and set aside for 10-20 minutes before inverting.
  11. Place a large, rimmed platter over the top of the pan. Protect your hands with oven mitts. In one swift motion, hold the platter in place and carefully invert the maklouba onto the platter. Carefully remove the pan. Garnish with pine nuts and parsley. Serve warm.

 

 

Jenna Ellis the target of watchdog groups seeking her disbarment over Georgia case

Jenna Ellis, one of Donald Trump's former attorneys, pleaded guilty in October to election crimes related to the former president's "big lie" of 2020. That admission — along with her telling Fulton County investigators that a top aide informed her that the former president was "not going to leave" the White House despite losing the 2020 election — has drawn attention her way from groups looking to shut her down.

In a letter from two such groups drafted on Friday, Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) and Stand United Democracy Center — with other signatories including former Gov. Steve Bullock (D-Mont.), former Gov. Bill Weld (R-Mass.) and multiple former state attorneys general — they urge the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC) to "promptly commence a formal disciplinary proceeding" against Ellis for her recent guilty plea.

“Attorneys barred in Colorado take an oath to ’employ such means as are consistent with truth and honor,'” the letter reads. “As set forth below, through acts undertaken in late 2020, Ms. Ellis violated that oath.”

"The lies that Jenna Ellis helped spread about fraud and misconduct by Georgia voters and election administrators poisoned public trust in our elections, endangered election workers and threatened our democracy,” Gillian Feiner, the senior counsel at the States United Democracy Center, wrote in a statement.

 

 

 

 

The hidden ways our car-obsessed culture is especially hard on disabled people

American culture is dominated by cars, so much that not driving or being unable to operate a vehicle can attract stigmatizing attitudes.

"Clarifying my inability to drive in a society focused on driving results in diverse responses, ranging from dismissive comments to inquiries about when I'll learn to drive," Ashley Glears told Salon, adding that "some may misunderstand, suggesting I'm 'overthinking' or 'being lazy.'"

"Some may misunderstand, suggesting I'm 'overthinking' or 'being lazy.'"

Glears is the chapter associate at The Arc, an American nonprofit organization that serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She is unable to drive due to cerebral palsy. I am likewise unable to drive due to a disability (in my case a hand-eye coordination condition), so I immediately related to her account of insensitivity from drivers to non-drivers. Part of that insensitivity stems, I suspect, from the fact that people rarely think of driving in the specific context of disability rights.

This is not to say that people don't think of non-drivers at all. With wealth inequality worsening every year, millions of Americans can no longer afford to own cars. Then again, some people want a world with fewer cars, at least if the vehicles aren't electric; experts agree climate change is worsening largely because humans rely on fossil fuels to drive. A future with fewer polluting cars would certainly be better for the environment, despite the hardships it would impose on people who need to drive and might suddenly be unable to do so.

Yet there is a crucial difference between not driving for economic or ecological reasons — or, in extreme cases, due to legal consequences for crimes like driving while intoxicated — and not driving because your body makes the task physically impossible. In the latter scenario, being unable to drive isn't merely an inconvenience. It becomes another manifestation of a person's disability, and a particularly debilitating one at that.

Because driving requires complex physical and psychological tasks, even two people with the same disability may struggle to drive for different reasons.

"It's not necessarily about the person’s specific disability diagnosis, but instead about the limitations resulting from a person’s individual circumstances," explained Amy Scherer, senior staff attorney for vocational rehabilitation at the National Disability Rights Network, a nonprofit membership organization for the federally mandated Protection and Advocacy Systems and the Client Assistance Programs for individuals with disabilities. In her email interview with Salon, Scherer broke down how the public needs to understand being disabled while driving as a highly variable experience. Because driving requires complex physical and psychological tasks, even two people with the same disability may struggle to drive for different reasons.

"I think that is important to note just because two people, for example, share a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis does not mean that they possess the same driving capabilities," Scherer pointed out. "Common issues that may make driving a challenging endeavor include but are not limited to: vision loss, seizure disorders, an exaggerated startle reflex, limited motor coordination/dexterity, delayed reaction times that may make it difficult to quickly stop a vehicle or cognitive issues that may make it hard to make split-second decisions or process multi-step tasks."

Zoe Gross, director of advocacy at the nonprofit Autistic Self Advocacy Network, added in an email to Salon that "there are many disabilities that may make it difficult or impossible for someone to drive." These can include cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorders, intellectual disabilities and traumatic brain injuries. Additionally, any learning disability that impacts skills like information processing, physical coordination, reaction time and decision-making can impair one's driving ability.

"This is not to say that no one with these disabilities can drive, but these are examples of some disabilities that, depending on how they affect someone, can prevent someone from driving," Gross said, emphasizing that not being able to drive can significantly worsen a person's life, especially if they live in an area of the country with little or no public transportation.

"In areas without public transportation, driving may be the only way to do things such as see friends, get to a job or buy groceries," Gross told Salon. "This leaves people who cannot drive dependent on rides from friends, family or service providers to do any of these things. This is one reason why robust public transportation systems are so important for people with disabilities — a bus or subway route can make the difference between someone being able to work and buy food, or not."


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


"A bus or subway route can make the difference between someone being able to work and buy food, or not."

Scherer certainly understands the importance of a robust public transportation system. Because Scherer has cerebral palsy, she is unable to drive, and said she immediately appreciated Washington D.C.'s sophisticated and extensive public transportation system when she moved into the federal district.

"Prior to relocating from Georgia, I relied solely on taxi cabs to go from point A to point B," Scherer recalled. "Due to the expensive fares, I used taxis primarily to get to and from work during the week and rarely left my condo on the weekends. My social life took a major hit because I wasn’t able to consistently interact with my non-disabled friends. At that point, I knew I needed to make a change!"

Not every disabled person is fortunate enough to be able to make such changes on their own. When they can't, they are left stuck living with what Glears described as the countless "negative stereotypes" associated with not being able to drive. Even if the disabled person is able to avoid internalizing those negative stereotypes, the rest of society does not – and they trickle down, impacting everything that the disabled non-driver touches.

"Economically, the stereotype may involve assumptions about decreased work productivity and limited career prospects, as the inability to drive could be misconstrued as a barrier to employment opportunities," Glears pointed out. "Socially, there might be an unfair association between a lack of driving ability and dependence, potentially leading to exclusion or underestimation of the individual's social skills."

Glears added that not being able to drive can lead to discrimination in other important areas such as education and healthcare, as outsiders may assume "limited self-sufficiency, affecting the person's overall access to these essential aspects of life," noting that being a disabled non-driver can quite literally become expensive.

"Individuals with physical and intellectual disabilities often face heightened transportation costs when relying on specialized services like wheelchair-accessible vehicles," Glears said. "These vehicles may involve additional expenses for modifications and maintenance. Moreover, dependence on public transit or specialized transport services can be time-consuming, restricting access to timely and flexible transportation."

If there is any good news here, it is that there are policies which can help disabled non-drivers. Scherer advocates continuing to improve public transportation throughout the nation to make sure they are accessible to disabled people. In addition, she hopes ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft, as well as cab companies, will provide more wheelchair-accessible vehicles. But that is not going to be enough.

We need your help to stay independent

"Continue to put money and time into the development of self-driving vehicles," Scherer suggested. "If the technology advances to the point where such vehicles became a safe, dependable, affordable reality, the lives of many people with disabilities would likely change overnight."

Glears also urged for more development on America's public transportation infrastructure. Additionally, Glears argued that urban planners should focus more on accessibility when planning infrastructure so that it can enhance mobility for disabled people.

"Policy focus on inclusive education and employment opportunities can further support their integration into various aspects of society," Glears told Salon. "It's essential to design policies that address the specific needs and challenges faced by individuals with disabilities to ensure inclusivity and equal access."

Did the Confederates have a point, kind of? Here’s a hint: not really

There’s no doubt that Australian law professor Peter Radan breaks new ground in his book “Creating a More Perfect Slaveholders’ Union.” The question, however, is what we are to make of it. I understood going in that Radan would argue that "on the basis of American constitutional law in 1860–1861, the unilateral secessions of the Confederate states were lawful," on the grounds that the United States was forged as a "slaveholders’ Union.” I was fully willing to accept that.

It's hardly a new argument. Legendary abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison famously denounced the Constitution as "a covenant with death, an agreement with hell." But it's also true that Frederick Douglass broke with Garrison, arguing that the Constitution made slavery illegitimate — and ironically enough, given today’s environment, made that argument on textualist and originalist grounds. I was eager to learn what Radan would make of the widely divergent views on this topic — and, alas, I was sorely disappointed.

As I see it, the basic problem with Radan's book is twofold. First there's what it is: a lawyer’s argument that Southern secession was constitutionally justified — and that therefore the Union’s war to stop it was not. Like all lawyerly arguments, this one is slanted, not least by how it chooses to frame its argument. First Radan advances the proposition that the Constitution is a compact — as Southerners like the notorious white supremacist John Calhoun argued — against what he nebulously calls the “nationalist” account of the Constitution, identified primarily with Abraham Lincoln’s arguments in his First Inaugural Address and his address to Congress of July 4, 1861. 

Lincoln’s speeches were of course political rhetoric shaped by pragmatic political concerns, a fundamental fact Radan ignores. They do not represent the most basic constitutional arguments against the compact theory, as found in Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” which Radan either evades or ignores.

