Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Here’s how experts say you should actually be storing your condiments

Things have a mysterious way of moving around in my kitchen. Soy sauce I thought I'd seen on a shelf somehow winds up in the door of the refrigerator. I leave the good French butter out on the counter for extended periods of time, only to discover a nervous family member has put it back in cold storage. And the ketchup I'd swear I put in the fridge seems to drift into the cupboard. So who's right and who's wrong here — and where should my maple syrup go?

At least I'm not alone in my confusion. Early this year, The UK branch of Heinz drummed up controversy by replying on social media to the age old question of fridge vs cupboard with a unequivocal "FYI: Ketchup. goes. in. the. fridge!!!" But just a few years earlier, American Heinz had offered a much more subdued perspective, tweeting that "Because of its natural acidity, Heinz Ketchup is shelf-stable, but refrigerate after opening to maintain product quality."

I have an admittedly relaxed attitude toward conventional food protocols. I don't wipe down my milk cartons, I don't wash my chickens, I keep bread in a drawer, and am leisurely about putting my unopened groceries in the refrigerator. My spouse, in contrast, dashes home from the supermarket like he's transporting a human heart in his D'Ag Bag. And yet, this is the same person who will let a jar of jam purchased around the first season of "Succession" linger in that same fridge indefinitely. 

While there is some disagreement about where and how long to store certain foods, a few good rules of thumb do apply. "Opened condiments should go in the fridge," states Vered DeLeeuw, a certified nutrition coach and creator of Healthy Recipes Blog. "This includes ketchup, mustard, and mayonnaise." And while it sounds obvious, she says, "When in doubt, check the instructions on the bottle. They will most likely say, 'Refrigerate after opening.'" And here's where I discover my entire condiment collection should probably be tossed — "Ketchup will last six months in the fridge," she advises, "mustard a year, and mayonnaise two months." Barely touched bottle of chipotle mayo, I hardly knew you.

I was also surprised by DeLeeuw's assertion that "Maple syrup should go in the fridge." Just like jam, she says that "Both will grow moldy if stored out of the fridge once opened." She adds that "Commercial jam will last about a month in the fridge," a timeline far more conservative than the USDA's recommended six months, but still a harsh blow to the Bonne Maman I've been working my way through since last Christmastime. In contrast, honey, with its seemingly infinite shelf life, honey, DeLeeuw says, is safe in the cupboard. And she's adamant that "Bread does NOT go in the fridge! It becomes dry and develops a stale flavor in the fridge. It's best to store in a cool, dry place (such as a breadbox) for up to five days."

We need your help to stay independent

I may get confused about where to stow my syrup, but where things get really puzzling is when I compare my food storage habits against those of my friends in other countries, buying their unrefrigerated milk and keeping their eggs and butter on their counters. We Americans, however, need to think twice before trying that at home. In several parts of the world, for example, milk undergoes ultra-high-temperature pasteurization (UHT) that makes it more shelf-stable before opening. You can sometimes find UHT milk at your local supermarket, but it's never quite caught on in our nation that assumes the dairy aisle is synonymous with refrigeration. 

Likewise, there's a reason your supermarket keeps eggs and butter in the refrigerated section but other places don't. Earlier this year,  Lisa Steele from Fresh Eggs Daily told Salon that "Farm fresh eggs from your own backyard, a neighbor, farmers market or local farm that haven't been washed don't need to be refrigerated, and can be left out on the counter at room temperature." (She did  advise gently washing them before using.) As for regular supermarket eggs, Meghan Martigan of the You're Gonna Bake It After All blog recommends, "While safe for short time frames, eggs left on the counter run the risk of bacterial growth."

And as our Ashlie Stevens has explained, your "good" butter, stored appropriately in a butter bell crock, can hang out on the counter and save you from impatiently shredding your toast with ice-cold pats straight from the fridge. There are limits, however, especially in warm weather. Use common sense and only keep out what you're going to use in a short amount of time.  Sarah Johnson, an appliance expert and kitchen advisor at Big Air Fryers, suggests thinking of certain foods as going in the "counter zone." "Keep some fruits, vegetables, and small amounts of butter on the counter," she says, "but remember to rotate them regularly and consume within a reasonable time."

Smart storage isn't just about sticking food in a specific place, though. Your fridge isn't going to do your ridiculously expensive groceries any favors if it's not actually keeping them cold. The USDA recommends "Refrigerators should be set to maintain a temperature of 40 °F (4.4 °C) or below." If you're suspicious your fridge settings may be off,  appliance thermometers are cheap and worth their weight in unspoiled food. And remember that the door is typically the warmest place in the fridge, so it's fine for pickles and soda but iffier for shorter shelf life items like milk.


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


And while it's almost always a safe bet to err on the side of refrigerating any food or condiment you're unsure about, there are exceptions. Dried "herbs and spices possess inherent crispness that gets damp inside a fridge," says Sunita Yousuf, creator of The Wannabe Cook. "The humidity and cold airflow of the refrigerators decrease the spices texture, color, and taste. Refrigeration can clump up the ground spices while the whole spices (cinnamon, pepper, clove, cardamom) get clammy. Hence," she says, "it’s better to store spices in a cool (not chilled) and a dry place instead of a refrigerator."

While I still engage in family debates about where to put the chili crisp, I recognize that the most important aspect of a good kitchen isn't what you store, it's what you eat. "The best way to keep your food fresh and safe to eat is to take more trips to the grocery," says Kam Talebi, CEO of the Minneapolis restaurant The Butcher's Tale. It's a simple, smart strategy. "Buy fresh food more frequently," he says, "rather than stockpiling food, and throwing much of it away."

“I was eating too much”: Trump angrily denies claim that he was “depressed” at 1 am on Truth Social

Former President Donald Trump snapped at former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., over a claim in her forthcoming book, "Oath and Honor." In the book, Cheney recalls her conversation with former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., after he traveled to meet with Trump at Mar-a-Lago after the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. “They’re really worried. Trump’s not eating, so they asked me to come see him," McCarthy told Cheney after she confronted him over the trip, according to the book. "He’s really depressed,” McCarthy said, according to Cheney.

Trump raged over the claim in a Truth Social post at around 1 am on Monday morning.

"Crazy Liz Cheney, who suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome at a level rarely seen before, writes in her boring new book that Keven [sic] McCarthy said he came to Mar-a-Lago after the RIGGED election because, 'the former president was depressed and not eating,'" Trump fumed. "That statement is not true. I was not depressed, I WAS ANGRY, and it was not that I was not eating, it was that I was eating too much. But that’s not why Keven McCarthy was there. He was at Mar-a-Lago to get my support, and to bring the Republican Party together – Only good intentions. Liz Cheney, on the other hand, went on to lose her seat in Congress by the largest margin for a sitting Congressperson in the history of the U.S. She then worked with others on the J6 Committee to delete and destroy the evidence and findings of the committee."

“An absolute tsunami”: Legal experts stunned at “disastrous legal day” for Trump

Two D.C. courts on Friday shot down former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims related to January 6 and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. 

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday ruled that being president does not equate to "a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."

"Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability," she wrote. "Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."

Chutkan also shut down Trump's argument that the case presents a violation of his First Amendment rights, as his attorneys have alleged that his challenging of the election via claims of election fraud was a protected act of free speech.

"It is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime," Chutkan observed. "Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements … but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process."

The judge also addressed how Trump's lawyers have attempted to co-opt the Justice Department's rule that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted to have it apply to Trump, who acted while in office.

"Against the weight of that history, Defendant argues in essence that because no other former Presidents have been criminally prosecuted, it would be unconstitutional to start now," Chutkan wrote. "But while a former President's prosecution is unprecedented, so too are the allegations that a President committed the crimes with which Defendant is charged."

As NPR noted, though the Supreme Court has maintained that presidents cannot be held civilly liable for actions related to their role as president, the legal system has never had to extrapolate that immunity and apply it to an indictment.

Special counsel Jack Smith's team of prosecutors argued in a court filing that Trump "is not above the law."

"He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens," Smith's team wrote, arguing that there is no legal protection in place for a former president who allegedly committed criminal acts while in the White House.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti predicted that Chutkan's "powerful opinion" would be "affirmed on appeal."

"She’s right — Trump does not have a lifetime 'get out of jail free' pass. You can expect Trump’s lawyers to try to use the appeal of this motion to delay the trial," he tweeted

We need your help to stay independent

Chutkan's ruling came shortly after a federal appeals court in D.C. ruled that Trump could be sued in civil lawsuits related to the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection after multiple Democratic House members and Capitol police officers sued the former president. Trump is expected to appeal the unanimous decision.

Penned by Judge Sri Srinivasan, the opinion states that the president is not fundamentally immune to the law and “does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities. And when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity. … When he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen."

The Democratic lawmakers, in their suits, allege that Trump and his co-conspirators threatened them to halt the congressional session that would have given way to the certification of Joe Biden's presidential victory on Jan. 6. Capitol police officers assert in separate Jan. 6-related lawsuits that they suffered emotional distress and physical injury from the insurrection. The complaints mainly draw from a federal law that bars individuals from conspiring to prevent someone from holding federal office, as noted by CNN

Judge Greg Katsas wrote in his concurring opinion on Friday that it "is flexible enough to accommodate rare cases where even speech made during a campaign event may be official. And it is cautious, in leaving open both the question whether the [Trump January 6] speech at issue is entitled to immunity and, if not, whether the First Amendment nonetheless protects it.”

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung in a statement to CNN called the appeals court's decision “limited, narrow and procedural.”

"The facts fully show that on January 6 President Trump was acting on behalf of the American people, carrying out his duties as President of the United States," the statement added.


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


Attorneys for the plaintiffs represented by the lawsuits lauded the decision. "This is the right result and an important step forward in holding former President Trump accountable for the insurrection on January 6,” said Matt Kaiser, attorney for Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.

"Today’s ruling makes clear that those who endanger our democracy and the lives of those sworn to defend it will be held to account,” lawyer Patrick Malone said in a statement after the opinion was released. “Our clients look forward to pursuing their claims in court.”

“We’re moving one step closer to justice, one step closer to accountability, and one step closer to healing some of the wounds suffered by [Officers] James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby,” said Kristy Parker, counsel at Protect Democracy. “As this case shows, our constitutional order does not grant former President Donald J. Trump immunity for his attempt to subvert our democracy.”

George Washington University Law Prof. Randall Eliason after the dual rulings tweeted that it was a "huge day in the progress of the justice system towards holding Trump accountable for the events of January 6, 2021. Huge."

"From the standpoint of legal news, today is an absolute tsunami, culminating in Judge Chutkan’s opinion denying Trump‘s immunity motion," agreed former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. "Enough legal developments to choke a horse, and all in all a disastrous legal day for Donald Trump."

Fox News interrupts Trump speech to fact-check his “many untruths”

A Fox News host interrupted the network's live broadcast of Donald Trump's speech at a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Saturday to fact-check the former president. “Well, the former president finally got around to some campaign promises amid lots of cheering, as you heard,” anchor Arthel Neville told viewers. "Many untruths. The 2020 election was not rigged. It was not stolen,” she continued, counteracting Trump’s false claim that he won the vote over President Joe Biden and was deprived of the win due to unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud.

Neville's fact-check upset supporters of the 2024 GOP nomination frontrunner on X, formerly Twitter, with one raging it was a "bulls—t opinion." In April, the conservative network reached a $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over baseless claims its anchors made that Dominion's voting machines were tampered with to ensure Trump's electoral defeat. A defamation lawsuit from voting tech company Smartmatic, which is suing Fox Corp. for $2.7 billion, is ongoing. Last year while on air, Neville called for gun law reform following a string of mass shootings.  “As we’ve said before, prayers are not enough. We have to do something. We’ve got to get the lawmakers to do something,” Neville said at the time, contrasting with the largely pro-gun comments made by her colleagues at the network. The former president has previously fired off online about Neville, asserting that she should instead work for CNN, a network he has repeatedly dubbed "fake news."

Trump tries to turn the tables — but swing voters won’t be convinced by his “war on democracy” remix

With his latest tribute to the late great Pee Wee Herman, former president Donald Trump unveiled a new "I know you are but what am I" campaign strategy over the weekend by attacking President Joe Biden as "the destroyer of American democracy." 

The crowd loved it, as they love all things Trump. The Des Moines Register interviewed one rallygoer who explained why: "Teens have rock stars that they follow like Taylor Swift. Grown-ups have Trump." It doesn't really matter what he says."

Trump's senior campaign adviser explained the real reason for this new campaign slogan: "To watch the lefties heads explode":

The Washington Post reported that a "senior Trump adviser" told them, “President Trump is turning the tables, We are not going to allow Joe Biden and the Democrats to gaslight the American public," and it's clear from what LaCivita wrote that it's yet another of their juvenile attempts to "own the libs." 