A historically and intellectually honest argument along Radan's lines could well be valuable. No one has made it in such detail in recent times, largely because the Civil War itself seemingly put the issue to rest, with the Supreme Court sealing the issue with its 1869 Texas v. White decision, holding that “the ordinance of secession … and all the [legislative] acts … intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null.” At the same time, the Southern defense of secession shifted dramatically from legalism to the Lost Cause mythology, relegating arguments Radan like those develops to a secondary, if not tertiary place. But now that we’re 160 years on from the carnage of that terrible war, the time seems ripe to consider this perspective. 

To be clear, Radan disavows any support for slavery or for any moral argument defending it, arguing for a sharp distinction between those questions and the legal, constitutional argument he advances. But is that even plausible, much less true? Here's the book’s second problem. Consider something Radan himself notes in his introduction, when he Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the 1825 Antelope decision as exemplifying this distinction. Marshall, he writes, denounced the immorality of slavery but

drew a distinction between morality and law when he said: “The court must not yield to feelings which might seduce it from the path of duty, and must obey the mandate of the law.” The constitutional entrenchment of slavery also allowed Marshall to buy and sell slaves. As Paul Finkleman points out, Marshall “actively participated in the business of human bondage … accumulating more than one hundred fifty [slaves] by 1830.” 

Radan seems nearly oblivious to the apparent contradiction: If Marshall believed slavery was immoral, what was he doing owning enslaved people? There is an explanation, of course. But it doesn’t so much resolve the contradiction as it elucidates the historical context in which Marshall wrote: The international slave trade was becoming illegal in more and more countries, while the domestic slave trade was thriving. It fell to men like Marshall to rationalize the irrational state of flux in which they found themselves. That they did so in ways that allowed them to keep owning other human beings may not surprise anyone familiar with human nature, but it doesn't give us much good reason to respect their opinions on moral or intellectual grounds.

Radan disavows any support for slavery or for any moral argument defending it, arguing for a sharp distinction between those questions and the legal, constitutional argument he advances. But is that even plausible, much less true?

Radan’s legalistic arguments on behalf of Confederate secession appear equally suspect. The relationship between legality and morality, after all, lies at the very heart of the historical arguments over slavery. Ignore that vexing relationship, and you’re missing the forest for the leaves. There is no hermetically sealed legal sphere that stands apart from the rest of existence; that's a dangerous fantasy that can — and does — justify unspeakable horrors.

Consider the global issues of climate justice that confronts us today, with the Global South suffering immeasurable loss and damage from the emissions of the largely white industrialized nations of the Northern Hemisphere. In moral terms, they are eerily similar to the issues of slavery in the 19th century. The better we can understand all sides of that terrible struggle, the better prepared we are to deal with climate justice in our own time.

Radan and the "compact theory"

Radan bases his argument on the theory that the U.S. Constitution was formed as a "compact" between 13 independent or at least autonomous states, from which any one of them could withdraw — in opposition to the “nationalist theory” which holds that the union is indivisible. The compact theory has one obvious flaw — I would say fatal flaw — that any proponent should feel obligated to address: There’s no provision in the Constitution for a state to withdraw. Surely, if the framers had meant to allow for that possibility, they would have prescribed a process, just as they provide a process for a new constitutional convention in Article V. The logic is simple enough: All normal contracts are either inviolable or else have explicit termination clauses. Why should the Constitution be any different? It’s a fundamental problem that Radan simply ignores. 

There are two other elements to Radan’s argument, each of which gets its own chapter. The first is fundamentally uncontroversial: There were slavery provisions included the Constitution, and without them the Southern states certainly would not have joined. The infamous "three-fifths clause" was clearly one of those, but the ones that matter most to Radan’s argument are more questionable: those regarding fugitive slaves and the admission of new states. The first lacked teeth until the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and the second left matters up to Congress, at least until the 1850s. The second element is that Lincoln’s election in 1860 brought matters to such a point that breaches in the compact justified secession — indeed, that was the proposition that Lincoln himself argued strenuously against, most notably in the First Inaugural Address. 

But the compact theory is foundational to all else in the book, and on that foundation it cannot stand. Because of that — and because it doesn’t involve the most obvious and inflammatory questions of racial politics and history, I will focus on it first and foremost. I'm not implying those more obvious questions aren't critical — of course they are. But there's less heat around theories of the Constitution than there is around the history of the Civil War, and the less heat there is, the more chance light can break through.

Against the "compact" theory

The strongest argument against the compact theory derives from legendary English jurist William Blackstone, whose “Commentaries on the Laws of England” were more cited than John Locke after 1776, during the long Constitution-making process. Blackstone’s crucial distinction between a voluntary compact and a mandatory law (described below) was directly applied to the U.S. Constitution by the above-mentioned Joseph Story. Radan mentions Story here and there, but never discusses Blackstone at all.

It should suffice to note three of Story's main points. First, he lays out the consequences of the compact theory, which “go to the extent of reducing the government to a mere confederacy during pleasure,” which “brings back, or at least may bring back, upon us all the evils of the old confederation, from which we were supposed to have had a safe deliverance.” So the compact theory, in his view, “has wholly failed to express the intentions of its framers.” 

William Blackstone’s distinction between a voluntary compact and a mandatory law was directly applied to the U.S. Constitution by Chief Justice Joseph Story. Radan mentions Story here and there, but never discusses Blackstone at all.

Radan argues for a qualified version of the compact theory, requiring a violation of an essential element of the compact before any party may leave. But without some agreed-upon mechanism for determining whether such a violation has happened, there is effectively no difference between Radan’s version and the "mere confederacy during pleasure" Story describes. Any state at any time could simply claim such a violation and leave.  

Second and most crucially, Story draws from Blackstone’s most basic argument about the nature of law in general. He does this in such condensed form that the power may not be grasped by modern readers. “A constitution is in fact a fundamental law or basis of government, and falls strictly within the definition of law as given by Mr. Justice Blackstone,” Story writes. “Like the ordinary municipal laws, it may be founded upon our consent or that of our representatives; but it derives its ultimate obligatory force as a law, and not as a compact.” 

This imposes a logic contrary to that supposed by the compact theory. In Section 2 of Blackstone's "Commentaries," he first explains that law is “a rule of action … which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey." The Constitution is clearly intended as law in this sense. The states created it initially, as the compact theory claims, but once they did so, by its own terms they agreed to as “the supreme law of the land,” they were bound to obey it. Blackstone is very clear that a law is quite different from a compact. Story quotes this passage:

It is also called a “rule”, to distinguish it from a “compact” or “agreement”; for a compact is a promise proceeding “from” us, law is a command directed “to” us. The language of a compact is, “I will, or will not, do this”; that of a law is, “thou shalt, or shalt not, do it." … In compacts, we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws, we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising any thing at all.

The power of this argument may be hard to grasp for those not steeped in Blackstone’s broader account of the basic logic and hierarchy of law — as virtually all the founders must have been, unlike the general population at the time. They may have spoken loosely of a compact, used ambiguous language and even worried among themselves that the whole enterprise wouldn't stick together. But as Max Farrand explains in his classic history “The Framing of the Constitution of the United States,” there was no discussion of secession at the Constitutional Convention itself. Farrand also argues that the Constitution was constructed pragmatically, to address specific problems that had arisen with the loose existing confederacy, not to embody some grand theory — which the compact theory would definitely have been, to stand in opposition to Blackstone. 

It’s worth noting that the Articles of Confederation were explicitly perpetual — no state could leave on its own. The document’s preamble twice describes itself as “articles of Confederation and perpetual Union,” phrasing that was first proposed by Benjamin Franklin, and the phrase “perpetual union” appears several more times in the text, as if to hammer that home.  

The clear goal of the Constitutional Convention was to make the United States stronger, not weaker. The framers probably thought there was no need to harp on about the Union being perpetual. That point had been settled.

Lincoln and others later pointed to this as proof that the union established by the Constitution was meant to be perpetual — a logical argument, given that the clear goal of the Constitutional Convention was to make the United States stronger, not weaker. The Constitution dropped any mention of perpetuity — which Radan claims as supporting evidence for his view — but added no practical means for a state to leave, evidently because no one saw that as a problem to be solved. They probably also thought there was no need to keep harping on about the union being perpetual. That point had been settled.

Thirdly, Story discusses English history around the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which the distinction between compact and constitution is richly illustrated, providing the historical legal grounding for his argument.  

Radan’s response

Radan could have challenged Story on any of these three points. He does not. His silence regarding Story’s argument from Blackstone is telling, because it's well known that Blackstone was held in high esteem at the time. Even to hint that Blackstone clearly opposed the compact theory threatens to consign Radan's whole argument to the trash heap. 

One example of how Radan does cite Story should help clarify his method. Rather than directly engaging views he opposes, Radan organizes his approach topically, drawing different figures into the discussion as he sees fit. This is common practice in legal briefs, but it’s ill-suited to honest historical argument. He devotes a few pages each to various parts of the Constitution, including the supremacy clause, the guarantee clause, the presidential oath clause and the Preamble’s “We the People” phrase. On the first, he writes: 

In his Commentaries on the Constitution, after citing the supremacy clause, Story posed the following rhetorical question: "If [the Constitution] is the Supreme law, how can the people of any state either by any form of its own constitution, or laws, or other proceeding repeal, or abrogate, or suspended it?” However, the problem with Story’s argument is that it does not make clear why the supremacy clause has anything to do with secession. [Emphasis added] 

The italicized claim is simply false. Radan hides it by heading off in pedantic misdirection,  first talking about what the clause does, and ending in an argument meant to justify secession. But Story’s argument is not about what clause does, but what it shows. Prior to the sentence Radan cites — just after the line I quoted above, that the Constitution “derives its ultimate obligatory force as a law, and not as a compact” — Story writes:

And it is in this light that the language of the Constitution of the United States manifestly contemplates it; for it declares (article 6th) that this Constitution and the laws, & c., and treaties made under the authority of the United States, “shall be the supreme Law of the land.” 