We need your help to stay independent

I don't think I saw any lefties heads exploding over this but many people did explode with laughter. The claim is ludicrous, of course. Trump's the one who attempted to overturn the election and incited a violent mob to storm the capitol and stop the certification of the election. There is no greater example of democracy destruction than that. But he said it and it wasn't off the cuff. They passed out placards before the rally that said, "Biden attacks Democracy" and flashed the words on a big screen above him as he said it. 

This is Trump's one true talent. He instinctively understands the power of turning his own flaws into his rivals' and then criticizing them for it.

The New York Times characterized this move as the Trump campaign "going on offense" to counter accusations by Biden that he is a threat to democracy. But I'm not sure this marks much of a change in strategy. After all, Trump has been saying since 2016 that any election he loses is rigged. He even says it when he wins! Recall his "commission" to investigate voter fraud in the election against Hillary Clinton in which he sought to prove that he really won the popular vote because of all the illegal votes. That investigation didn't go anywhere but his claims helped set the stage for his Big Lie in 2020. 

This weekend he made an even bolder claim that the elections are “rigged” if he doesn’t win in California, Illinois, and New York: 

He further commanded his troops to go to Atlanta, Philadelphia and Detroit to "watch" the vote count next November to make sure they don't cheat. I think we know what he's telling them to do, don't you? "It will be wild…."

All of his talk about electoral fraud for the past five years is essentially saying that the Democrats in general and Biden specifically are destroying democracy by stealing elections. This has been the central message of his ongoing campaign. Why anyone thinks that this is a new tack is beyond me. 

Trump does this to get his followers all excited and angry so they'll send him money and come out to vote. It's a fundamentally dishonest but rational approach and it's one that's kept the Republican Party under his spell for the last eight years. In that respect, it has been a great success. But if swing voters haven't been convinced that Biden stole the election from Trump by now, all this bellowing about Biden "destroying democracy" is going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone in America has heard it all before. 

It can be powerful in a different way, however. It serves to neutralize the topic as just more political "tit-for-tat" and some people may just dismiss the entire argument that the Democrats are making. Witness how Trump and his Republican henchmen have managed to persuade a majority of the American public that Biden is involved in corrupt activity with his son, as an AP/NORC poll from October found:

Most adults say President Biden has at the very least acted unethically in his handling of the international business dealings of his son Hunter, including about a third who say he did something illegal. Only 30% of the public think Biden has done nothing wrong regarding Hunter’s business dealings.

They have even managed to convince 40% of Democrats that Joe Biden acted unethically or illegally based solely on lies and innuendo. It's a stunning result that proves the power of repetition and propaganda. The AP reported that result and then added this, proving that Trump has gotten exactly what he wanted:

A similar percentage of adults (67%) said former President Donald Trump acted unethically or illegally in his interactions with the president of Ukraine according to an AP-NORC poll taken in October 2019, with 38% believing he acted illegally. 

 

Trump is at this very moment pushing hard for the House of Representatives to impeach Joe Biden over all of this and the new speaker, Mike Johnson, said that he thinks it's just about ready to go. Everyone knows that it's dead on arrival in the Senate but that doesn't matter. All Trump wants to do is ensure that Biden is impeached to neutralize his own impeachments.


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


Trump's claims of Biden "weaponizing" the government against him, despite no evidence that Biden had anything to do with the Justice Department's decisions, is now serving to open the door for his authoritarian agenda of retribution which he portrays as legitimate:

That's really rich coming from the man who told Hillary Clinton on a debate stage in 2016 that she would be jailed if he won:

He tried and couldn't get it done. He knows the ropes now.

As you can see, the Pee-Wee Herman strategy isn't springing from Trump's Mar-a-Lago brain trust. This is Trump's one true talent. He instinctively understands the power of turning his own flaws into his rivals' and then criticizing them for it. Psychologists call this "projection" and it is. But it's more than that. Trump is corrupt and incompetent and he's projecting that onto Biden to be sure. But he's also feeding the cynicism that has overtaken our political culture. 

His own followers may believe that he is an innocent martyr being persecuted unjustly, but all those swing voters or "low information" voters who may be unhappy about other things can be persuaded that "they all do it" or even "they've always done it" so what's the big deal? He knows that all he has to do is get his fan base out and convince a small sliver of the rest of the voting population that there's not a dime's worth of difference between him and Joe Biden and he could pull off another win like he did in 2016. 

Legal expert warns Trump co-defendant may be indicted again for “straight up witness intimidation”

One of former President Donald Trump’s co-defendants in the sprawling Georgia election RICO case may have violated the terms of her bond after appearing to threaten a witness in the case, legal experts say.

Trevian Kutti, a former publicist for Kanye West who was charged in the case for allegedly pressuring election worker Ruby Freeman to admit to baseless fraud allegations, appeared to threaten Freeman in a potential violation of her bond agreement during an Instagram Live session flagged by the liberal outlet Medias Touch.

"Everybody’s alive. There’s no murder weapon. As a matter of fact, there’s a woman sitting somewhere who knows this whole thing is a lie,” Kutti said in an apparent reference to Freeman. “Who knows I never did anything to her. Who knows I never. Who knows she begged me for help. There’s a woman sitting somewhere who knows that I’m going to f**k her whole life up when this is done.”

Kutti said that her conversation was on video at a police station, matching the account of her interaction with Freeman.

Legal experts expressed alarm over Kutti’s comments and predicted she could have her bond revoked or even face a second indictment.

“This is not even a close call,” tweeted Janai Nelson, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. “This whole rant by Trevian Kutti is a case study in witness intimidation and obstruction. All prosecutors in these election subversion cases must give no quarter when it comes to these antics and fully and swiftly enforce the law and the bond terms.”

Sherrilyn Ifill, the former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis “has to be all over this.”

“Shaye Moss & Ruby Freeman have been through enough. And the consent order for Trevian’s bond could not be clearer,” she wrote.

We need your help to stay independent

Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University, called Kutti’s comments “straight up witness intimidation that violates the conditions of her consent bond.”

Kreis predicted that prosecutors would file a motion to revoke Kutti’s consent bond and said he “would not be shocked if she’s indicted again for an additional racketeering act by the Grand Jury.”

Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case, last month modified the bond agreement of fellow co-defendant Harrison Floyd over social media posts relating to the case but stopped short of revoking his bond agreement.


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


But Floyd’s conduct, “though plainly stupid, is nothing when compared to what Trevian Kutti appears to have done,” Kreis wrote on X/Twitter. Though Floyd made a “very poor choice” by having limited contact with witnesses on social media, “the contact he had was limited to people who are state officials,” Kreis explained. “Under Georgia law, witness intimidation’s baseline default is physical or economic harm— mouthing off about the prosecution’s case isn’t presumptively a kind of intimidation.

“It’ll be the state’s burden to demonstrate to the court the meaning of Trevian Kutti’s statement and that it was a violation of the terms of her bond and the public interest favors remand if the state so moves,” he added. “I don’t think they’ll have a hard time with that showing here.”

Constantly on the nod, chinstrap penguins catch seconds-long bursts of sleep 10,000 times per day

"The investment in microsleeps by successfully breeding penguins suggests that the benefits of sleep can accrue incrementally."

Nearly all animals need some form of sleep to survive, but not all of them sleep in the same ways as humans. Take chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarcticus), the adorable two-foot-plus waddling birds named for the distinctive and dignified black stripes at the bottoms of their heads, which are indigenous to the islands and shores of the Southern Pacific and Antarctic Oceans.

Now a new study in the journal Science reveals that chinstrap penguins have a very unique way of sleeping. Instead of getting six-to-eight hours at night like humans, chinstrap penguins sleep thousands of times per day in four second spurts — but accumulate a daily 11 hours of sleep in the process.

Researchers from France, Germany and South Korea learned this by studying 14 chinstrap penguins sleep patterns with an electroencephalograph, which measures brain activity. While the chinstrap penguins swam in the ocean or nested on King George Island, which is near Antarctica, they regularly faced threats such as aggression from other penguins or predatory birds like the brown skua pursuing their eggs. As a result, sleeping for lengthy periods can be risky, so they evolved an ability to enter rest states in spurts of up to four seconds. This results in chinstrap penguins sleeping more than 10,000 times each day. As the authors concluded, "The investment in microsleeps by successfully breeding penguins suggests that the benefits of sleep can accrue incrementally."

Of course, just because the scientists proved that the penguins achieved some level of sleep during those four second bursts, the exact quality of the sleep is another matter entirely. It is entirely possible that the chinstrap penguins pay for their so-called "microsleeps" by not being fully restored when they wake up — just like humans who experience dementia-like cognitive ability when too sleep deprived.

"Although we did not directly measure the restorative value of microsleeps, the chinstrap penguins’ large investment in microsleeps, characterized by potentially costly momentary lapses in visual vigilance (eye closure), and their ability to successfully breed, despite sleeping in this highly fragmented manner, suggest that microsleeps can fulfill at least some of the restorative functions of sleep," the researchers wrote. They theorized that even though the neuronal silence only lasts for a few moments, each period could provide enough of a window for rest and recovery that the advantages "could accumulate irrespective of the duration of SWS bouts." This comes with many benefits, including that it "may give animals the flexibility to partition sleep into short or long bouts, depending on their ecological demands for vigilance."


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


"The acquisition of SWS primarily through thousands of microsleeps lasting only 4 [seconds] is unprecedented, even among penguins."

The next question that one might have is whether chinstrap penguins are unique in this regard. Are there other birds that might acquire slow-wave sleep (SWS), the most restorative type of sleep, through this unusual method?

The authors report that bouts of avian SWS are known to be short compared to the same process in mammals, but write "thousands of microsleeps lasting only 4 [seconds] is unprecedented, even among penguins."

Non-breeding emperor penguins held in captivity do frequently alternate between waking and short-wave sleep patterns in a state called "drowsiness" that resemble the microsleep patterns observed in chinstrap penguins. There is a significant difference, though, between the two: those penguins only spent 14% of their time while drowsy, and spent another 37.5% of their time in their own version of SWS. Likewise the New Zealand species known as little penguins (Eudyptula minor) show similar bursts of slow waves when in a state of so-called "quiet wakefulness" that is similar to micro sleep in chinstrap penguins. Yet those birds' spurts of SWS on average lasted more than ten times as long at 42 seconds.

"The difference between sleep continuity in these penguins and chinstrap penguins is likely related to the recording context (captive and alone as opposed to wild in a colony) and the birds’ reproductive state," the authors speculated.

Sleep is vital to good health for humans. When humans lack quality sleep because of common medical conditions like apnea, or because they are overworked at home or their jobs, their bodies and minds pay a steep price. Although humans would be ill-advised to try getting all of their sleep in four-second bursts, that does not mean humans cannot benefit from getting rest in unexpected places. For instance, there is growing evidence that napping in the middle of the day provides health benefits.

Curtains for Moms for Liberty: The fallout of a rape charge shows the far-right group is floundering

At first, there was little that was surprising about a report that Christian Ziegler, the husband of Moms for Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler, is under police investigation in Sarasota, FL following a rape allegation. The modus operandi of Moms for Liberty and their allies is implying, often outright falsely accusing, everyone from drag queens to school librarians of being sexual predators. Lurid finger-pointing from conservatives is often, as most folks have figured out by now, a form of psychological projection. It hasn't even been two weeks since the release of a similar story outing a Philadelphia organizer for Moms of Liberty for his 2012 conviction of sexual abuse of a 14-year-old boy. 

The speed with which the Zieglers are being tossed overboard is fascinating because it wasn't that long ago that the couple were some of the biggest rising stars in the GOP, especially in Florida.

Just as predictable were the details dug up by local reporters for the Florida Trident that "both the woman and Bridget Ziegler independently told police they had engaged with Christian Ziegler in a three-way sexual encounter more than a year before the incident, according to a search warrant in the case released late Friday." According to police, the woman had been alone with Christian Ziegler, who is also the chair of the Florida GOP, the night of the alleged rape. Time and again, we have seen this story play out: The self-appointed guardians of everyone else's sexual morality often have rather exotic sex lives of their own. Just ask Jerry Falwell Jr. 

But what is genuinely startling — downright shocking, even — is there are signs that these revelations could result in bona fide political consequences for the Zieglers. Gov. Ron DeSantis, whose support of Moms for Liberty played a huge role in the group's skyrocketing to national prominence, didn't mince words when asked about the allegations Thursday night. He called on Ziegler to resign, saying, "He’s innocent till proven guilty, but we just can’t have a party chair that is under that type of scrutiny." 


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


DeSantis isn't alone in this, either. The Zieglers don't seem to have a lot of defenders. The Republican Party of Sarasota released a statement saying they were "shocked and disappointed" by the allegations. While Moms for Liberty claims they "stand with" Bridget Ziegler, they also closed replies on Twitter and put out a statement emphasizing that "she stepped back from the organization’s board in 2021." As confirmed by the Washington Post, however, Zieglers remains on the group's advisory board. 

The speed with which the Zieglers are being tossed overboard is fascinating because it wasn't that long ago that the couple were some of the biggest rising stars in the GOP, especially in Florida. DeSantis aligned himself so firmly with Moms for Liberty that they seemed all but an official part of his presidential campaign. He gave a keynote address at the Moms for Liberty conference in Philadelphia in July. He also did innumerable events highlighting the group's work in banning books in school, terrorizing teachers for being LGBTQ or allies, and intimidating educators out of teaching facts about history that conservatives would rather keep hidden. Bridget Ziegler played a strong hand in writing Florida's "don't say gay" law. DeSantis even appointed her to the tourism board he constructed to harass Disney for daring to speak out against his anti-LGBTQ agenda. 

We can rule out sincere concerns about sexual violence as the reason the Zieglers are looking friendless this week. Republicans do not hold rape allegations, no matter how credible, against their leaders. After all, a court found Donald Trump responsible for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll just this year, which comports with Trump's previous bragging about how he likes to "grab them by the pussy." Yet he is still sailing to the Republican nomination. DeSantis, who is supposedly challenging Trump for the nomination, hasn't even tried to make Trump's history of sexual assault an issue. Neither he nor the voters he's speaking to give a single fig about sexual violence. If anything, rape charges just burnish one's reputation in MAGA circles, which have made a virtue out of toxic masculinity

In light of the GOP's record on the issue, it was easy to predict that Ziegler would dig his heels in. On Saturday, the Tampa Bay Times reported that Ziegler sent an email to party members in which he did just that, rejecting calls for his resignation. 

"We have a country to save and I am not going to let false allegations of a crime put that mission on the bench as I wait for this process to wrap up," he wrote in an email. He also insinuated he's a victim of a liberal conspiracy, writing, "there are leaks in this process who are feeding the press selective information to generate narratives with."

In truth, the reports are based on a public, if heavily redacted, police report. 

Ziegler has reasons to think he can survive this. The GOP is a party that has made Trump, a thrice-married chronic adulterer, the avatar of their "Christian" messaging. They don't hide any longer that their sexual rules exist mainly as an excuse to harass marginalized people, while those inside their tribe are permitted all sexual adventures they like. If the GOP establishment wanted to rally the troops to defend the Zieglers, we'd probably already be hearing on Fox News how threesomes are simply a Christ-approved way to keep your marriage healthy. 

Maybe it will still happen, but this looks like a proper political defenestration with DeSantis hitting the eject button. It's not hard to guess why: Moms for Liberty has bad mojo. The group's political agenda of banning books and bullying LGBTQ students and teachers turned out to be politically unpopular. Being publicly linked to Moms for Liberty hurt Republicans in the midterms. This was most evident in school board races, where Democrats won big in swing districts that Moms for Liberty had targeted for takeovers. But even beyond that, analyses by Sarah Jones at New York and Dave Weigel at Semafor show that the entire Moms for Liberty strategy of drumming up hysteria about "wokeness" in schools backfired on the Republican Party. 

We need your help to stay independent

It wasn't that long ago that Moms for Liberty were the belles of the Republican ball. When Virginia's Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin won in 2021 on a campaign demonizing teachers under the guise of "parents rights," the GOP pinned their electoral hopes on the theory that they could woo swing voters by drumming up fears that LGBTQ acceptance and naughty words in books are a danger to kids. It swiftly became popular on the right to accuse all liberals, but especially those employed in education, of being "groomers," i.e. the equivalent of pedophiles. 

What they didn't count on was how this outrageous and falsified moral panic would create a backlash, especially once the book banning frenzy started to affect the quality of education kids could get in school. As I reported in October, parents in suburban Pennsylvania really began to rise up when Moms for Liberty-aligned politicians started to rewrite social studies curricula away from historical facts to peddle right-wing propaganda. People don't like hearing false accusations that beloved teachers are "groomers." They especially don't like it when that's used as an excuse to deprive kids of lessons they need to get into good colleges and get good jobs in an increasingly diverse country. 

Few people did more than the Zieglers to convince the larger GOP that it was a smart move to bet it all on this whole "Moms for Liberty" thing. And no one was more gung-ho about the Zieglers than DeSantis. That he's dropping them like a hot potato suggests that even he sees the writing on the wall: Moms for Liberty is a political loser — and the GOP cannot drop them fast enough. 

“Part Mussolini, part Berlusconi, part Putin”: Historian on Trump’s planned “legal revolution”

Donald Trump is an American fascist. The evidence is obvious and overwhelming in support of this conclusion. Donald Trump is publicly threatening and planning to do such things as end the rule of law, nullify the Constitution by, for example, ending the First Amendment, imprison his “enemies," impose martial law and create a concentration camp system for "illegal immigrants." 

Trump is also channeling Hitler and the Nazis through appeals to blood and soil nationalism, antisemitism, and eliminationist threats to deal with “the vermin.” He wants to replace the public and private education system with a system of right-wing white supremacist political indoctrination under the guise of patriotic education, make White Christianity the de facto state religion, take away the civil and human rights of Black and brown people and other nonwhites, gays and lesbians, women, and other targeted groups including Muslims, and replace career civil servants and others who believe in the Constitution with his own political loyalists and cultists.

With the 2024 election less than one year away, have the American people run out of time to stop Donald Trump and the American fascist movement or has a type of terminal path dependency set in for American democracy?

Christopher R. Browning is the Frank Porter Graham Professor of History Emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is the author of such notable books as “Ordinary Men: Reserve Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland” and “The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939–March 1942." Browning’s essay “A New Kind of Fascism” was recently published by The Atlantic.

In this conversation, Browning warns that Donald Trump represents an almost unique type of fascism, and existential danger, to American democracy and society. He discusses why many experts, including himself, were reluctant for so long to describe Trump and the MAGA movement as “fascist” and why that label is now clearly appropriate, if not overdue. At the end of this conversation, Browning shares his hope that Trump’s fascist movement is a cult of personality that, like Hitlerism and Stalinism, may not survive being defeated in the 2024 election or Trump's imprisonment.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity

How are you feeling given the democracy crisis, Trump’s embrace of Hitlerism, the Israel-Hamas war, Ukraine, and so many other troubles? As a historian, what has this moment and journey been like?

The intellectual dimension of the journey has been a reaffirmation of the importance of studying history. I do not know how anyone could make sense of what has transpired at home, in Ukraine, and in Israel-Gaza without knowing the historical contexts. There is a reason why Putin on the one hand and people like DeSantis on the other are engaged in "history wars" aimed at substituting feel-good propaganda and self-affirming fairy tales for real historical understanding.

Emotionally, the journey has been a roller-coaster ride. At times, the cumulative evidence of successfully defending democracy seems positive. The Trump indictments, the trend in local elections going strongly democratic, the chaotic spectacle of Republicans' inability to behave remotely like responsible adults in the House of Representatives, the midterm elections, and especially the defeats of election deniers in the battleground states, are reassuring. 

"It is clear that a second Trump term will be quite different from the first."

But then come the trial delays that make it likely that only the Jan. 6 trial has any chance of reaching a verdict before Election Day, along with the wild-card possibilities of numerous third-party candidates. It seems that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would split the conspiracy vote and hurt Trump, and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin and Green Party candidate Jill Stein could well deprive Biden of needed victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Anything that deprives Biden of a clear victory in the Electoral College will set up replays of Florida in 2000, with either the Supreme Court or the House of Representatives, with one vote per state delegation, deciding the outcome in Trump's favor. 

When I think of all the ways Trump could win despite falling well short of a majority of the popular vote, I am frightened. Concerning the consistently low polling for Biden vs. Democrats outperforming in local elections, I hope that it turns out to be true that polls are for venting, elections are for real voting.

And this, of course, does not even touch on the calamity that will befall Ukraine if U.S. aid stops there, and the intractability of the Middle East, where Biden is trying to thread the needle diplomatically in a situation where simultaneously Israel was the victim of a savage terrorist attack but the Netanyahu government stands firmly in the way of a two-state solution as the only long term way out (to say nothing of its outrageous policies on the West Bank for decades that are a poison pill for Israelis and a source of utter desperation for Palestinians). I have more hopes of a partially satisfactory outcome in Ukraine than steering through the ongoing calamity in the Middle East. 

We spoke several years ago about Trump and the MAGA movement and American fascism. At the time you were reluctant to use the word “fascist." You have since changed your mind. Was it a single moment of realization? A series of events? 

I was willing to attribute a "fascist style" to Trump, but reluctant to equate Trumpism with Hitler's Nazi or Mussolini's ascist regimes, since in their historical substance they stood for totalitarian dictatorship at home, war and conquest abroad, and genocide/mass killing of racially-targeted groups (Libyans, Ethiopians, Slovenes at the hands of Mussolini, and of course Jews, Roma, the physically- and mentally handicapped, and many others at the hands of the Nazis). It seemed a trivialization to me to equate the political vulgarity of Trumpism with the monumental crimes of Hitler and Mussolini. 

Now, however, it is clear that a second Trump term will be quite different from the first. The plans for a vast purge and transformation of the civil service, the end of the political neutrality of key institutions like the DOJ and the military, and the gutting of some institutions (like EPA, FDA, CDC) will transform the American government into a dictatorship. Trump has learned that a "legal revolution" creating dictatorship from within is much more effective than a riotous attack from the outside. Still, a second Trump term would be a very untypical form of fascism—what I have dubbed "isolationist fascism" for its obsequiousness to other authoritarian regimes and lack of interest in waging its own wars of aggression (except perhaps incursions into Mexico).

I was one of the first people with a public platform to consistently describe Trump and the MAGA movement and their allied forces as being “fascists." To say that there was considerable pushback would be to put it mildly. Now, more than seven years since, it all seems rather anticlimactic even as the danger is escalating and ever more real.

"Trump got a nearly four-year pass on a firehose of lies because the media valued its own self-image seeming neutrality above truthful reporting that appeared to 'take sides.'"

For much of Trump's first term, there were "guardrails" that limited the damage, and he himself was more focused on attention, adulation and adoration than achieving particular program goals. The last weeks of his first term revealed the kind of people (total sycophants and loyalists) and the kind of measures (noted above) that will be front and center. So, ironically, blocking a second Trump term in 2020 has made him potentially a much more dangerous man if he gets a second term in 2024. It seems the danger is more real now because it actually is more real now.

Why were the mainstream news media and political class so afraid to correctly describe Trump and the Republican fascists and today’s “conservative” movement as being fascists? They are still reluctant to consistently do so even though the evidence is obvious and growing.

I think there was a combination of factors that shaped the assessments of media and the political class. First was the unprecedented nature of Trumpism in U.S. political history (though not elsewhere). There was a smug confidence that the US system and political culture were more resilient than other failed democracies, as more than two centuries of American history seemed to attest. Germans had been fooled and succumbed to wishful thinking, i.e., before 1933 "the soup was never as hot when you eat it as when you cook it", and in the initial violence of 1933, "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." But too many Americans were confident that none of the earlier lessons of democratic fragility applied to us. The system would absorb and "tame" Trump.

We need your help to stay independent

Second, for the media especially, there was the normative demand to present an appearance of neutrality, balance, etc. For years they would not call Trump's falsehoods "lies," rather they would report conflicting versions of events. Not even "birtherism" would place Trump in a different category undeserving of legitimacy and credibility. It took the "big lie" of election denial in 2020 for most newscasters to finally say, when stating Trump's claims, that they were false or without evidence. Trump got a nearly four-year pass on a firehose of lies because the media valued its own self-image seeming neutrality above truthful reporting that appeared to "take sides." 

Looking back to 2016, it is painful to see how the press piled on Hilary's emails and The Clinton Foundation, while giving Trump a pass on the totally fraudulently Trump Foundation and hanky-panky with the Russians.

When you look at Donald Trump what do you see? What is he an example of?

Trump is his own type: A massively insecure, revenge-driven narcissist in personality; an isolationist fascist as a political category. Part Mussolini, part Berlusconi, part Putin.

When Trump says, "Make America Great Again," he is advocating a return to a time when white, heterosexual, Protestant men dominated; women stayed in the kitchen, gays stayed in the closet, and people of color remained within the confines of legal segregation in the south and de facto segregation elsewhere. They opened the door to welcome in Catholics and Netanyahu-style Jews who demonstrate how to keep Arabs down.

Does Donald Trump have an ideology?

Trump is not an ideologue in the sense of someone who methodically works out the "logic" of his fundamental idea, i.e., like Hitler did in seeing history as “race struggle”. He does have a feral instinct for how cruelty, violence, bullying, etc., provide vicarious attraction to others. The success of his "cult of personality" seems to rest on filling others' emotional needs based on resentment, grievance, sense of victimization, etc., rather than the power of ideas. But Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, et al., provide the ideology for which his cult of personality will provide the popular support. He can do without them, but they are nothing without him. Hence his unchallenged control over the party.

"Most of the media I read and listen to (Atlantic, MSNBC, etc.) do note that Trump is now disseminating Nazi slogans openly and shamelessly. But the general public is so accustomed to Trump's 'bad boy act' that this seems to have little resonance as a warning."