In short, the supremacy clause matters not because of any specific power to which it applies, but because it clearly affirms the fact that the Constitution is, as Blackstone explains, law, not compact. Story makes this argument clearly.

Furthermore, the passage Radan quotes from is part of a sequence of three paragraphs that seek to determine whether the constitution is a compact, adding another layer of connecting argument that Radan ignores. The first paragraph argues that there is no “clause intimating it to be a compact.” The second argues the terms appropriate to a compact “not have been found in it.” The third argues that “the very language of the Constitution itself" declares it to be "a supreme fundamental law, and to be of judicial obligation and recognition in the administration of justice,” a direct reference back to Blackstone’s argument.

In short, Radan ignores Story’s actual arguments, plucks out one sentence and then falsely claims that his argument isn’t clear. It’s only unclear because Radan has deliberately hidden it from us, and then set off on a wild goose chase in a different direction. This may be advocacy, but it’s not serious scholarship. 

Lincoln’s arguments

If we set Story’s arguments aside, a different possible story appears: one in which the founders might have kinda-sorta accepted the compact theory (although they didn’t act on it by adding a withdrawal mechanism) but in which subsequent historical experience altered the collective view. This is where Lincoln’s arguments properly come in. In his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln advanced two primary arguments: The Union was perpetual, and had in fact preceded the existence of the states. 

Lincoln argued that the union was a form of contract, asking rhetorically, “One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak — but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”

“Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments," he said. "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.” He then plays the textualist card: “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

Second, Lincoln addressed the idea that the union is a form of contract, asking rhetorically, “One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak — but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?” From there, he argues:

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the ”Constitution” was "to form a more perfect Union." 

The passage just quoted is an organic historical argument. He makes a similar argument in his July 4 message to Congress, while also arguing that “The nation purchased with money the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave and without refunding?” Radan picks out specific elements from both arguments, thereby fundamentally misrepresenting their nature. They are telling a story, not proving a theorem in geometry. 

Radan’s response to Lincoln

Radan doesn’t doesn’t directly engage Lincoln’s first argument. He ignores the textualist part entirely, and uses part of Lincoln’s historical argument from his July 4 speech to cloud the issue and reverse the claim, arguing that the lack of perpetuity language means the union can be destroyed. 

The argument Radan claims to address is “that the union created by the Articles of Confederation that the Union replaced was expressly perpetual, and this was ‘most conclusive’ that the Constitution’s Union was also perpetual.”  


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


“Lincoln’s argument here is difficult to sustain,” Radan claims, arguing that if Lincoln and Story were right about perpetuity, “it is reasonable to assume that explicit words to that effect would have been included in the Constitution,” especially since they were included in the Articles of Confederation. I've already outlined why this is nonsensical. It simply uses bald assertion to dispute Lincoln’s first argument without confronting it directly, using the second argument to confuse and distract the reader. The second argument may perhaps be worth disputing — again, you can find my response above — but that should be done in the context that Lincoln presented it, as an organic element in a developmental process, not an isolated assertion.

Radan v. Radan: Argument v. Evidence

I’ve concentrated on the compact argument because it’s less heated than the arguments that directly deal with the question of slavery. But when we turn to those, a close reading of Radan shows him arguing against himself, in all but the narrowest sense.  As already stated, it’s not controversial that there were slavery provisions in the Constitution that were necessary to keep Southern states from defecting, but the ones most important to Radan's argument are dubious in different ways. 

The fugitive slave clause was certainly important, but didn’t give Southerners much protection as social conditions and public opinion changed. The original Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was never really satisfactory to the slave-holding class, but it delivered what the Constitution required, and at first that seemed sufficient. But as abolitionist sentiment spread, the numbers of escaped slaves swelled dramatically, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was much tougher, violating states’ rights by forcing free state officials to help recover enslaved people who had escaped — if you embrace the compact theory, a serious violation of the original constitutional bargain!

The clause on admitting new states and territories cuts even more clearly against Radan’s argument. He admits that “it was left to Congress to pass legislation dealing with the question of slavery in the western territory and ultimately the admission of new states that were carved out of it,” and that it was only after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 "that the issue of slavery in the territories emerged as a contested political issue.” So it clearly was not crucial to the constitutional bargain. But the issue was supposedly resolved with the Missouri Compromise, which admitted Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state.

It was the slaveholding majority on the Supreme Court that, on the narrowest possible argument, gave slaveholders a retroactive claim that the constitutional bargain they had struck had been broken by the other side.

But “the sectional bargain collapsed with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854,” Radan writes, nullifying the Missouri Compromise for the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, leaving states that emerged there “free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.” The ensuing violent political struggle in “Bloody Kansas” dramatically polarized the nation and “brought into sharp focus" the meaning of the "admission of new states and territories clause.” Then he suggests that the issue “was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1857, in Dred Scott v Sanford,” a decision regularly cited as the worst Supreme Court decision ever, one whose “resolution” flies in the face of common sense.  

The decision held that the Constitution's territories clause was “confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which at the time [1787] belonged to, or was claimed by the United States … and can have no influence upon a territory afterwise acquired” — a patently ludicrous claim, which Chief Justice Roger Taney then leveraged to allow slaveholding in any territory, ruling the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. 

There was one big problem: James Madison and several others involved in drafting the Constitution were still alive and kicking in 1820, when the Missouri Compromise was debated and passed. None of them seem to have raised Taney’s argument at the time. It was the slaveholding and pro-slavery majority on the Supreme Court that, on the narrowest possible argument, gave slaveholders a retroactive claim that the constitutional bargain they had struck had been broken by the other side. But the truth was exactly the opposite: Dred Scott rewrote the contract in their favor, and did so based on false premises. 

We really could use a book that forcefully explains the slaveholders' constitutional argument while honestly and fairly explaining the other side as well, and the broader historical context in which both arguments unfolded. That would be an important book — but unfortunately, this isn't it. 

Navigating the new sober boom, where “a person’s sobriety is as unique as their fingerprint”

“You’ll be OK. I take breaks, on and off, all of the time,” my cousin Maja said with a smooth smile during my first week off alcohol. “And if you want that feeling, pull up on me. I'll whip up something special for you. A mocktail.”

Maja is my first cousin’s first cousin. In Baltimore, that means we’re close family. My dad's sister married her dad's brother, ultimately connecting us. A popular bartender, Maja created the most beautiful drinks anyone has ever seen or tasted in some of Baltimore’s fanciest restaurants.

“A MajTail,” I laughed, sipping the ginger-heavy citrus concoction she slid in my direction. “I’m in it for the long haul, cuz.”  

Fifteen years my junior, Maja, or Maj, has always been a dreamer. She has two big sleepy eyes that dominate her face and pair perfectly with her Zen-like demeanor. Many of the younger people in our family opted for traditional nine-to-fives or the streets, but she worked to make a name for herself in the art world, gaining an impeccable reputation for her drawings and paintings. The street guys and the nine-to-fivers have a lot to talk about with each other, but rarely share community with Maja’s artsy crowd. Our paths almost never collided until I joined the art world she knew so well, and began to see her at parties, and frequent places she worked, like The Charleston, Alma Cocina and Bloom's, where I would eat the most delicious food in the city and have the luxury of washing it down with her beautiful craft cocktail creations, with my wife and friends at my side. 

“You always have fun, even when y’all not drinking or before y'all’s drinks come out,” Maja said. “So just have fun — focus on that.” 

I love alcohol: the smell, the taste, the way it makes me feel. There’s something about sipping from a bottle or glass of warm confidence that just feels right. I’ve known this since I was a child — 10 years old, to be precise. 

One day, my cousin Lo begged me to go with him to see his estranged mother, who had recently won a long battle with addiction.

“I bought you something, baby,” she said, her veiny hands gripping a crumpled paper bag. “I didn’t forget you.” 

“The Colt 45 kind?” Lo guessed, his eyes watering as he snatched the bag. “Thank you, Mom!” 

Lo guzzled, then passed the can to me. I took a slow sip: like soda, but not as sweet, or even joyous at all, I thought. The aftertaste of Colt 45, a malt liquor that was as dangerous as it was popular, crumpled my face to match the bag that concealed the can. “Yuck!” 

There was always a reason to grab a drink with a friend. We would even grab a drink at the bar just to figure out where we should go on to grab drinks.

The drink tasted so bad, but it felt so right. Imagine a cactus with milk so sweet, it’s worth the thorns. We laughed hysterically at my childish reaction, even though I was a child. I took another swig, shot another frown and passed the can back to Lo, who happily gulped. I knew my mom would have killed me if she found out, so I swore off liquor until it revisited me in 7th grade. 

Hawk rocked a monochromatic blue Coogi, so we wore monochromatic blue Coogis. Hawk never tied his New Balance; he purposely left the laces undone, so you’d never see a bow on our shoes either. Hawk sat drunk in the project stairwell, gripping a bottle of Absolut vodka, so when he passed it to me, I was all in. 

And I sipped, tripped and fell in love with that vodka. Booze and I became inseparable in the years that followed. It became a part of my identity: The fun guy with the drinks on deck. 

Alcohol is a depressant, scientifically speaking. But there seemed to be nothing depressing about grabbing a drink before the function, grabbing a drink at the function, and grabbing a drink after the function. There was always a reason to grab a drink with a friend. We would even grab a drink at the bar just to figure out where we should go on to grab drinks.

This lifestyle delivered so many glorious memories, nights and people I only remember in flashes. A life that I enjoyed and even bragged about, all the way up until my doctor delivered a reality check, recommending I eighty-six salty food — there goes fine dining — and go cold turkey off the booze for a while (goodbye, craft cocktails) so that we could regulate my rising blood pressure. 

Here’s what I learned during my first booze-free week after three decades of regular drinking: Liquor makes mediocre restaurant food taste like fine dining — the only ingredient better at enhancing flavors than salt. Ordering it also makes that dinner much more expensive. Everyone around me in the restaurant is also louder and sweatier, it seems, when I’m sober. And my sobriety makes other people uncomfortable, too. They poke at me, question my health, and ignore everything except what is — or isn’t — inside my glass.

* * *

“A yoooo, D Watk a weirdo! Man, oh man, aye aye, Watk lost his got dammed mind! What in the —” screamed a small woman with long braids growing out of the back of an oversized Oriole cap.  

A couple of months after the doctor told me to start eating cleaner and stop drinking for a while, an Uber dropped me off at this restaurant around 9:15, where I was greeted by thunderous applause. It kind of felt like a surprise party, except none of my close friends were there. These were casual business acquaintances, loose ties, strangers. I was being honored for my work with kids in schools. 

I had felt great about my choices until I was presented with that tall bottle of tequila and poured those four shots that seemed to be screaming my name. 

A young woman in a sparkly dress presented me with a framed certificate and a microphone. To my right, a DJ saluted from his booth. To my left, well-dressed educators and tastemakers eagerly awaited my words. In front of me, a packed restaurant of people ate and drank, some glancing over at me like, Who in the hell is this guy? 

I made my remarks and went over to the organizer’s table. Before I could sit, one of those tastemakers presented me with a long, luxurious brown box containing the premium tequila brand sponsor for the night’s event. 

Then four bottle girls arrived, placing four empty shot glasses in front of my face. One of the bottle girls had said, “For the man of the hour,” with a wink, filling each of the glasses in front of me with tequila until they all overflowed. The look and smell of the liquid made my head throb. 

“I have to run and wash my hands,” I told the table as they began knocking their drinks back. I cut through the crowd and entered the restroom. A walking and breathing mess stared back at me in the mirror. 

After making it through the first few weeks of my doctor-recommended sobriety, I decided to indulge a little on a family visit to Paris I had booked a few months before the physician gave me the sad news. I stuck to my guns, not touching a drop until our feet were planted on European land, and I had decided to continue my alcohol-free mission when we returned to the States. I had felt great about my choices until I was presented with that tall bottle of tequila and poured those four shots that seemed to be screaming my name. I can beat this too, I told myself. 

I splashed water on my face and exited the restroom. The educators were in full turn-up mode, iPhone filming and dancing. My shots waited patiently for me. 

I wondered what Maj would do. Maybe I should order a MajTail, I thought.

If I walked a big mocktail over to my table, I reasoned, people wouldn’t be paying attention to the fact that I was not downing those shots. 

“I’m working, on the clock, not really drinking,” I said to the bartender, a slim dude with a thinning fro. “Can you make me a mocktail?” 

“Sure, brother,” the bartender answered. “Any particular taste in mind?” 

Enter the walking Oriole cap. 

“A yoooo D Watk a weirdo! Man, oh man, Watk lost his got dammed mind! What in the—” screamed that small woman with the long braids growing out of the back of her oversized Oriole hat.

Every patron in the joint laid eyes on us at the same time, it seemed. To my surprise, others jumped in to defend me, saying things like, “Everybody can’t be an alcoholic like you, girl,” and “Don’t play with D like that!” 

Eventually, I made it back to my table, where I was greeted by another person who recently started his own wine company and wanted me to taste every flavor. Well, it’s wine, I thought, and I’m kind of sophisticated, I thought, and I just came back from Paris, I thought, so passing on this offer would be a great disservice to that young entrepreneur and the community, is what I landed on. 

I drank glass after glass, holding the bottle — bottles — making sure the women in the large cap saw me consuming enough wine to collapse an elephant. Who’s the weirdo now? 

Me, apparently, because alcohol won the battle that night. Even though I didn't take the tequila shots, I was still as drunk as a trust fund frat boy by the time I left. 

It feels much more common now — thanks in part to events like Dry January and Sober October — to take temporary breaks from drinking.

The more I reflected on that evening, the more I became bothered by things I failed to recognize or wish I would have considered in the moment. 

I don't owe these people anything, so why should their opinions force me into becoming wine-drunk? Do I lack self-control? 

I have never had the level of clarity I gained in the short sober time I had before Paris. So why would I quickly throw that away to please a bunch of strangers at a function? 

I have no idea who that little woman lost in that big-ass baseball cap was, so why would I care about her insults?

Was I drinking for me or because Maj had been found dead in her apartment a week before I left for Paris? 

And I realized that I would never be able to ask her what would she do again. I will never be able to roll into a bar and see her face, be eased by her pleasant energy and taste one of her creations ever again. Was alcohol not the fun juice I always thought it was? Thinking about Maj, it was starting to feel every bit like a depressant. 

* * *

Alcohol is one of the leading preventable causes of death in the U.S., according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. More than 140,000 deaths each year are estimated to be attributed to excessive drinking. It remains an urgent, life-or-death problem for many. Perhaps a growing awareness of that is why more people are being proactive about monitoring their consumption, even before it becomes a medical necessity or a chemical dependency. 

An explosion of new non-alcoholic adult drink brands shows there’s a market that still wants the feeling of going for a drink without the effects. Some people are avoiding alcohol, or just cutting back, to be more health conscious. Gen Z is drinking less than millennials and Gen Xers. And it feels much more common now — thanks in part to events like Dry January and Sober October — to take temporary breaks from drinking without the stigma attached to “falling off the wagon.” For some, mindful moderation — rather than an all-or-nothing approach — is now part of an aspirational lifestyle. 

For deeper insights into the source of my feelings about drinking and abstaining from a person who has taken the sober journey from inside — or rather, behind — the bar, I reached out to the first mixologist I ever met, Andre “Dre” Barnhill. Dre has been a star on the emerging cocktail scene in Baltimore over the past decade. He's held prominent positions at award-winning establishments like Woodberry Kitchen, and runs Clavel, one of the hottest Mezcal bars in our region. Dre was sober for two years, but recently decided to have an occasional cocktail. 

Dre is a relatively smooth fellow, always laid-back, never too visibly excited. He’s also the bartender who introduced me to what became my signature cocktail, the vodka gimlet

"A yo, I am traveling a little bit right now for these readings," I asked Dre one slow night at his bar. "And I'm struggling to find one go-to drink that any bartender can make, even me." 

"I noticed that you are a citrus guy,” Dre said. “So, a gimlet." 

Gin hasn’t been kind to me over the years. But Dre helped me fall in love with the smooth, clean taste of vodka gimlets. And during that time, Dre fell out of love with alcohol and the way it made him feel, so he decided to go on a hiatus. 

I reminded Dre that I did not remember him being the heaviest drinker before he took his pause––maybe a shot or two during a shift. But then I realized that he would normally be at work when I saw him, and I was coming into his bars with my own agenda, to ingurgitate as much booze and fried food as humanly possible. 

“You have to consider the lifestyle, especially 1:30 to 4 a.m.,” Dre explained. “Shutting the bar down and drinking over a period of time, it adds up.” 

I thought of how it would feel to work in a bar five days a week, and how that environment could easily transform a casual drinker into a person who consumes alcohol every day as part of their routine. 

“And then there's the social aspect that comes with being a bartender in the city,” Dre continued. “Bartenders, we love each other, so when we go out, we are always sending each other shots. And you have to take them because turning a gift down is rude.” 

Here’s an insidious thing about alcohol and stigma: It’s wrapped up in class issues. 

I imagined Dre bar hopping with his high-end craft cocktail crew: A diverse, stylish bunch wearing wool coats, high-quality loafers and cropped denims. I imagined Hawk mixing in with his bottle of vodka blue Coogi sweater, instantly changing the mood. When experimenting with vodka cocktails with Dre and his friends, I’m progressive, approachable; a good brother, not an addict. But if I were drinking the same vodka in the projects with Hawk, I’m a gangster or a bum — the world would see me as an addict. The stigma. 

The stigma around drinking is something that bartender Ashley Mac has learned to deal with on many levels. 

“I do not like the word mocktail. To mock is to make fun of, or to do a dry run, of something,” Ashley Mac, the vice president of the Baltimore Bartenders Guild known as AMAC in the hospitality world, told me. “My sobriety is not a dry run or a joke to me. It's like a personal thing. I wouldn't use the word mocktail––spirit-free, zero-proof or nonalcoholic cocktails is what I tend to lean towards.” 