When you watched the events of Jan. 6 as they took place what were you thinking? Now given Trump and the GOP’s escalating threats against democracy, what does Jan. 6 mean now?

At the time I underestimated how close we came to disaster on Jan. 6. I thought it was an instigated riot, but did not realize the background planning for alternate electors, etc. If Pence had gotten in the Secret Service car, and they had taken him to some “safe house” so that he could not have presided over the counting of the electoral votes, the constitutional process would have been derailed.  As I later realized, it was not just a riot, but a planned coup that narrowly failed.  

Trump is now openly channeling Hitler and the Nazis. Why does this matter? What is so dangerous about it? I am worried that the average American lacks the historical knowledge and context to understand this latest escalation and its horrible implications.

Most of the media I read and listen to (Atlantic, MSNBC, etc.) do note that Trump is now disseminating Nazi slogans openly and shamelessly. But the general public is so accustomed to Trump's "bad boy act" that this seems to have little resonance as a warning. When we've lived for 7 years now finding out there is "no bottom" and "no line that cannot be crossed," and Trump is constantly intensifying the shock value of his behavior to keep attention focused on himself, it is easy to dismiss this as "business as usual." It is the warning that no longer warns. 

Where are we currently in America, in terms of the story of how democratic societies succumb to fascism and illiberalism?

I think the previous assumption was that countries without long democratic traditions were most vulnerable (like Russia in the 1990s and Germany in the 1920s), while countries with two centuries of democratic tradition (like the U.S. and U.K.) could withstand crises like the Great Depression with democracy intact. This view rested in part on the important insight that democracies depend not just on constitutional design but on consensus over norms, the prevalence of good faith, and widespread acceptance that issues that divide a country are less important than the democratic/constitutional ground rules and values that unite it. Long-standing democratic traditions are not a sure defense when one of two major political parties becomes anti-democratic, so that every election is a referendum on democracy itself, and democrats have only to lose once to lose forever. The 2010 elections, computer-driven gerrymandering and redistricting, and voter suppression delivered a number of states to permanent one-party rule, in which those in power choose their voters and cannot be held accountable or voted out of power.


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


What we are witnessing today is that democratic norms can be eroded, good faith subverted, and divisions purposely aggravated for the anti-democratic ends of attaining and keeping power without majority support — of making minority, oligarchic, cult rule permanent. So far this has happened most pervasively in precisely that part of the country (Jim Crow South) where multiracial democracy is only a few decades old, not two centuries old. So the importance of long-standing democratic traditions is not disproven.

If Trump returns to power what will that mean? What will day-to-day life be like for the “average” American?

"Communism survived the deaths of Stalin and Mao, but Stalinism and Maoism did not."

For average Americans, the gutting of the EPA, FDA, CDC, etc., will mean exposure to pollution, collapse of public health defense against epidemics, and the return to adulterated, unsafe and unhealthy products that generate profits for a few at the expense of many (Flint, Michigan's drinking water and the opioid epidemic are the models for that future). Public education, like public health, will decline. Indeed, anything "public" will be at peril. With the politicization of the DOJ, FBI, etc., corruption and unaccountability to those in power will increase. Isolationism and deference to dictators abroad will in the long term make the world much less safe, as any semblance of the "rules-based" order dissolves. Minorities will face a big step backward in terms of unchecked exercise of police powers against them. The move toward enlarging rights for LBGTQ and racial minorities will reverse in the name of religious and individual freedom.

How is American exceptionalism and the fact that most (white) Americans lack the cultural memory and lived experience of suffering under power — like Black folks with Jim Crow, for example, or Jewish people with the Holocaust — limiting their ability to actually process what a Trump dictatorship would be like?

Shortly after World War II, Milton Mayer wrote a book, "They Thought They Were Free." Most Germans experienced the Hitler dictatorship — at least until the latter years of the war — as beneficiaries, not victims. The persecutory focus of the regime was on small minorities. Jews were less than 1%, Roma even fewer, and "asocials" by definition were not even part of society. In the U.S. now, Black people, Hispanics, the LGBTQ community and, needless to say, women represent vast constituencies that cannot be marginalized in the way Nazism's prime domestic victims were. The vast majority of Hitler's victims lived outside Germany. Thus, I do not see the "isolationist fascism" of Trump as being a replay of the dynamics of Nazism. It will be its own unique and largely unprecedented venture, not a carbon copy. Much will depend upon on how well the federal system withstands the Trump regime and some states preserve relative pockets of protection against the worst abuses of the regime. We could literally see "two Americas."

Is it too late to stop Trump and the American neofascists and these other illiberal forces here and abroad?

No, it is not too late. Pro-democracy forces just have to keep winning elections, especially in 2024.  Since the "cult of Trump" is a major component of Trumpism, if we can survive his last attempt to win power through the election in 2024, it is not impossible that the movement will fracture and weaken significantly thereafter. Communism survived the deaths of Stalin and Mao, but Stalinism and Maoism did not.

Going forward what are you most afraid of? What, if anything, are you hopeful about?

I am most afraid of Trump winning in 2024. If he doesn't, I am hopeful that thereafter he may be in jail, or at least convicted on criminal charges, and in any case his movement may fracture and fragment without a single unifying personality. Trump-imitators have not fared as well as the genuine article.

Shaping morality: How weight loss drugs challenge the myth of thinness as a virtue

Last week, in a sit-down interview with CNN, WeightWatchers CEO Sima Sistani uttered four words that changed the trajectory of the company for good: “We got it wrong.” 

Since joining the company last year, Sistani has revised many of its core features, including shifting away from storefronts and their infamous in-person meetings, but most radical is her keen embrace of blockbuster weight loss and weight-management drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, can help patients lose 22.5 percent of their body weight — approaching the amount someone would lose with bariatric surgery. As part of this pivot, WeightWatchers will be collaborating with a telehealth company that can prescribe their customers these medications. 

“What we do best is help people with weight management. That is the anchor,” she said. “I think we have to be true and authentic to that and who we are.”

She continued: “These medications have shown, and science has evolved to say, that living with obesity is a chronic condition. It’s important, no matter what it means for our business, to just be clear about that. It’s not willpower alone and what we are now saying is we know better and it’s on us to do better so that we can help people feel positive and destigmatize this conversation around obesity.”

It’s telling that Sistani brings up the concept of stigma surrounding obesity; many popular American diet plans are steeped in shame masquerading as accountability, be that in the form of stepping on a scale in front of tracksuit-clad strangers or logging calories into a little app that issues notifications when one goes over their daily allotment of fat or carbohydrates. 

Many popular American diet plans are steeped in shame masquerading as accountability

Asceticism in pursuit of losing a few pounds is perceived as almost righteous. For instance, in “The Beautiful People's Diet Book by Luciana Avedon and Jeanne Molli,” which was published in 1973, the authors write: "For heightened perception without drugs plus rapid weight loss, nothing beats the oldest known treatment for obesity: total starvation."

The numerous professionals and influencers that exist in and on the edge of the diet industrial complex have long counted on the societal pressure associated with the belief that all thin people are driven and motivated, while all fat people are lazy and lack ambition in order to sell gym memberships, diet plans and virtual bootcamp subscriptions. 

We need your help to stay independent

But now that big players like WeightWatchers have begun to embrace weight loss drugs, and  the very real data that some people actually need medication in order to achieve better health, the myth of thinness as a virtue is being challenged. However, for much of our country’s contemporary history, thinness has been positioned as a moral good — and not just within the pages of women’s magazines, but in both the political and religious spheres, which means that the process of adjusting America’s understanding of weight loss is only just beginning. 

During the Great Depression, public messaging surrounding what and how Americans ate drew clear distinctions between eating for pleasure and eating for economy. This attitude was carried into the first World War where rationing food was both a practical need and a display of patriotism. Perhaps that’s one of the underlying reasons that, by and large, we expect our politicians to be thin. 

For instance, in 2010, “The Atlantic” posed the question: “Is America Ready for a Fat President?” At the time, four of the “most bandied-about names for the GOP nominations in 2012,” which included Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, did not conform to what the Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove described as “the telegenic stereotype of lean and hungry strivers.” 

A year later, Philadelphia Magazine asked the slightly more personal, “Are We Ready for a Fat President?” Then-New Jersey governor Chris Christie was considering a presidential run, which brought a fair amount of scrutiny about his level of physical fitness. 

“I saw [Christie] the other day,” commentator Chris Matthews said to a D.C. crowd during a December 2010 public appearance. “He must be 300-plus, and that’s something he’s just gotta deal with because you’re not going to say, ‘I’m going to cut the budget’— well, how about starting with supper?”

"If our bodies really are to be temples of the Holy Spirit, we had best get them down to the size God intended"

That same month, pundit and professor Lamont Hill appeared on Fox 29 and said Christie could never be president. Why not? Hill was emphatic: “He’s fat.” 

Given the insidious ways politics and religion tend to intertwine in certain corners of America, it’s not really surprising that these attitudes are reflected within the walls of the Christian church community. For instance, in 1957, Reverend Charlie Shed published a book titled “Pray Your Weight Away.” It became a best-seller with lines like, “If our bodies really are to be temples of the Holy Spirit, we had best get them down to the size God intended,” a sentiment that was eventually echoed in the 1961 book by Dr. Edward Podolsky, “It’s A Sin to Be Fat.” 

These are the types of messages that have been reinforced for decades — from the pulpit, from the presidential debate stage, from the finale of “The Biggest Loser” — which means that it will almost assuredly take a while for our collective understanding around the realities of weight management to shift. 

Buried within the WeightWatchers literature is a surprisingly apt nugget of truth issued by the company’s founder, Jean Nidetch: “We all need approval, but when we lose weight for others, we’re in trouble.”

Liz Cheney rooting for Democrats, saying Republicans haven’t “chosen the Constitution”

In a recent interview, Former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney expressed her opinion that a Democratic tip in the 2024 election would be a safer bet over any options coming from the Republican side, especially if the favored option is Trump.

Speaking to CBS, she detailed the dangers of a Republican majority, saying, “I believe very strongly in those principles and ideals that have defined the Republican Party, but the Republican Party of today has made a choice and they haven’t chosen the Constitution, and so I do think it presents a threat if the Republicans are in the majority in January 2025.”

As Politico points out, Cheney was "booted from her role and later lost her seat after bucking her party to take a stand against former President Donald Trump in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection." But her opinion of Trump hasn't changed since, telling CBS in her interview this weekend, "In my view, fundamentally, there is a choice to be made. You can't both be for Donald Trump and for the Constitution. You have to choose."

 

From Starbucks cups outrage to the Bud Light boycott: The “War on Christmas” is now waged year-round

Nearly two decades ago, during a December 2004 segment of “The O’Reilly Factor,” viewers were informed that Christmas was under siege in America. “All over the country, Christmas is taking flak,” host Bill O’Reilly grimly intoned. 

He listed off evidence: A Denver holiday parade had banned religious floats; some public schools were no longer permitting the display of Christian Christmas symbols; Macy’s had done away with the greeting “Merry Christmas” in their marketing materials and, just down the street from their flagship location, then-New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg had unveiled the city’s “holiday tree.” 

The argument was laden with evangelical fear mongering that became more and more overt. For instance, in his 2005 book, “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought,” John Gibson put it like this: “The Christians are coming to retake their place in the public square, and the most natural battleground in this war is Christmas.” 

However, the most climactic fight in the War on Christmas wouldn’t take place in the traditional battlegrounds of local politics, like municipal parade planning committee meetings or contentious PTA debates. Instead, conservatives ultimately took the fight to their nearest Starbucks, and in doing so, laid the groundwork for the party’s contemporary boycott strategy, seen applied most recently to Bud Light

Since 1997, Starbucks has served coffee in winter-themed disposable cups throughout the holiday season. The first design was composed of jewel-toned swirls dotted with hand-drawn holly sprigs and coffee beans. Two years later, the company unveiled cups in an eye-catching Santa suit red and the color became the winter standard moving forward. Throughout the years, those red cups were decorated with a number of designs, which were seasonal, but never overtly religious: snowmen, carolers, skaters, mittens, deer, doves and snowflakes. 

However, that didn’t stop conservatives from taking umbrage with the 2015 cup, described by the company as featuring a “two-toned ombré design, with a bright poppy color on top that morphed into a darker cranberry below.” The minimal design left space for customers to “usher in the holidays with a purity of design that welcomes all of our stories.” This attempt at corporate inclusivity was interpreted by some conservative public figures, including  internet evangelist by the name of Joshua Feuerstein, as an affront to Christianity. 