AMAC — who also goes by “The Sober Tender” — is also program director for HEARD, a mental health-focused nonprofit for people in the hospitality industry. She has been sober for seven years and counting. But she didn’t leave bartending — a job she wanted since childhood — when she stopped drinking.

When experimenting with vodka cocktails with Dre and his friends, I’m progressive, approachable; a good brother, not an addict. 

“I always wanted to be a bartender, ever since my parents took me to a Ruby Tuesday's back when I was a child,” AMAC said with a laugh. “The bartender ran the show, was the life of the party. And I wanted that so bad.”

AMAC got her first restaurant job at 15 and flourished professionally in the bar industry. But participating in the drinking culture that can come with working in bars took a heavy toll. She describes herself as “a late-stage alcoholic” by age 29. She even died once during withdrawal.

“I was out for 30 seconds. The next thing I remember was waking up in the back of an ambulance, and then ICU for eight days,” she said. “It was 13 days before I was discharged and off to rehab for three and a half months. I was 89 pounds when this all happened.”

AMAC returned home with major medical debt from the hospital and rehab. She had only been employed in the restaurant industry and didn’t know what she was going to do for money. So AMAC went back to bartending. 

Liquor is not my business. But so much of my business as a writer revolves around it — I call it let’s go grab a drink culture. I met my managers over a drink. Some of my first agents signed me after a drink or 10. I’ve done shots with lawyers and television executives. What would my career look like without it? Would I have been thought of a certain way if I had refused those drinks, or insisted we meet up for tea or sodas instead? 

I told AMAC about the time I tried to secretly order a mocktail at that tequila-sponsored educators’ award event. 

“That’s horrible,” she said. “I do some contract work for a bourbon company, and I don't tell people I'm sober when I'm trying to sell them bourbon.”  

“I have oftentimes been told as a bartender, I don't want you to make my drink if you're sober,” she continued. “How do you know what it tastes like? Or, I don't trust you as a bartender because you're sober.” 

Despite some of the negative experiences that both AMAC and I have had during different parts of our journey — mainly my attempt to remain sober in drunken places –– we have also both seen bar culture begin to change to incorporate sober people intentionally. 

Menus featuring specialty spirit-free, zero-proof — or the bar-industry dreaded phrase “mocktails” — are becoming more available in restaurants. Designated dry months are social trends that aren’t going away. And new nonalcoholic spirits, beer and wine companies seem to appear every day. Some are even establishing brick-and-mortar locations where tastings, events, and fellowshipping around alcohol-free living can flourish. 

The Zero Proof, a spirit-free adult beverage company, recently released the results of a survey that boldly declared the movement here to stay: “Two-thirds of American adults consciously intended to drink less alcohol in 2022, primarily fueled by health and budget concerns. This mindset, held by 64% of younger consumers (ages 21-30) and 50% of all adults who drink alcohol, will continue into 2023.” 

The survey also found that “nearly 7 in 10 of all respondents (alcohol drinkers and non-drinkers) say they wish social settings were more conducive to accommodating those who drink alcohol and those who do not. The most uncomfortable for non-drinkers are bars and house parties.” An $11 billion industry of no/low-alcohol drink brands has sprung up in response to serve that growing market. There’s even a store in Baltimore dedicated to them — Hopscotch Zero Proof Bottle Shop —  just a mile away from the restaurant where I was ridiculed for ordering a spirit-free drink. 

The explosion of nonalcoholic spirits shows the scene is changing. People want to enjoy a zero-proof cocktail — whether always, or just on occasion — with their friends, without standing out as an abstainer. After all, there are stigmas attached to sobriety, too, stemming from its associations with both addiction and moral judgment. 

“When I got sober, it was not something people were comfortable talking about,” Sarah Hepola told me. 

"The older you get, the more it really wears on your system."

Hepola has been sober for 13 years, and vividly captured that journey in her critically lauded memoir, "Blackout: Remembering the Things I Drank to Forget.” Hepola’s also a former culture editor for Salon, and the one responsible for planting the seed that grew into my writing career here. Can you guess what my first essay was about? Drinking. 

The first sentence reads, “Miss Sheryl, Dontay, Bucket-Head and I compiled our loose change for a fifth of vodka. I'm the only driver, so I went to get it.”  

“There’s pressure, and I kind of went into hiding for the first year of my sobriety,” Hepola continued. “I didn't go out, because I didn't want those questions.” 

Those questions.  

Those questions made staying sober more difficult than my urge to drink did. I did not miss hangovers, and I was experiencing that nonalcoholic clarity that sober people brag about. I felt great overall — until the questions came:

“Are you dying? If so, how soon, and can have your sneakers?” 

“Do you have some kind STD? And you’re not drinking because you don’t want to throw off the antibiotic?”

“Why come to a bar and not drink? That’s like getting on a boat and not boating, right?” 

“Have a drink! Real men don’t care about no damn blood pressure until they collapse! Did you even almost collapse yet? Collapse first, then talk to me about drinking!”  

I had a great sober run after my altercation at the educator ceremony, but about a month later, it ended. It wasn’t a dark, depressing fall-off, but I did abandon sobriety. Partially because of the questions and partially because of identity — it’s still difficult for me to imagine myself as a completely alcohol-free guy. There are too many memories, celebrations and bonds forged between me and my costar booze. I can’t remember signing a deal or accomplishing a goal or grieving a loved one without it. And my doctor never said I had to stop entirely — just cut back. 

“A person's sobriety is as unique as their fingerprint,” AMAC told me. 

So maybe my version can be sipping just enough to participate without fully indulging. 

I haven’t had a taste of hard liquor since that diagnosis. I now classify as a slight social wine drinker, the guy who circles the function with one glass. But I would be lying if I acted as if I didn’t feel like I was missing out on the fun that the drunken, sweaty people are having in my sober presence. 

Drinkers and non-drinkers are going to continue to find themselves in the same spaces, though, whether for professional reasons or a refusal to stop socializing even without booze. After all, addiction isn't the only reason people have to abstain from alcohol. Not everyone quits for extreme reasons. 

“A number of my friends quit drinking,” Hepola said. “The older you get, the more it really wears on your system. I have very few friends left who are really hardcore drinkers.… They just mellowed out.” 

* * *

Having these conversations about alcohol and sobriety,  I realized that most of the people I talked to were people closer to my own age — Gen Xers and Millennials. People who, like me, came of age during a time when grabbing a drink after work felt necessary, having a cold beer during the football game felt necessary — the kind of people who looked at prayer and alcohol as the primary ways to dissolve stress. I wanted to know how the students in my writing class at the University of Baltimore — mostly Gen Z, between the ages of 18 and 21 — related to alcohol. 

"That whole night sounds ridiculous. How did you have any fun?"

“Do you guys get sloppy drunk?” I asked a small group who came to class early, when some of our best, loosest conversations happened. 

“Yuck,” a young man named Josh said. “If being drunk could get me out of a final. Wait, are you giving a final?” 

Most of the group had no real interest in drinking. They didn't consider themselves to be sober, or feel like they were part of a movement. Drinking just didn't really seem to interest them. 

“I loved to guzzle Absolut vodka back when I was your age,” I said, as proudly as if I were a liquor company rep. “We partied at the club till 2 a.m., and then we hit the after-hours that rocked til 4, and then the after-after party at my crib that went until 6 or until everybody passed out!” 

“You should be lucky you are alive,” my student Nesha said. “That whole night sounds ridiculous. How did you have any fun?” 

“I can't remember, Nesha. I was drunk!” 

My students aren’t outliers, according to AMAC, who sees similar trends in the liquor industry and around the bars she frequents from time to time. 

“There's a younger generation coming up right now that does not drink. They don't want to drink.” AMAC said. “They know the hangover comes with it. They see the stigma.” 

More young adults are abstaining from alcohol compared to college-age Americans 20 years ago, Science Daily reports. “Between 2002 and 2018, the number of adults aged 18-22 in the U.S. who abstained from alcohol increased from 20% to 28% for those in college and from about 24% to 30% for those not in school, say researchers at the University of Michigan and Texas State University.”

I was born on the cusp between Gen X and Millennials. I remember everyone drinking all of the time. There’s definitely been a shift. Hepola’s seen it, too. 

“If you're coming up underneath that, you're probably going to rebel against what your older siblings do, because it’s not cool,” she said. 

* * *

Nonalcoholic cocktails may be easier to find in liquor stores, restaurants and bars now, and young people may not be drinking as much. But let’s go grab a drink culture hasn’t retired. Maybe the conversation we should be having should be about more than navigating the world safely in sobriety — going out to a bar or a nightclub should be a safe experience for anyone, no matter what or how much they’re drinking. 

“Don't automatically give people shots.”

Safe Bars was founded in Washington, D.C., in 2013 by gender-based violence prevention expert Lauren Taylor. When I spoke with their executive director Amie Ward for this story, Ward — who also founded the peer-to-peer support and resource group The Healthy Tender, for sober or sober-curious folks in her industry — told me that the organization’s mission started with a focus on self-defense and bystander intervention, “because of the high link of alcohol within sexual assaults that are reported. One in two sexual assaults involve alcohol.” 

Ward’s degrees in kinesiology and cultural studies inform her insights into how power and bodies intersect in drinking spaces — an underrated skill in the hospitality world. When a patron walks into a bar, they are heading for a destination, wanting to be transported from whatever they are feeling to a place of ease. Safe Bars’ training positions bartenders as the trip’s pilot, capable of ensuring a safe trip for everyone. Ward’s first safety rule is simple: “Don't automatically give people shots.” 