“In a video that quickly goes viral, Feuerstein — clad in a Jesus t-shirt and clutching a handgun — rails against the coffee chain for trying ‘to take Christ and Christmas off of their…cups,’ and encourages people to ‘prank’ Starbucks by telling baristas their name is ‘Merry Christmas’ so they’ll have to write it on their cup and call it out when the drink is ready,” reported Eater’s Whitney Filloon and Brenna Houck

The way the internet operated in 2015 was vastly different than when Bill O’Reilly had originally declared that Christmas was under attack in 2004; Fuerstein’s message caught fire, and it caught fire quickly and with enough intensity that then-presidential hopeful Donald Trump promptly used it as fodder for a campaign speech in Springfield, Illinois. 

“I have one of the most successful Starbucks, in Trump Tower. Maybe we should boycott Starbucks?"

“I have one of the most successful Starbucks, in Trump Tower. Maybe we should boycott Starbucks? I don’t know. Seriously, I don’t care. That’s the end of that lease, but who cares?” Trump told the crowd. “If I become president, we’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again, that I can tell you. That I can tell you.”

This year’s Bud Light boycott bears some striking similarities to the Starbucks controversy, which is perhaps why it feels like the current “culture war” is just the War on Christmas, simply repackaged and then waged all year long. 

Central to both “wars” is an argument from conservatives that their way of living is under attack and that — despite the fact that many are comfortable advocating for policies that deny the personhood of some truly marginalized populations, like immigrants or members of the LGBTQ community — they are at risk of becoming oppressed. Whether this is an argument rooted in genuine fear or is bald-faced political fodder (or both) likely depends on who is giving it at the time, which also means that it can be grafted to whatever the hot-button issue of the time is. 

In discussing the War on Christmas, Bill O’Reilly cast a wide net of social concerns: “Secular progressives realize that America as it is now will never approve of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, legalized drugs, income redistribution through taxation and many other progressive visions because of religious opposition. But if the secularists can destroy religion in the public arena, the brave new progressive world is a possibility. That’s what happened in Canada.”

We need your help to stay independent

In the case of the Bud Light boycott, the issue at play was a bit more specific. After the company partnered with transgender influencer and activist Dylan Mulvaney on a short series of social media posts, conservatives accused the company of pandering to liberal customers, which is apparently tantamount to delivering a blow in the culture wars. Fox News ran a story that included comments from commentators pushing back against the alleged "gender propaganda," including John Cardillo. 

"Who the hell at @budlight thought it was a good idea to make a grown man who dresses like little girls their new spokesperson?" Cardillo asked on X, formerly Twitter. "Brands have to stop listening to their woke creative teams and get in touch with their consumer demographics."

There’s a certain sense that, for conservatives, really anything can become evidence of the culture war; it’s interesting to consider, for instance, how small the scope of Bud Light’s partnership with Mulvaney really was. In addition to posting a sponsored Instagram photo, Mulvaney posted on her Instagram story that the company had sent her a single commemorative can with her face on it to celebrate Day 365 of her transition. 

As reporter Miles Klee noted in Rolling Stone, this was a single can of beer featuring Mulvaney's likeness that "didn't even appear on the grid." In fact, "you had to look at her Instagram stories to see it."

"Apart from stumbling across this online ad, your typical Bud drinker would never know of such an endorsement," Klee added. However, as any good Sunday School teacher or politician knows, object lessons are an easy way to illustrate a point, and thus, Bud Light became a symbol of conservative oppression, just like Starbucks’ innocuous red coffee cups.

The current “culture war” is just the War on Christmas, simply repackaged and then waged all year long.

That said, the Bud Light boycott is distinct in a few notable ways. While both controversies benefited from consistent media attention, there was more direct political pressure applied to Bud Light as a company, like when in mid-May, Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Marsha Blackburn opened a Senate investigation into Anheuser-Busch's partnership with Mulvaney. And while the Starbucks controversy had a distinctly seasonal quality, the Bud Light boycott stretched out for months and months — even while some of the brand’s most outspoken detractors, including singer Kid Rock, quietly went back to both drinking and serving the brand. 

Part of this can be attributed to the fact that our current social media landscape, which thrives in times of potent division, continued to help the narrative consistently regenerate. A strengthening “alternative economy” of specifically conservative-facing products, like Ultra-Right Beer, which was founded with a mission of “fighting the communists” who want to see the Capitol insurrectionists prosecuted, was born out of that same political fissure. 

This can’t all be attributed to fear, of course. So much of these escalating, drawn-out boycotts is driven by escalating levels of hate. This is proven out by data that shows that physical attacks on transgender individuals are on the rise. 

According to a new report from the Human Rights Campaign, 33 transgender and gender-nonconforming people have been killed by violence in the United States since last year's Transgender Day of Remembrance on Nov. 20, 2022. Twenty-six of those people were killed in 2023. 

"The epidemic of violence against transgender and gender-nonconforming people is a national tragedy and a national embarrassment," said Kelly Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organizations. "Each of the lives taken is the result of a society that demeans and devalues anyone who dares challenge the gender binary."

That’s why while seemingly anything — from a coffee cup to a beer can — can become a rallying symbol of the right’s amorphous and largely one-sided culture war, it’s still truly marginalized Americans who tend to remain its victims. 

 

“Goodbye, Congress Queen”: “SNL” bids farewell to George Santos with musical tribute

Airing just days after George Santos was booted from Congress, "Saturday Night Live" couldn't pass up the opportunity to send him off in style, with cast member Bowen Yang paying musical homage to everyone's favorite "Congress Queen."

Prior to bursting into song in a parody of Elton John's "Candle In The Wind," with the lyrics changed to reflect Santos' tumultuous time in office, Yang riffs on the ethically challenged gay rep's love of the spotlight, portraying him on his way out, pretending to grumble through a press conference that he actually set up himself. 

"America needs closure. One of their favorite sons, me, has been cut down in the prime of his life at 17-years-old," Yang as Santos says.

Taking to the piano to sing a tribute to himself, fake Santos' melancholy tune tackles no one ever knowing the real him on account of the fact that he lied about everything in his life, and people griping about him using their donations for Botox, to which he shoots back, "It was fillers, slut."

Watch here:

 

Fox News’ 7 Deadly Sins: How the network hooks viewers on envy and fear

Over the course of the last month I’ve spent a lot of time watching Fox News. Full disclosure: I am a committed progressive activist and, therefore, strongly disagree with most of what I hear and see in the conservative media. However, I believe it behooves liberal critics of right-wing ideology to take seriously its appeal to millions of its followers and to make a sincere attempt to understand the ways it resonates with many people, and even to emphatize with those people as we may deplore their political decisions. 

The world according to Fox News invariably seems to involve some combination of the following seven deadly sins: 

  1. "Illegal aliens," i.e, undocumented immigrants, are flooding into our country and pose a threat to our everyday life.
  2. Democratic-governed cities are exploding with homelessness and violent crime.
  3. The FBI and Justice Department have been weaponized by Democrats and are persecuting innocent public officials — the most noteworthy one being Donald Trump,
  4. The current administration, under the leadership of criminal gangsters Joe and Hunter Biden, has surrendered power and influence to America’s new primary enemy, China. (In contrast, our former archenemy, Russia, turns out to be not so bad, making aid to Ukraine a complete waste of time and money.)
  5. Medical treatments offered today in the form of gender-affirming care, especially when it comes to helping trans youth, amount to a ghoulish form of castration and butchery.
  6. Too many schools are teaching kids to feel guilty about America’s history of racism, sexism and homophobia, brainwashing children with leftist “woke” ideology and disempowering parents in the process.
  7. Poor people just want to get something for nothing, and government programs only make things worse.   

There are other common themes, of course, including mocking climate science, exaggerated and excited fixations on the evidence of criminal behavior and debauchery found on Hunter Biden’s laptop, and even outrage at the fact that the Biden family's dog, Commander, has bitten Secret Service agents. But I would argue that some combination of these seven deadly sins, each one part of a larger paranoid narrative, can be found in every single news or opinion show on Fox News and in the right-wing blogosphere. Delivered with some combination of humor, sarcasm and outrage, this view of the world is clearly compelling to many people.

The common thread running through the Fox News narrative is fear that the powers that be are threatening "our" freedom, and envy that these same shadowy forces help others who don't deserve it.

The common thread running through all seven deadly sins is the evocation of fear and envy, fear that the powers that be — often described as "liberal elites" — are threatening “our” freedom or otherwise trying to control us, and envy that these same shadowy forces help and support everyone else but “us.” If we fail to understand these deeper emotions, we can’t possibly understand or influence the loyalties of the MAGA right. Instead we will continue to believe that by disputing and refuting each of these claims on objective factual grounds we can change minds, only to be frustrated, over and over again, that such arguments have no effect. 

To begin with, it is important to note that fear and envy are deeply embedded human emotions, and once triggered they invariably come to dominate a person’s psychological experience of the world. Objective, left-brain logic and reasoning become irrelevant.

We need your help to stay independent

In my own clinical experience, fear is often rooted in feelings of helplessness or powerlessness — the most toxic of human emotions. If helplessness is prominent in people’s experience of personal and social life then the resulting anxieties become fertile ground into which right-wing media can plant its conspiracy theories.

This is precisely what we see when we understand how many aspects of our economic, cultural and political lives are shot through with feelings of powerlessness and anxiety. I’m not simply referring to grand narratives involving capitalism, racism, climate change and sexism, but all the many ways that people are frustrated in their everyday lives, from confusing technology breakdowns to internet fraud, implacable bureaucracies, waiting lists for medical care, street crime and traffic jams. The mind recoils and rebels against helplessness and looks for a narrative that "makes sense” of these real frustrations and problems, a narrative that Fox News and many conservative thought-leaders provide in their assertions about the seven deadly sins. The need for an Other to blame is powerful, and Democratic or liberal “elites” are made to fit this bill.

Powerlessness also gives rise to envy. Picture a situation in which your economic status is stagnant: You aren’t getting ahead, lack the resources to ensure a comfortable retirement and feel little or no confidence that your children will have a better life than you. All your sacrifices and hard work, in other words, seem to have accomplished nothing. That would be discouraging for anyone, and among other things, conservatives view these threats as undermining masculine values.


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


Then Fox News directs your attention to others who the network's talking heads say are gaming the system or appear to be getting help without having to sacrifice: poor people or immigrants who you believe are being rewarded for nothing, or people of color who benefit unfairly from affirmative action. You may feel outrage, even bitterness, and direct your ire at the perceived cause of these injustices — namely, affluent liberals and the unfair welfare state you believe they have created. In such a situation, envy is painful while rage can feel redemptive, powerful and righteous.

Progressives encounter the endless, repetitious incantations of these seven deadly sins in the conservative media ecosystem and are understandably horrified and outraged. But these are not debating points that can be logically refuted. Instead, they tell a story about the world that rings true to an audience that feels aggrieved and helpless, and that is looking for villains to blame for their distress. 

The deepest and most effective response to the propaganda seen on Fox News is to lessen the feelings of helplessness, fear and envy that so many Americans experience. Only then will people be less receptive to believing in the seven deadly sins.

Trump’s “war on democracy” fumble sparks backlash

During a signature revved up speech delivered in Iowa on Saturday, Donald Trump said the quiet part out loud — as the expression goes — during a key moment of the campaign event, declaring, "We've been waging an all-out war on American democracy," and the internet is having a field day with it. 

The slip-up took place as he was, per usual, railing against the 2020 election results, singing his own praises as "an outsider" who was elected to "stand up to those liars, looters, losers, crooks," faulting Democrats for not putting America first, which he feels that he did for the four years he was in office. 

"That's why it was one of the great presidencies, they say," he speaks of himself. "Even the opponents sometimes say he did very well, I have to say. 'Take it back,' they scream. his people say 'Take it back.' From that day on, our opponents, a lot of opponents, but we've been waging an all-out war on American democracy."

After his comment, the internet flooded with memes echoing various deliveries of the sentiment "he really said that," such as one from @LocolopezNYC showing an illustration of Trump placing dynamite at the base of a statue with the word "Democracy" and the caption "No s**t."

From cable news to Hollywood, there’s double standard when it comes to speaking out about the war

On Wednesday CUNY professor and author Marc Lamont Hill marked his fifth anniversary of being ousted from CNN.

Prominent media figures aren’t generally in the habit of reminding people of jobs they lost, but the reason CNN terminated Hill’s contract has special relevance now: “I was fired from CNN after giving a speech at the United Nations in defense of Palestinian rights,” he posted on X (formerly Twitter).

"Bad optics." . . .There’s a lot of that going around.

In 2018 Hill took part in the U.N.’s International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. The Anti-Defamation League accused Hill of making antisemitic statements for closing his speech, the transcript of which is readily available, with “We have an opportunity to not just offer solidarity in words but to commit to political action, grassroots action, local action and international action that will give us what justice requires — and that is a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”

Noting how much has changed since then, Hill mused, “I can’t help but wonder how this ‘dangerous’ speech would have been received now.”

The next day MSNBC canceled “The Mehdi Hasan Show,” which will officially end in a couple of weeks. 

Concretely speaking, the events are not related. Hill’s speech did not air on CNN, whereas on Hasan’s MSNBC show, the British-born journalist consistently has voiced his support for Palestinian civilians and offered views contrasting that of government officials.

He’s been raising concerns about Israel’s bombing of Gaza since Oct. 7, when Hamas terrorists killed 1,200 people in Israel, according to the Israeli government, and took around 240 hostages. Over the recent weeklong ceasefire, Hamas set free 81 Israelis and 24 foreigners according to the New York Times, and Israel released 240 incarcerated Palestinians.

Israel’s military response has so far killed more than 15,000 people in Gaza, including more than 6,150 children, according to Palestinian health authority data reported by Reuters and endorsed by the United Nations. Thousands are missing, and 1.7 million people have been left homeless or displaced.

Long before the conflict began, Hasan cultivated a reputation of being a fierce interviewer with a habit of jamming up politicians’ spin with clarifying and often debunking hard data.

His recent grilling of Benjamin Netanyahu’s senior adviser Mark Regev is an excellent example of this. When Regev tells Hasan that the images of dead Palestinian children circulating on social media are merely “the pictures Hamas wants you to see,” Hasan pointedly adds, “and also because they’re dead, Mark. They’re also people your government has killed.”

“I agree with you,” Hasan adds shortly after. “We shouldn’t blindly believe anything Hamas says. But why should we believe what your government says either?”

When an armed conflict involves an ally that is as deeply enmeshed with American politics as Israel, the need for the public to access the broadest range of perspectives possible is vital. But there are few on TV offering Hasan’s bracing clarity, and you certainly won’t find it in such concentrated doses in primetime.

Another hour of Ayman Mohyeldin’s show will replace Hasan’s, part of a general overhaul of its weekend lineup, highlighted by the debut of “The Weekend” with anchors Alicia Menendez, Symone Sanders-Townsend and Michael Steele hosting from Washington, D.C. beginning Jan. 13.

MSNBC explained its decision to end Hasan’s show by citing its low ratings, and even Hill is cautiously taking the network’s word. He along with many of the anchor’s fans have invoked the phrase “bad optics.” 

There’s a lot of that going around.

MSNBC passionately disavowed a Semafor report that it intentionally sidelined its Muslim anchors, including Hasan, Mohyeldin (who is Egyptian-American) and Ali Velshi, after the Oct. 7 attacks. (Particularly noteworthy was MSNBC reversing its plan for Mohyeldin to fill in for Joy Reid on two nights of her 7 p.m. show which the network countered was coincidental.)

Indisputable is the mainstream media’s longstanding hesitancy to represent Gazans in coverage that isn’t related to armed tensions in Israel, thereby cementing pervasive misconceptions about Palestinians. Concurrently it has done little to dispel the insistence that disagreeing with the Israeli government’s policies is akin to turning against the Jewish people.

This was true a decade ago when Anthony Bourdain dared to film in the West Bank and Gaza for “Parts Unknown,” for which he predicted he’d be seen as “a terrorist sympathizer, a Zionist tool, a self-hating Jew, an apologist for American imperialism, and Orientalist, socialist, fascist, CIA agent and worse.”

And it is true now, a time when the lack of nuanced coverage over the years of Gaza, the West Bank, Middle Eastern culture and geopolitics generally, is catching up with us. The most brazen bad optics hitting aren’t coming from the news side of the industry but from Hollywood, where entertainers have a long tradition of expressing ill-informed opinions some come to regret, especially if they want to keep working.

We need your help to stay independent

Julianna Margulies had to apologize for offending Black people, queer people and Palestinians  on Friday after slandering those groups on a Nov. 20 episode of "The Back Room with Andy Ostroy." She did this in part by accusing Black people voicing support for Palestinians of being “brainwashed to hate Jews.” Of non-binary college students who support Gazans, she said, “It’s those people that will be the first people beheaded, and their heads played with like a soccer ball . . . on the field.”

Incredibly she also said,“As someone who plays a lesbian journalist on ‘The Morning Show,’ I am more offended by it as a lesbian,” – which Margulies is not –“than I am as a Jew to be honest with you. Because I wanna say to them, ‘You f**king idiots. You don’t exist. Like, you’re even lower than the Jews. A, you’re Black and B, you’re gay, and you’re turning your back against the people who support you?’”

It took 11 days and the public’s mass horror at her statements for Margulies to realize how sorry-not-sorry she was.

This week, Sarah Silverman expressed her regret for reposting an Instagram statement on Oct. 18 after Netanyahu cut off supplies to Gaza, that reads, "Many are saying that it's inhumane that Israel is cutting off water/electricity to Gaza. Israel made it pretty simple—' release the hostages, and we will turn it back on.' Instead of pleading with Hamas to release civilian hostages which include babies and toddlers there are politicians (cough cough AOC) calling Israel inhumane.”

Silverman later said she was stoned and hadn’t read the full post before sharing it. She deleted it, but not before X-Twitter did its thing.

Amy Schumer has not apologized for attacking a Black and Asian actor for her pro-Palestinian stance or co-opting footage of Martin Luther King, Jr. to imply the Civil Rights icon would have supported bombing Gaza, despite King’s daughter correcting that atrocious notion.

Neither has “Stranger Things” star Noah Schnapp apologized for posting, "You either stand with Israel or you stand with terrorism,” on social media shortly after Hamas’ Oct. 7 rampage and more recently posing with stickers reading “Zionism is sexy.”

It all comes from a mixture of anger and passion that results from the lack of informed dialogue.

Meanwhile in November, Susan Sarandon’s agency UTA dumped her for inelegantly expressing her support for a ceasefire at a pro-Palestinian rally. “There are a lot of people that are afraid, that are afraid of being Jewish at this time, and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country, so often subjected to violence,” she said. Sarandon has since apologized for her comments.

In the same week Melissa Barrera was dropped from the lead role in “Scream VII,” and Maha Dakhil, a CAA agent who represented Tom Cruise and other heavy hitters, resigned from her agency's board, both for posting statements on social media that were critical of Israel.

“What’s more heartbreaking than witnessing genocide? Witnessing the denial that genocide is happening,” Dakhil wrote. She apologized later in a statement to Variety.

Barrera lost work; Dakhil lost status in the industry. Sarandon has films in post-production; whether her agency banishment impacts any of them is yet to be determined. (She has a slimmer odds of facing lasting consequences than others, including supermodel Gigi Hadid, who had shared a now-deleted post spreading false claims about Israel harvesting organs from its victims.)

Silverman recently finished her second week of guest hosting “The Daily Show” and reaped a shiny mea culpa maxima profile in the Los Angeles Times. Thursday brought the announcement that Schumer has a Netflix movie in the works

Schnapp made Forbes' just released 30 Under 30 list for 2024. Margulies' situation is still in flux but as she says, she plays a lesbian journalist on “The Morning Show.” Present tense.

It’s difficult not to see a double standard at play as these matters shake out. Silverman, Schumer, Schnapp, and Margulies offended by making statements landing on the politically correct side of the U.S. government's relationship with Israel. The others sided with the Palestinians.


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


But it all comes from a mixture of anger and passion that results from the lack of informed dialogue, which is impossible to have without robust multifaceted coverage that isn’t shy of questioning the legality and morality of state-sanctioned violence against a civilian population.

In an Instagram story Barrera explained that she sought out and shared visions of the war from Palestinians’ perspectives “because Western media only shows the other side.” That is noble, and it also means misinformation is being amplified via celebrity platforms. Mainstream news has its faults, but its practice of confirming and correcting mistakes is vital in an evolving humanitarian crisis like this.

As public sentiment on the war shifts, some mainstream news coverage is reflecting that broader questioning of the asymmetrical violence Netanyahu’s right-wing government is inflicting on Gazans.

In these discussions Hasan will be useful if what MSNBC says about his transition is true; once his show ends, he’ll serve as a primetime guest anchor and on-air political analyst.

One wonders how vigorously skeptical he will be able to be in this reduced role, and if that will be enough to deliver viewers the grounding context the channel’s coverage of this war needs. Maybe his toughness seemed dangerous to his critics in the way Hill’s was to CNN. Based on the passion-based rhetoric driving the conversation we need more people to pick up that spirit of edged debate and dissent, not fewer.

Mike Johnson claims to hate the devil. Maybe he should look in the mirror

Where is that devil and what is he up to? First of all, like in any good horror movie, the devil is always right here in the house. In the case of the current evangelical political machine, the devil is all too often wearing pastoral robes and expensive tailored suits. For many years, the evangelical church has pointed to the devil outside in the world, but the devil is the one doing the pointing. Secondly, the devil is always up to the same thing: creating division through fear. 

Believing in the devil certainly has its disadvantages. It's an odd thing. Essentially there's almost nothing I am afraid of, except the dark basement in the triple-decker apartment where I live. It's difficult to admit this, I can often be spotted running upstairs from that basement just in case the devil, or some demon or Freddy Krueger, is going to get me. It's embarrassing. I understand, intellectually, how stupid this fear is. I'm 47 years old, reasonably well educated and a big, strong guy. But if I head down to get my laundry at night, suddenly all 6'2'' and 225 pounds of me is running up my back stairs — because devils are typically slow and won't be able to get through the door to my apartment once I make it there. Plus, my apartment lights will be on. The devil can't survive in the light — which is helpful advice for confronting evil, by the way.  

This unnatural fear also prevents me from being able to enjoy a good horror movie. I've tried, a lot. It always ends with terrible results. Especially if there is a demon involved, or some possessed kid. Then I can't even go to the bathroom at night and have to hold it until morning. It's brutal. And all of this comes from when I was told that the devil was trying to hurt me — that the devil hates me and wants to keep me from God. This thinking can mess up a kid badly, even when he's a 47-year-old man.

In the minds of too many American evangelicals, those who don't hold to your faith are not simply against your ideas. They're being manipulated by the devil himself to destroy everything you love.

The devil is causing problems in current American political culture, in so many ways and for so many reasons. In the minds of too many evangelical Christians, those who do not hold to your faith are not simply against your ideas but are being manipulated by the devil himself to destroy everything you love. All who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and accept him as their savior are potentially, or very likely, under the control of the "Enemy."  

I was recently watching "90 Day Fiancé," an amazing source of human understanding and wisdom, and I was struck by one of the show's obnoxious couples. I hate this show and all the people on it, I promise — I just need to find out which couple makes it before I stop watching it forever. Or until next season, at least. Anyway, one couple on the show are mega-Christians and making sure they don't have sex before they get married.  At one point they're trying to decide about the ethics visiting each other, which could be complicated because they might be tempted to have sex. "We can't do that," said the man in the couple, "because the devil hates us and I hate that devil." So it would appear that the devil loves convincing people who are not married to have sex, and that's how he plans to destroy mankind.  

We need your help to stay independent

This leads me to the latest Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, a super-evangelical who apparently believes that the devil is at work in our country, gradually destroying the American family, democracy and Christian liberty. Now, to be clear, as a minister who believes in God, I am compelled to believe in the devil. But I see him much more at home within the evangelical movement than in most liberal causes. It is well understood in Christian history that the best place to disrupt goodness is through the church itself. Consider the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the history of American slavery, the attempted genocide against Native Americans and the oppression of women. All these evils are or were firmly backed by biblical theology — at least, as many Christians understand it — and, in my opinion, are all fully endorsed by the devil himself. This is now true of the evangelical political movement, which I believe is led by the devil and his followers.  

As a Christian minister who believes in God, I am compelled to believe in the devil. But I see him much more at home in the evangelical movement than in most liberal causes.

You see, if the devil is real I am pretty sure he doesn't care about same-sex marriage, taxes on the wealthy, building a wall along the Mexican border, denying health insurance to poor and working-class people or even abortion. The devil isn't about issues. He wants to control and mislead people and get them to do evil things. Currently, the evangelical agenda advanced by people like Mike Johnson involves ignoring the needs of the poor, the sick and immigrants from foreign lands. They support Donald Trump — which should be enough evidence that the devil is real, by the way — and believe that our planet's population of 8 billion people started with a man and a woman in a garden. Yikes!

Here's the truth: There is evil in this world. That is evident to anyone paying attention, and for the most part I see it in people who loudly claim to be pure and good. You can certainly find that hypocrisy on the "liberal" side as well, but honestly it's more common among the evangelical leadership, whom I know very well. Jesus gave his sternest warnings against the religious hypocrites of his day — those who misuse the word of God to oppress or subjugate people and restrict their rights. Jesus knew, as we must know too, that the real evil, the genuine devil, is often found in the pulpit. The devil has many followers. He sells many books. He runs for president. He misleads God's people.


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


I feel afraid when I fetch my laundry from the basement, because I know the devil and his minions are real. My irrational fear of my back hallway and that dark basement is based on something I know to be true. As that remarkably ignorant man said on TV, the devil hates us and I hate that devil. Mike Johnson, Donald Trump and the evangelical leadership that supports these evildoers are being controlled by the devil. They tap into evil desires to control, manipulate, and condemn the very people Jesus taught his followers to protect, serve and love.  