“Number two: If somebody says no, that's the end of the f**king question,” Ward continued. “That’s the answer. ‘No’ is a complete sentence. Don’t ask them why — it's not your story to know!” 

I thought about my experience at the ceremony, wondering if my night would have gone differently if the bartender had stepped in. I also thought about how many people in the service industry live off tips, and wondered if it's even ethical for me to expect them to control all of the crazy conversations and interactions that happen at their bars. There are too many resources available for patrons to learn how to conduct themselves respectably. 

I landed on the idea that the answer lies in the collective; it is up to everyone — patrons, bartenders, servers, the sober and the drunk alike — to work together to create a reality where everybody is comfortable and happy. We all deserve that, sober or not. Maja taught me that.

I didn’t give Maja all the flowers she deserved when I had the opportunity. My inability to fully appreciate those times while she was here tied into the feelings that many of us — including some of the former drinkers I talked to — chased at some point in our lives: The yearning to hold onto memories, places and people that we want to see, talk to or touch again. And this is where it becomes bigger than booze — and potentially more dangerous — because there is no way to really recreate those wild nights while sober. They never would have happened the same way without the drinks.

Maja and I had so many “I was messed up last night!” conversions that I truly miss; however, I realized that I miss the art, food and life conversations we shared just as much if not more. I may not have been able to reach this understanding if she was still here, or if I had kept my drinking habit. 

The space I gained from the huge alcohol reduction from my diet has allowed me to focus on the good, the bad and the things that matter. To understand that those wild nights are gone, but better nights are coming. To appreciate what I have, and be present. To focus on the fun, just like Maja said. 

She was right the whole time. 

Trump plots his return: Pardons, payoffs and payback

Trumpism, like other forms of fascism, is crime in the form of politics.

For all of the talk about a “democracy crisis” and American neofascism, Trumpism as a form of “legal” crime and how it will negatively impact the country is one of the most important aspects of the crisis while simultaneously being among the least discussed by the mainstream news media, pundits and larger political class. The country’s elites have committed many extreme errors and failures in the Age of Trump, with the above being one of the most serious and worrisome. If the Fourth Estate as a whole was engaging in pro-democracy journalism, it would clearly communicate to the American people the following information about Trumpism and fascism as a form of crime, and what it will mean for them and the country.

Fascism is first and foremost a form of corrupt power that is not held accountable by the law, “the institutions," or the public through voting or other means of oversight or accountability. Trump’s repeated threats of violence and intimidation against the judges, court officers, prosecutors, attorneys general, witnesses, jurors, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Special Counsel Jack Smith, President Biden, and the rule of law more broadly are just one of many such examples of antisocial and pathological behavior.

Public opinion and other research show that Donald Trump’s “populist” appeal and criminal behavior reflects how his followers support him precisely because he is willing to “break the rules” to “get things done” for “people like them” while engaging in revenge against their shared “enemies." Fascism as a form of criminal politics is based upon a crude understanding of power and its limits, where friends and followers are to be rewarded and “the enemy” (however defined) is to be targeted for violence, harassment, and other cruelty because they have little to no protection from the state. 

We need your help to stay independent

In all, if Dictator Trump, his MAGA people, and the Republican fascists and their forces take power this will mean that the American government and society will be ruled by the equivalent of a de facto crime family and elevated street gang. In the Age of Trump, the Republican Party and larger “conservative” movement and right-wing are, in many ways, already structured and are behaving in such a manner.

The organization and movement are hierarchical with Trump serving as the Big Boss. The Trump MAGA crime organization is large, very well-funded, and powerful with its own institutions and a wide sphere of influence across American society and internationally.

Republican elected officials and other party leaders in the MAGA movement and across the larger white right follow Trump’s orders and directives with little disagreement or dissent. As seen during the 2024 Republican presidential primary campaign, Republican leaders must demonstrate extreme fealty to Trump and the MAGA movement or they will be punished and eventually ostracized. In fact, loyalty to Trump is more important than loyalty to the party or even the country — and perhaps even themselves and their own families.

As seen with the “struggle” over the Speaker of the House and the elevation of Mike Johnson, violence is a means of maintaining control of the organization and of punishing disloyalty. And like the mafia or other criminal organizations, the Republicans in Congress and the larger right-wing and “conservative” movement have also repeatedly shown that they are willing to both bend and outright break the law in service to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.

Like more formal criminal organizations, Trump and his agents will use their power to enrich themselves, advance their own narrow interests, and engage in extortion, shakedowns, and collect protection money while they dispense “favors” and other opportunities to those individuals, groups, and businesses that demonstrate sufficient loyalty and are otherwise of use.

As seen in other fascist and authoritarian-autocratic governments, this corrupt behavior will have a trickle-down effect across American society.

For example, Trump’s promises to be a dictator on “day one” and to use his unchecked power to dispense rights for oil drilling and other resource exploitation and to “build the wall” (while of course receiving kickbacks and other personal financial incentives and payments) is a classic way that dictators and other autocrats secure the loyalty and support of elite actors.

Under Dictator Trump, this will be a continuation in a much more extreme and unrestrained manner of how his first regime was one of the most corrupt in American history.

Because America will be ruled by a system of “competitive authoritarianism” under Dictator-Crime Boss Donald Trump, there will be no substantive accountability or consequences for such abuses of power and exploitation.

The ultimate goal of Donald Trump and his allies is to create a state of permanent emergency where he, like Hitler and other such dictators, will declare all of his heretofore criminal actions to be “legal” by definition. In such an arrangement, Trump the Great Leader and Big Boss is above the law while simultaneously being the embodiment of it. Power authority benefits flow to him and through him and the party and the movement.

In a recent conversation here at Salon, philosopher Jason Stanley warned:

What Trump really means is he's going to change all the laws, and then the new laws will enable him to do what he wants. According to the new laws, Trump will no longer be a dictator. The new laws that Trump puts in place will be about fealty to him. He will declare a state of emergency and change the laws.

These last few weeks have seen a rapid escalation in how Trump’s public threats and promises of how he will rule America as a de facto crime lord when and if he takes power in 2025 – an outcome that appears increasingly probable given his lead over President Biden in the polls.


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


Trump has repeatedly signaled that he supports prosecuting the Capitol Police and other law enforcement who defended democracy on Jan. 6 against the MAGA attack force as part of the ex-president’s coup plot.

Speaker Mike Johnson and Trump’s other Republican MAGA followers in Congress are now literally rewriting history and the events of Jan. 6 to conform with the Big Lie that there was simultaneously no coup attempt, the attack was actually “peaceful” and if there was violence (which is a documented fact) it was actually committed by Antifa, Black Lives Matter or some other “leftist” group as part of an elaborate "false flag" or psyop to discredit Donald Trump as a precursor to a “left-wing” takeover of the country. This Orwellian rewriting of history includes blurring the faces of Trump’s MAGA terrorists to protect them from prosecution for their obvious crimes.

On this, historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat explains in her newsletter Lucid:

Authoritarianism revolves around the power to commit crimes with impunity. That is why protecting and promoting criminals and turning violent and corrupt activities into patriotic and necessary actions are always priorities of authoritarian parties and governments. The statement by Speaker of House Mike Johnson (R-LA) that House Republicans will blur footage from the Jan. 6 attack to help participants avoid being brought to justice is symptomatic.

When autocratic forces triumph, the rule of law becomes rule by the lawless. If Donald Trump returns to the White House, this will be the situation in the United States.

The party took a big step forward in the process of normalizing impunity when they made the methods and philosophy of the Jan. 6 attempted coup into party dogma. A 2022 GOP resolution decreed the assault on the Capitol to be "legitimate political discourse.” This rhetorical defense provides an "intellectual" rationale for the overturning of our democracy.

Normalizing impunity also means actively shielding participants in the coup attempt from being brought to justice and discrediting democratic institutions of justice in the eyes of the public. This is what keeper of the MAGA cult Johnson sought to do with his statement. "We have to blur some faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don't want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ," he said.

As with everything Johnson says and does, this declaration was meant for an audience of one.  It was a loyalty performance meant to reassure Trump that the GOP will defend those who tried to save him from the awful fate of accepting democratic precedent and leaving office when he was voted out.

Like a mob boss and dictator, the Washington Post reported that Trump’s campaign and political committees have received at least 1.8 million dollars from the people that he pardoned before the end of his presidency. Trump is also promising to pardon the Jan. 6 terrorists – a group he describes as “patriots” who he has raised money for. From the Washington Post:

Never before had a president used his constitutional clemency powers to free or forgive so many people who could be useful to his future political efforts. A Washington Post review of Trump’s 238 clemency orders found that dozens of recipients, including Arpaio, have gone on to plug his 2024 candidacy through social media and national interviews, contribute money to his front-running bid for the Republican nomination or disseminate his false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election….

Experts say Trump’s abuse of the pardon power while in office was unprecedented in modern times.

“The Arpaio pardon previewed a whole different approach, in which the clemency power was going to be widely used to reward cronies and score points with constituents,” said Larry Kupers, who led the Justice Department office that reviewed clemency requests but left halfway through Trump’s presidency in protest of his approach. “It looked so transactional, in that it was furthering his own interests.”