Just as a quick example of this evil and manipulation in action, just watch as Donald Trump appears to alter his position on abortion. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that Trump, much like the devil, couldn't care less about abortion. It is an issue manipulated to motivate followers and put evil people into power. But now that the abortion issue is hurting the Republican brand, Trump will of course shift his views to win, because power is more important to evil than following any moral code. 

To combat that power, those who oppose Trump and his evangelicals must remember the plain truth expressed 2,000 years ago by Jesus Christ. His ministry of Jesus revolved around two ideas: Serving the poor, the sick and the despised outsider, and exposing religious hypocrisy. Defeating Trump is simple, or at least it ought to be: Listen to the working poor, to blue-collar Americans, and expose the evangelical leaders who just want to sell books, gain power and fly in private jets.  

Evil only loses if the people at the bottom pull together. Just as the lights in my apartment scare away the devil who may be pursuing me, it is time to shine the light on these massive hypocrites in evangelical leadership and the Republican Party. If we stand together, they will be forced to retreat into the dark basement, at least for now. 

Jon Stewart for president? Last-ditch campaign hopes to escape Biden-Trump nightmare

Democrats are worried about the polls, to put it mildly. But let's look past "Democrats," an increasingly incoherent political grouping almost entirely defined by who and what they're not. People around the world who were traumatized by Donald Trump's presidency — and who expected or hoped that Joe Biden's victory in 2020 represented a return to some version of political sanity and normalcy — now regard the American electoral landscape with deepening dread, like dreamers unable to escape a recurring nightmare. 

It turns out that normalcy and sanity are not among the menu options at the moment, and we don't possess a time machine that would allow us to return to some stable version of reality that never existed in the first place. All of that should have become obvious by now, no doubt, but hope has a way of springing eternal. So here we are, facing a nightmarish rerun of the 2020 campaign between the two oldest major-party nominees in American history, one of them the massively (and, sure, unfairly) unpopular incumbent and the other his immediate predecessor, who is more like a symptom or a hallucination than a conventional political figure or a human being. Throw in a couple of major wars (and several smaller ones), a rapidly overheating planet and a level of global division and uncertainty not seen since the end of the Cold War, and it's marvelous that any of us can sleep at night.

Biden is trailing Trump in nearly all national polls, and there are days when that seems like an incredible detail from an impossible fictional universe, along with other days where it's more like, sure, because that's where we are in this profoundly delusional country. There's plenty of disagreement about what those polls mean and how seriously to take them 11 months out from Election Day, and we'll get to that below. But the trepidation and anxiety are real, and are not improved by the unassailable fact that we cannot possibly know how this will turn out. At some point, won't Americans simply become exhausted by the endless tape-loop claim that "this election will decide the future of democracy," which is basically never true, and just watch the catastrophe unfold, something like Jean-Paul Marat in the bathtub except with subscriptions to all the major streaming services?

I digress. For at least the last year, faced with mounting evidence that most voters would prefer to avoid Biden-Trump 2.0 and that most Democrats don't want Biden to run again, a handful of progressive activists have tried to engineer or enable alternative possibilities. One such activist is Jeff Cohen, founder of the media watchdog FAIR and a former journalism professor at Ithaca College, who helped launch the notably unsuccessful "Step Aside Joe!" campaign (along with author and activist Norman Solomon, a frequent Salon contributor). 

Cohen emailed me last week with a proposed op-ed that drove the stop-Biden wishcasting into uncharted and perhaps entirely fanciful territory, and if you're reading this, you already get the idea. Although no one is likely to mistake Salon for a politically "neutral" outlet — we don't believe that's possible, let alone useful — we do not endorse political candidates (or un-endorse them). Rather than publishing Jeff's article as a sort of elaborate troll on increasingly anguished reality-based Americans, I offered him the opportunity to explain the idea in an email exchange.

Jon Stewart for president! Well, on one level I get it, and on another level not at all. Everyone reading this will be aware of Joe Biden’s unfavorable poll numbers at the moment, and there is considerable anxiety among liberals and progressives that he may not be able to defeat Donald Trump. Is that primarily, or perhaps entirely, what’s driving this idea?  

Yes, the imperative to defeat Trump is the primary driver of this idea. Poll after poll shows increasing voter disenchantment with Biden among Democrats, Democratic-leaners and former Biden voters. But more important than these polls is disenchantment with Biden among dedicated Democratic activists who are needed to get out the vote for Biden. I’m talking about activists who devoted weeks or months of their lives in 2020 to defeat Trump on behalf of Biden.  

"It's increasingly clear that many activists will not do the same crucial work for Biden that they did last time. Arguing that Trump is much worse than Biden on the issues they care about — which is clearly true — doesn’t convince many younger activists to work their asses off for Biden like they did in 2020."

From racial justice activists to climate organizers to peace activists, it’s increasingly clear that many of these much-needed activists will not do the same crucial work for Biden that they did last time. And arguing that Trump is much worse than Biden on the issues they care about — which is clearly true — doesn’t convince many of these activists, especially young ones, to work their asses off for Biden like they did in 2020. Climate activists have grown disenchanted. For weeks during Israel’s bombardment of Gaza civilians, Arab and Muslim leaders in Michigan and other swing states have announced at rallies: “No ceasefire, no votes from us.” 

What about the counterargument offered by the 2012 election? I'm sure you've heard this one: Coming out of the 2010 midterms, Barack Obama's poll numbers were terrible and there was a widespread media consensus that he was in big trouble. Republicans went into that cycle confident they could beat him, and in the end the outcome wasn't even close.

I think I've already answered that by turning away from polls to activists. There wasn't so much activist alienation, frustration or even fury with Obama in 2012. There was some, but nothing even close to what we see today. 

That's a valid point, but to me this feels like a Hail Mary. Efforts to convince Biden to step aside have failed — including your efforts — and no major figure within the Democratic Party is going to run against him. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. apparently concluded the Democratic primaries were hopeless, and now plans to run a third-party campaign. So this is a last-ditch effort to stop Biden, who you fear is likely to lose to Trump. That’s a negative argument. What’s the positive argument for Jon Stewart? 

The positive argument for Jon Stewart should be obvious: He’s a unique and widely popular figure on the U.S. political scene. He’s much more than a comedian. He’s a moral voice. For years, we’ve seen him demonstrate the kind of intelligence, compassion and leadership skills that the presidency requires.   

He’s been an articulate and effective advocate on Capitol Hill. Millions of people watched his dogged and successful battles in the halls of Congress on behalf of heroic 9/11 responders and military veterans exposed to toxins. (If you missed that, take a few minutes to watch this powerful video clip of Stewart in action. Or this one.) Politicians would kill for his advocacy skills and his connection to working-class people. Imagine what Stewart could do with his hands on the presidential “bully pulpit.” In Joe Biden’s hands, it’s more like a “wooly pulpit.”  

Is it a bit of a Hail Mary to try to draft him to run for president? Yes. But these are desperate times. 

And since we've mentioned RFK Jr.: From your "step aside Joe" POV, what's his likely effect on the election? 

Polling suggests that RFK Jr. might win votes somewhat equally from both Trump and Biden. But it brings up a broader problem if Biden is the Democratic nominee. Young people are a Democratic-leaning constituency, and people who cast third-party votes are disproportionately young, especially when they’re unhappy with the Democratic candidate. That's what happened with Hillary Clinton in 2016, when an estimated 8 percent of voters under 30 voted for a third-party candidate, and NPR reported that “in some battleground states that number was much, much higher.” Third-party votes helped Trump into the White House and could do so again. 

We need your help to stay independent

One of the most stunning poll numbers I’ve ever seen in years of scrutinizing polls was reported by the New York Times in July of last year — 94% of Democratic-leaning voters under 30 wanted a nominee other than Biden. 

I’m not worried that lots of young voters would jump from Biden to Trump, nor that many Arab and Muslim voters would jump to Trump. But they could vote third-party, or not vote at all.   

To be clear, Jon Stewart hasn’t asked you to do this and you haven’t contacted him in any way, correct? Do you have any indication that he might be interested? 

You are correct: There’s been no contact with Stewart. He’s been urged to run by others in the last couple years, and it’s easy to find “Jon Stewart for President” T-shirts online. In March of this year, Howard Stern made news in the political press when he urged Stewart to “run for president on the Democratic side” because he’d “win in a slam-dunk.” When Politico ran an opinion article pushing Stewart for president in July 2022, Stewart immediately tweeted: “Ummm … No thank you.”  

"Stewart has seen the metaphorically drunken senators and national leaders up close. We know he cares deeply about issues, about justice, about democracy. These are serious times. And strange times."

But in an interview early last year, Stewart gave an interesting response to Kara Swisher when she asked if he’d thought about running for office. He said: “It’s sort of like when you get in a car and the one driver’s drunk, and you’re like, ‘Did you ever think about taking the wheel?’ You’re like: ‘Yeah, I did!’”  

It's his professional instinct to laugh off the question of running for office. But he’s seen the metaphorically drunken senators and national leaders up close. We know he cares deeply about issues, about justice, about democracy. These are serious times. And strange times, when voters — for good and bad — have elected celebrities to national leadership, from our country to Ukraine and beyond.   


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


I know your career and your track record, and of course I also know Norman Solomon, who has frequently been published in Salon. I’d be willing to bet that in terms of ideology and policy, both of you are somewhere to the left of Jon Stewart, who has taken pains to present himself as not overly partisan — as “progressive” on some issues but more “moderate” or “liberal” on others. Is that fair? 

I’ve watched Jon Stewart’s career closely for decades now. He’s plenty progressive on the issues I care about, especially racial justice — and he’s addressed most of these issues on the national stage with great humor as well as great seriousness. More importantly, he has broad appeal. He comes across as a moral individual. He exudes integrity.  

I trust Jon Stewart, and I suspect millions of people could say the same. How many of us can say that about the politicians who currently lead our nation?   

I’m known as a media critic, having founded the media watch group FAIR back in 1986. I see him as one of our country’s sharp media critics. We share a critique of the media system that’s too often dominated by commercialism, hype and petty divisiveness. 

"If Stewart were to surprise us all by announcing a run for the presidency, I think it would unleash an outpouring of support, grassroots donations and impressive poll numbers."

If Stewart were to surprise us all by announcing a Democratic run for the presidency, I think it would unleash an outpouring of support, grassroots donations and impressive poll numbers. It would spur seasoned activists from various movements to become enthusiastic about a presidential race that many had planned to ignore with Biden as the nominee. And if we’re lucky, it could spur Joe Biden to announce he’s not seeking re-election. That would totally open up the primary process. 

Do you see Stewart as a figure who could unite progressives and moderates? In terms of the infamous 2016 split, could he bring together the Bernie and Hillary factions of the Democratic coalition?

I can’t think of anyone who could better bring Democratic Party factions together — and, just as important, expand the Democratic coalition. 

You don’t seriously think this is likely to happen, do you? Is this just a thought experiment to get people to consider that even at this late date there are alternatives, and that a Biden-Trump rematch is not inevitable? 

Call it a thought experiment. Call it a holiday wish. We need an alternative to Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee to prevent the return of an even more whacked-out and vengeful Trump in January 2025. Jon Stewart is a patriotic individual who doesn’t need you or me to convince him of the threat Trump represents to our nation and our world.   

And let’s not forget that he’s currently under-employed. He just separated from Apple TV, reportedly because Apple was anxious about Stewart addressing issues like China and artificial intelligence. On the presidential campaign trail, he could address those issues and dozens more. And in the White House, he might even be able to fix a few of them.

“Irresponsible”: Fox News cited “fake” terrorist attack 97 times — then used it to vilify Muslims

Fox News personalities and guests made at least 97 claims alleging or speculating that a car accident at the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara, New York, last week was an act of terrorism, generating a fabricated narrative about Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians, and their supporters being responsible for the incident, Media Matters found

The network aired the false claims on screen for hours speculating that the car crash at the U.S.-Canada border was an act of terrorism relying mostly on reporting from correspondent Alexis McAdams, who attributed her information to anonymous law enforcement sources. 

The deadly crash at the Rainbow Bridge border crossing involved a couple traveling in a Bentley at a high rate of speed resulting in an explosion, The New York Times reported. No terrorist activity was suspected.

But the speculation on both mainstream and social media platforms created “significant and unnecessary anxiety in the community,” according to Niagara police chief Bryan MacCulloch. 

McAdams later walked back her claims blaming “conflicting reports” on a breaking news situation. But by then, the damage had already been done with conspiracy theories running rampant and right-wing figures engaged in fearmongering, highlighting the supposed threat posed by Muslims and Arabs for carrying out attacks as a result of the ongoing violence in Gaza.

“High level police sources tell me this is an attempted terrorist attack,” McAdams posted on X, formerly Twitter. “Sources say the car was full of explosives. Both men inside dead.” 

A little over an hour after McAdams made such claims, The New York Times reported an investigation found that the car “did not contain explosives.” Users on X referenced The Times reporting as a community note on McAdams’ post.