Trump’s decision to return to politics, unlike many other one-term presidents, means that he can reap the benefits of that politically charged clemency process as he campaigns again for the White House.

Many of the campaign donors, Republican operatives and media pundits who made his clemency list were well-positioned to return the favor….

As former criminal defendants, these clemency recipients are particularly poised to amplify the former president’s attacks on a justice system that has brought 91 felony charges in two state and two federal indictments against him. Many of them are fueling one of the defining narratives spun by Trump for his 2024 campaign: a “two-tier” justice system in which the former president and his supporters are unjustly persecuted victims of a “political witch hunt.”

Trump has also publicly signaled that he will most certainly pardon himself and his agents who are convicted of any crimes in connection with the Jan. 6 coup attempt, the larger attempt to end American democracy, and more broadly.

Given Trump’s stated plans and threats to be a dictator, and to purge the government of anyone who is more loyal to the Constitution and rule of law than to him and the MAGA movement, this will mean that members of the new regime will be able to break the law with impunity as they follow through on his orders and vision to end democracy and civil society in America.

As the 2024 election approaches, and Trump is also facing increasing pressure from his criminal and civil trials, he is increasingly channeling Hitler and the Nazis with his threats of a “final battle”, talk about betrayal, and promises to rid the country of human “vermin” such as the Democrats, "the left", non-white migrants and refugees and other “undesirables” in order to “purify” the “blood of the nation”. Adolf Hitler is one of history’s greatest criminals. Trump in his admiration of Hitler and the Nazis and other dictator-criminals such as Putin is announcing that he shares their evil values and beliefs.

There is an additional aspect of the extreme dangers embodied by Trumpism and fascism as “legal crime” that the mainstream news media and commentariot have largely either ignored or been willfully blind to.

For several years, Donald Trump and his campaign have been issuing membership cards to the MAGA followers in exchange for their money. Trump has also created his “President’s Trust”, an even more “exclusive” group of supporters who he has tasked with “peacefully” defending “our movement no matter how vicious the endless witch hunts became.”

If Trump the dictator mob boss takes power, these membership cards and other such proof of loyalty will basically grant his followers the permission and power to engage in all manner of violence and harm and mayhem with the not unreasonable understanding that by being an official member of the MAGA movement they will be able to operate outside of the law as it applies to other people.

The dangers will be especially great for those people who are members of a community targeted as “the enemy” because of their race, ethnicity, religion, immigration status, sexual orientation and gender or some other marginalized identity.

The centrists, hope-peddlers, and happy pill sellers in the media and across the political class will instinctively reject such a scenario as being a symptom of “Trump derangement syndrome” or “hyperbole” or being “hysterical” because “American Exceptionalism."

As Jason Stanley said of such enabling and normalizing voices in our recent conversation, “Those like me, you, and a select group of others have been saying for years that Trump was a potential fascist dictator and there is a movement behind him. They dismissed us and laughed at us. Now instead of turning to those of us who were accurate and sounding the alarm years ago, the media is turning to people, supposed experts, who only now are realizing that we're facing a fascist, social and political movement. Such people should not be the ones turned to by the news media to be talking about the near-term future of Trump and this fascist movement and the danger. Why? They have quite clearly demonstrated total unreliability. For example, a person who is so late to this danger and reality can go back instantly to normalization. Who knows what someone who was so blatantly wrong for so long about social reality will believe or say?”

Of course, there will be loud voices soon to be silenced or otherwise muted who will shout in opposition to Dictator Crime Boss Trump and his regime that “But that’s illegal!” and “The Rule of Law!” and “What about the institutions!” to which Trump and his people will respond, “So what. We are the law!”

These are just the plain and unpleasant lessons of history and what commonly occurs when fascists, authoritarians, demagogues, autocrats, and other such political criminals and their organizations take power. The last seven years (and the decades of political and cultural breakdown that helped to create the Trumpocene) have shown that America is not immune from such forces.

“Egregious”: Oklahoma Republican governor’s ban on diversity programs “raises significant concerns”

Oklahoma this week joined Florida and Texas in blocking diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs at public universities and state agencies.

Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt signed an executive order Wednesday mandating comprehensive reviews and significant cuts to DEI offices and programs at public colleges. The order prohibits universities from using state dollars, property or resources to fund DEI offices and programs and also orders them to “eliminate and dismiss all non-critical personnel.”

“In Oklahoma, we’re going to encourage equal opportunity, rather than promising equal outcomes,” Stitt said in a statement. “Encouraging our workforce, economy, and education systems to flourish means shifting focus away from exclusivity and discrimination, and toward opportunity and merit. We’re taking politics out of education and focusing on preparing students for the workforce.”

Although the order is set to take immediate effect, colleges and universities are mandated to comply by May 31. They must submit a certificate of compliance and a report to the governor, as well as the speakers of the state House and Senate, all of whom are Republicans.

But targeting DEI programs and initiatives isn’t new for GOP-led states. In May, Florida became the first state to ban funding for DEI initiatives, raising concerns among university staff in Florida who expressed worries about the ambiguous nature of the ban and potential job losses.

While signing the bill, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said that DEI “has no place in our public institutions” and students who want to learn about “niche subjects” like critical race theory should look elsewhere since “Florida’s getting out of that game.”

Following suit in June, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott implemented a ban on DEI programs and offices across the state, joining DeSantis in restricting how race, sexuality and other topics are discussed. 

Last month, the Iowa Board of Regents voted to direct the state’s three public universities to cut DEI programs that are not necessary for research contracts or accreditation, Iowa Public Radio reported

Republican legislators across the country have long advocated for the removal of DEI initiatives and offices throughout the state, contending that these initiatives and programs are indoctrinating students with left-wing ideology and prioritizing race over merit.  In contrast, Democratic lawmakers assert that DEI programs play a crucial role in mitigating discrimination.

With Oklahoma joining other GOP-led states in enforcing these bans, the president of the University of Oklahoma addressed the OU community in a letter, recognizing the potential concern that the elimination of these programs may raise for some individuals.

“For many of us, this news evokes deep concern and uncertainty about the future, and in many ways feels like a step backward,” Joseph Harrosz Jr said in the letter. “Please be assured that key to our ongoing successes as the state’s flagship university – now and forever – are the foundational values that have served as our constant north star: access and opportunity for all of those with the talent and tenacity to succeed; being a place of belonging for all who attend; dedication to free speech and inquiry; and civility in our treatment of each other.”

We need your help to stay independent

Around $10.2 million were allocated to DEI programs over the last ten years, accounting for just 0.3 percent of all higher education spending, according to the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, KFOR reported.

The University of Oklahoma’s Black Emergency Response Team (BERT) also issued a statement saying that the executive order raises “significant concerns.”

“Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) departments, programs, and entities play a pivotal role in providing a safe and inclusive space for minority and marginalized communities on higher education campuses,” the statement read. “These initiatives offer students a platform to voice their concerns, establish a home away from home, and foster unity within the student life community. Any attempt to remove personnel, funding, and programming jeopardizes the very existence of these essential spaces.”

Stitt's recent call to evaluate DEI programs at the University of Oklahoma, and throughout higher education in the state “raises significant concerns,” the statement added. 

The governor claims this effort is geared towards prioritizing students while eliminating politics from institutes of higher learning. 

“However, it is apparent that Oklahoma political officials, spearheaded by Stitt, fail to comprehend the vital need for funding higher education DEI programs,” the statement said. “Stitt's approach seems to target students from marginalized communities, hiding behind a deceptive narrative that merit-based success and hard work alone suffice for advancement.”


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


Chief of the Cherokee Nation Chuck Hoskin also put out a statement in response to Stitt’s recent actions, criticizing the governor for issuing an “ill-advised” decision that is “once again, trying to erase Native Americans from history.”

“His latest effort creates more barriers for diverse student populations, including Native American students enrolled throughout our state colleges and universities,” Hoskin wrote. “By choosing to eliminate offices of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, the Governor is signaling that these voices and offices in place for outreach don't matter, which is egregious.”

But the governor seemed unphased by all of the criticism he received in recent days. On Friday, he doubled down on his decision to block diversity programs and said that there would be “no more six-figure salaries for DEI staff.”

“In Oklahoma, social identity doesn’t define our success. It's our work ethic, principles, and skills that set us apart,” Stitt wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “Oklahoma agencies and institutes for higher ed are going to take a second look at their DEI practices to ensure we aren’t funding identity politics.”

Steve Bannon thinks Trump will pick a woman to be his vice president this time around

Steve Bannon has a unique insight into what Donald Trump may be strategizing as his campaign for a nonconsecutive second term in office gets further underway. Appearing on "The Sean Spicer Show" on Friday, Trump's former aide lobbed a prediction that the GOP frontrunner will choose a woman as his vice president this time around, tossing out some possibilities as to who that woman might be.

Shooting down the recent buzz over Trump potentially eyeing former Fox News host Tucker Carlson as his running mate, Bannon told Spicer, "Now, if you ask if he was a likely candidate now … I don't think so. My thinking is very structured that I believe President Trump will have a female vice president," name dropping South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R), Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R), Kari Lake (R) and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) as contenders.

"I think you've got a half a dozen to a dozen women who are very viable," Bannon went on to say, singling out one woman who has been mentioned before as a could-be, but whom he no longer sees as a good fit, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

"I think it's very important for America First to make sure it ain't Nikki Haley," he said.

Watch here:

 

Giuliani ordered to pay $148 million in damages to Georgia election workers, D.C. jury decides

A jury in Washington, D.C. on Friday decided former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani will pay two Georgia election workers nearly $150 million in damages after being found liable for defaming them as he peddled baseless claims about them rigging the 2020 election.

The jury awarded former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea ArShaye "Shaye" Moss, who brought the suit against Giuliani, $16,171,000 and $16,998,000 in damages for defamation, respectively. The women were each awarded $20 million in damages for emotional distress, and Giuliani must pay an additional $75 million in punitive damages.

The total amount of damages comes out to $148,169,000, a cost that likely makes Giuliani's previously reported financial troubles more dire.

"I don’t regret a damn thing,” Giuliani told Politico's Kyle Cheney as he left the courthouse Friday.

Giuliani said that the jury's ruling is "absurd," adding that he will appeal the decision and explaining that he didn't testify Thursday, which he'd insisted Wednesday he would do, out of fear of being held in contempt by the judge. 

“We’re very grateful to the jury for taking the time out of their busy lives to do their civic duty, to listen to everything that we’ve been going through," Moss said during a news conference following the verdict. "I know I won’t be able to retire from my job with the county like my grandmother did, but I hope by us taking these steps, these very big steps, towards justice that I can make her just as proud.”  

U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell ruled Giuliani liable for the defamation of Freeman and Moss in a late August default judgement after he conceded to defaming the women a month prior. Howell also ordered the ex-Donald Trump attorney to pay their legal fees and required Giuliani to pay Freeman and Moss an additional $230,000 for failing to respond to parts of their lawsuit.

Howell's August ruling left the jury to decide at trial the amount in damages Giuliani would be responsible for. Giuliani attempted to avoid the trial, but Howell denied his effort earlier this month. 


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


The jury's verdict followed a week of trial in the lawsuit, which began Monday and saw Moss and Freeman's tearful testimonies Tuesday and Wednesday as they described the terror they endured as a result of Giuliani's attacks.

While on the stand Wednesday, Freeman said she had already been overwhelmed by the slew of harrowing threats against her three years ago when Trump placed a larger target on her back. 

As part of their spread of unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, Giuliani, Trump and their allies repeatedly accused Freeman and Moss of committing election crimes, making reference to a surveillance video that was heavily circulated across right-wing media. The clip claimed to show the election workers moving suitcases filled with illegal ballots. Giuliani also later accused the pair of handing out USB drives at Atlanta's State Farm Arena, where votes were being counted.  

The peddling of fraudulent claims evolved into a smear campaign that resulted in her receiving a deluge of threatening messages. After the former president amplified those claims by mentioning her 18 times in an infamous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the threats intensified.

“I just felt like ‘really?’ This is the former president talking about me? Me? How mean, how evil? I just was devastated,” Freeman recalled Wednesday, holding back tears. “I didn’t do nothing. It just made me feel … you don’t care that I’m a real person.”

The virulent threats upended her life, Freeman testified. People started to come to her home, send her threatening voicemails and letters, and barrage her social media accounts with violent and racist messages. Following advice from the FBI, she said she eventually left her longtime home after learning that her name was on a "death list" someone who had just been arrested — likely Oath Keeper affiliate Thomas Caldwell — had kept. 

Giuliani reportedly did not show any remorse during the women's testimony.

He instead doubled down on his election lies despite his earlier concession, telling reporters outside of the courthouse Monday that he intended to testify they were true, a move that garnered harsh rebuke from the judge. Giuliani, however, did not take the stand. 

Freeman and Moss originally filed the lawsuit against Giuliani and other defendants on Dec. 23, 2021, accusing them of defamation, civil conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They amended the suit in May 2022 to accuse Giuliani alone and sought between $14 million and $41 million from him.

Though the election worker's civil case against Giuliani has concluded, the ex-Trump lawyer remains in legal peril and faces the potential of paying millions of dollars more in other civil cases. 

Giuliani has been charged with 13 felony counts, including conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer and conspiracy to commit false statements and writings, in Fulton County, Ga. for his efforts to help Trump remain in office despite his 2020 electoral defeat and interfere with the state's 2020 election results. He has been identified as one of Trump's unindicted co-conspirator's in special counsel Jack Smith's parallel but separate federal election subversion case into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. 

The former famed New York mayor also faces lawsuits from former employees and others, the most recent of which was filed by President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, who accuses Giuliani of misusing data on the younger Biden's personal laptop.

His other lawsuits include one from his former lawyer, Robert Costello for over his alleged failure to pay legal fees, another brought by international voting tech company Smartmatic for defamation connected to his peddling of fraudulent claims of election fraud, and another from his former assistant Noelle Dunphy, who accuses him of sexual assault and wage theft. 

Toxicology report reveals Matthew Perry’s cause of death

After being found unresponsive in a hot tub at his Los Angeles home on the last Saturday before Halloween and, shortly after, pronounced dead at the age of 54, there has been much speculation as to the primary cause of Matthew Perry's death. With many sources saying that no drugs were discovered at the scene, and no foul play was involved, family, friends and fans of the beloved actor have been awaiting the results of a pending toxicology report to put this matter to rest, and those results have just been made public.

According to the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's Office, contributory factors in Perry's death included drowning, coronary artery disease and the effects of buprenorphine — which is used to ween addicts off opioids — but ketamine in Perry's system was the primary cause, which resulted in cardiovascular overstimulation and respiratory depression.

Per Variety and other sources such as TMZ, Perry had taken ketamine infusion therapy for depression and anxiety a week-and-a-half before his death, but the levels of ketamine found in his system on the night in question could not have been from that as ketamine's half-life is 3 to 4 hours, or less. 

Cher has choice words for Rock and Roll Hall of Fame after being snubbed yet again

During a recent appearance on “The Kelly Clarkson Show,” Cher stunned the host by bringing to her attention the surprising fact that even though she has #1 hits spanning seven decades, she's yet to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Visiting the show to promote her latest single, “DJ Play a Christmas Song,” which landed at the top of Billboard’s Dance/Electronic Digital Song Sales chart, Cher celebrated her success with Clarkson, who praised the fellow singer for being one of the only artists to come to mind who has accomplished what she has, so consistently, over the span of such a lengthy career. Hearing this, Cher pointed out that she's not the only artist who has those bragging rights, but that the other one is a band, The Rolling Stones.

“It took four of them to be one of me,” Cher joked, causing Clarkson to jump to her feet and cheer.

Leaning in to the ridiculousness of being snubbed by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame even though she's more than proved her worthiness at this point, she offered them some choice words, should they ever come to their senses, saying, "You know what, I wouldn’t be in it now if they gave me a million dollars . . . I’m never going to change my mind. They can just go you-know-what themselves.”

Watch here:

 

“Meadows is toast”: Experts say appeals court judges aren’t buying Meadows’ bid to evade Fulton DA

A federal appeals court panel on Friday expressed skepticism at former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows' bid to have a federal court take up and potentially dismiss the state charges against him in Georgia for allegedly attempting to interfere with the 2020 presidential election results in the state, Politico reports. All three members of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel sharply questioned Meadows' argument that his role in former President Donald Trump's administration requires federal courts — rather than courts in Fulton County, Ga. — to oversee his sprawling racketeering case, which accuses him, Trump and 17 others of conspiring against the state's election. 

During a 50-minute oral argument session in Atlanta, the appeals judges each pointed skepticism at Meadows' claim that his work to help Trump remain in power despite states certifying his defeat were part of his official duties as chief of staff. Chief Judge William Pryor Jr., who is staunchly conservative, indicated he doesn't believe the case removal process applies to former officials at all, explaining that state charges against former officials don't interfere with “ongoing operations of the federal government.”

Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor, predicted Meadows' bid would be denied because he "didn't establish he was carrying out official duties or [because] the Court finds removal is not available to former officials – or both." Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis agreed that "Meadows is toast" on X/Twitter. "I suspect he will lose 3-0. The question is whether the 11th Cir. will closely track the district court ruling, possibly evading Supreme Court review, or if Pryor will nudge the panel to toward categorically keeping former officers out," Kreis added.

Lawsuit seeks to protect threatened owls from being bulldozed by proposed Arizona highway

A nonprofit that specializes in protecting endangered species filed legal challenges with a US District Court on Thursday, accusing the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) of failing to comply with required environmental reviews. The Center for Biological Diversity alleges that, in their quest to build a 280-mile-long highway in Arizona, the FHA's proposed Interstate 11 will destroy the habitat of one short and fluffy animal in particular: the yellow-eyed, brown-and-white feathered cactus ferruginous pygmy owl (Glaucidium brasilianum).

“Interstate 11 would decimate habitat for cactus ferruginous pygmy owls, who play a vital role in maintaining the health of the Sonoran Desert,” Russ McSpadden, a Southwest conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press statement. “These small but fierce birds nest and raise their young in saguaro cacti and other desert trees that would be bulldozed for the highway’s construction. We’re fully committed to protecting these rare owls and their habitat from destruction.”

The Audubon Society describes cactus ferruginous pygmy owls as hardy animals, hunting in near dawn and dusk on lizards, rodents, insects and small birds. That last choice of prey can get the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl into trouble; when other bird species recognize its distinctive whistled call, they sometimes mob to harass it. But humans are the biggest hazard to these owls. As a result, it was listed as "threatened" earlier this year by the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act.