However, her post quickly gained traction with other Fox reporters spreading her claims. Border reporter Bill Melugin shared her post and Fox News anchor John Roberts read McAdams’ reporting on air, including additional information that wasn’t mentioned in the post.

“Alexis McAdams is reporting that according to high-level police sources, the explosion was an attempted terrorist attack,” Roberts said. “A lot of explosives in the vehicle at the time, the two people who were in the car are deceased, one Border Patrol officer was injured. Driving from the U.S. apparently to Canada, and were trying to drive toward the CBP building.”

Roberts took things a little further and baselessly suggested that Hamas might be behind the attack saying that the “unrest in the Middle East that has spilled out past Israel” means there “could be operatives in this country sympathetic to terrorists who want to send a message here in the United States,” according to MMFA.

Other Fox News on-air talent and guests joined the chorus and began fueling the narrative. 

“When you are talking about radical Islamic terrorism and the attacks against the United States, this has happened before," said senior correspondent Eric Shawn.

Roberts further speculated whether the two people involved were "acting alone” or if the explosion was “part of a larger plot.”

We need your help to stay independent

McAdams joined his program as well and reported that there may have been a second car that was “possibly involved” and that the original car was “full of explosives,” according to “high-level sources.” She also included that “there’s going to be big crowds of people coming here to New York City for the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade," insinuating it could be a target, MMFA reported. 

Far-right influencer Laura Loomer also tweeted about the incident saying that the FBI is “suspecting that the Car Bomb Explosion TERRORIST ATTACK at the Rainbow Bridge US-Canada border in Niagara Falls could have been heading directly to the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in NEW YORK CITY.”

Robert Spencer, an anti-Muslim activist, who is “verified” on X pushed the claim that an Iranian passport was found at the scene. Spencer’s tweet received more than 250,000 views at the time it was posted. 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, added to the ongoing anxiety and tweeted: "This confirms our worst fear: the explosion at Rainbow Bridge was a terrorist attack. Both attackers are dead, and one law enforcement officer is injured. I am praying that officer makes a full recovery and is able to spend Thanksgiving surrounded by family and loved ones."

Ultimately, McAdams had to retract her initial claims. Explaining the situation, she said that they encountered “conflicting reports,” as news broke out. “They get new information, they give it to us, and we bring it back to the viewers.”


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


Despite the damage that spreading such misinformation had caused, Fox continued to exploit the incident to advance its narrative against Palestinians and migrants.

Guest host Jason Chaffetz appeared on "The Ingraham Angle" acknowledging that the explosion might not have been an act of terrorism, but used it to argue for a nativist immigration policy anyway, MMFA reported.

“Today's explosion at the border, regardless of the motive behind it, is a chilling reminder that we are all on high alert and living in a post-9/11 mindset, which means that our borders need to be secure,” Chaffetz said. He added that the Biden administration doesn’t “have the political will to actually shut down the border."

Fox host Kayleigh McEnany suggested that it was reasonable to infer that the explosion was linked to Hamas or associated with Palestinian solidarity demonstrations.

“The crash was so fierce and in such a sensitive location that everyone's mind of course went to the same place — terror,” McEnany said. “With war in the Middle East, violent domestic protests, radicals calling for days of jihad, the FBI director telling us to be vigilant — we are all on edge.”

Blaming a “terrorist” attack on Muslims, Arabs, Palestinians and their supporters is going to “drive hate towards those communities,” Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, told Salon. Painting Muslims in this way for years has resulted in incidents of hate and violence being directed towards those communities.

“And this fake reporting will spread prejudice towards these communities,” Beirich said. “It’s dangerous. It brings a real possibility of revenge violence against members of these communities. Some people will take it upon themselves to retaliate for terrorism, as we saw after 9/11 when people totally unconnected to the attacks and from diverse communities were killed in revenge. This is terribly irresponsible and will drive anti-Muslim sentiments.”

She added that this “fake reporting” will spread anti-Muslim and anti-Islam propaganda, further contributing to the already “false narratives on the right that all Muslims are somehow terrorists.” Such rhetoric will be picked up in online spaces “to demonize the communities that Fox implicated in the supposed terrorist attack.”

When it comes to picking sustainable Christmas trees, here’s why actual plants may beat plastic

It's that time of year again, when many Americans will visit their local tree lot to harvest a pine to install in their living room for a few weeks until it dies. Others will locate and extract a tree-shaped blob of plastic from storage. Whether plastic or organic, once adorned with ornaments, lights and tinsel, a Christmas tree is not only the focal point of Christmas morning, but of the holiday season.

But such trees can also become a source of stress as the realities of climate change become more acute and tangible. Many might wonder: is it really a good idea to buy a cut-down tree to hang out in my living room for a month while atmospheric CO2 rises at an unprecedented rate, wildfires burn stronger than before and sea level rise floods our coastal cities?

The answer might come as a surprise. Despite conventional thinking that cutting down trees is harmful (which oftentimes, yes, it is), some experts in the field say that, if you have to choose between an artificial Christmas tree and a farmed Christmas tree, the latter is likely better for the environment. But it’s not a straightforward answer, as what’s better ultimately depends on many variables.

Carbon Trust, a nonprofit environmental organization, states that in order for an artificial tree to be considered the “better option” it must be used over multiple years — somewhere between 7 and 20. The American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA) says five years. A third report from Canada stated that an artificial tree would actually need to have a life of 20 years to slow down climate impacts as low as those of a natural tree.

These results vary because they’re largely influenced by transportation times, which is a major factor in determining carbon footprint. For example, if you’re driving long distance to get a farmed tree, it might not be the best environmental choice. The carbon emissions released from driving might make the artificial tree the better option in the long-run, assuming it’s used for at least a few years. However, if you’re driving down the street to your local farm to get a real tree, it likely is the better option.

"Christmas tree farms keep land from being developed. I always saw more wildlife working in trees than I did hiking.

Jill Sidebottom, a horticulturist and spokesperson for the National Christmas Tree Association (N.C.T.A) told Salon via email that people can feel good for buying real Christmas trees for several reasons that favor the environment. First, she said Christmas tree farms help sustain wildlife.

“To me the biggest thing is that Christmas tree farms keep land from being developed,” she said, providing habitat for birds, rabbits and their predators. “I always saw more wildlife working in trees than I did hiking.”

Sidebottom said she believes real Christmas tree farms are good for local economies, which can help lower carbon footprints.


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


“People coming into areas to cut their own Christmas trees may also visit restaurants or go shopping in nearby towns,” she said. “That’s a big boost to the economy and prolongs the tourist season.”

When it comes to real Christmas trees and their sustainability, it all boils down to buying and recycling locally. Most communities collect trees after Christmas and mulch them so they don’t end up in landfills. This also lowers the carbon footprint of real trees. Of course, it’s up to consumers to make sure they participate in these events.

There is also the issue of recyclability with artificial trees. If the artificial tree is made up of plastic and metals, it’s harder to recycle. Notably, most artificial trees are made up of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is known as an endocrine disrupting chemical. One study published in 2004 even found that there was a possible risk of lead exposure to young children in some artificial trees. 

The potential carbon that could be sucked by the trees could be mitigated by the carbon emissions released from driving to the farm.

Chal Landgren, a retired Christmas tree specialist at Oregon State University, who also has a five-acre Christmas tree farm, told Salon on the phone that trees are carbon sequesters, meaning that they store carbon in new growth every year. In other words, it’s good for the environment to have more trees, and Christmas tree farmers are in the business of planting more trees. However, he emphasized that again, the effectiveness of Christmas trees being carbon sequesters largely depends on how far people are traveling to acquire their trees. The potential carbon that could be sucked by the trees could be mitigated by the carbon emissions released from driving to the farm.  

That’s not to say that farmed Christmas trees are without toxins either. It’s likely that they’ve been sprayed with insecticides and pesticides as growers attempt to keep them appearing fresh. However, Landgren said that the pesticides would have been used at least five months ago.

We need your help to stay independent

“By Christmas time, those should be pretty much non-toxic,” he said. “Of the things to worry about, those would be pretty far down on the list, for both trees.”

Few consumers might realize there is a third, more sustainable option, and it’s once again a real Christmas plant — it just looks a little different. A living Christmas tree is a potted tree that someone can adopt for the holiday season. In some cases, consumers keep them and replant them themselves; in others, consumers rent them, often from urban forestry nonprofits, who then re-plant them outside after Christmas and re-integrate them into the urban canopy.

“I typically think about climate change with my research, and anything that slows the rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a positive thing in my mind,” Clint Springer, the director of Environmental Science and Sustainability Studies and associate professor at St. Joseph's University, previously told Salon. “And that’s a tree that lives a long and happy life, so a potted tree would be best.”

Kirk Cameron peddling conservative Christian alternative to Scholastic Book Fairs

Kirk Cameron — former "Growing Pains" teen idol turned über-conservative right-wing Christian — is promoting an alternative to Scholastic Book Fairs, partnering with SkyTree Book Fairs in an effort to push "vetted" reading materials to young people.  

In a video posted to X (formerly Twitter) ramping up to the holidays, Cameron speaks of the benefits of his new endeavor, saying, “You can replace these harmful Scholastic book fairs with helpful, wholesome book fairs, with 500 books that have all been vetted and screened to take out all of the nasty pornography and the critical race theory and the race stuff."

Earlier in November, Cameron teased these plans on social media in a post asking if people ever wondered how "all the sexually explicit, morally disgusting, and dangerous books get into our children’s schools, classrooms, and libraries," going on to say that he and @SkyTreeFairs "did a deep dive and discovered who the real wolf in Grandma’s clothing is," meaning Scholastic Book Fairs. This is just the latest initiative in what Salon Senior Writer Amanda Marcotte calls "right-wing hysteria" about "pornography" used to justify book banning, writing in a recent commentary on the matter that what's really offensive to the right is "the possibility that a white kid might learn that some other people exist who are not white."  

George Santos lining up ethics complaints against colleagues who questioned his ethics

In the wake of an overwhelming 311-114 vote to expel him from office on Friday, Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., is threatening to file a string of ethics complaints on Monday against a number of his former colleagues for what he views as their "hypocrisy," airing out examples of such in a thread of grievances posted to social media late last night.

"Monday I will be filling an official complaint with the Office of congressional Ethics against @NMalliotakis [Nicole Malliotakis] regarding her questionable stock trading since joining the Ways and Means committee this Congress," Santos writes. "Before joining the committee the congresswoman didn’t have an active trading habit or a high volume stake. The question is, what set of information is she trading with?"

From there, Santos goes on to call out Congressman Mike Lawler, who he accuses of "engaging in laundering money from his campaign to his firm then into his own pocket;" Congressman Nick LaLota, who he accuses of stealing public funds from the tax payers of NY; and Congressman Menendez, questioning his involvement with his father's overseas dealings over the years and any potential compensation he received.

At the top of all of this, Santos shared an image of himself and Trump with the words "Make America Triggered Again," seemingly putting himself in the same boat as the legally bogged-down former president.

 

 

Why does sleep become more elusive as we age? It has to do with shifts in “sleep architecture”

In his later life, my father-in-law routinely woke up for the day at 3 a.m. He'd become such an early bird that he morphed into a night owl, a man resigned to a post-retirement inability to clock in more than four or five hours of rest. I can recall taking his routines as a grim prophecy. And when a few years later I found myself struggling with brutal bouts of insomnia, I wondered if, along with laugh lines and macular degeneration, sleeplessness was an inevitable part of growing older for me, too.

We need your help to stay independent

There is a persistent folk wisdom that older people simply don't need as much sleep — an idea likely borne out of the idea that as our lifestyles ostensibly become less active, our requirements for the reparative benefits of rest diminish. As recently as 2008, a report in Current Biology found that in one experiment, older subjects got 1.5 hours less sleep on average than their younger counterparts. "The most parsimonious explanation for our results," researcher Elizabeth Klerman of Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School said at the time, "is that older people need less sleep."

But what we need and what we actually get are two entirely different entities — and we are in the midst of a sleep shortage that's affecting Americans across all generational lines. The CDC notes that "A third of US adults report that they usually get less than the recommended amount of sleep." It's a crisis that can wreak havoc on our physical and mental health, with sleep deprivation contributing to obesity, hypertension, diabetes, depression and stroke. And even accounting for fluctuations among different age populations, most adults need between 7 and 9 hours of sleep per night. The key is just staying in a healthy range. 

"A third of US adults report that they usually get less than the recommended amount of sleep."

Dr. Ryan Sultan, a board-certified psychiatrist, therapist, researcher and professor at Columbia University, says that "As we age, the amount of sleep needed tends to decrease. Older adults may be well-rested and alert after 6 to 7 hours."

My late father-in-law may not have had much steam in him after dinnertime, but his days were as active and engaged as his solitary predawn hours. Sultan says it's just about paying attention to overall health patterns and any changes that feel off. "In my clinical experience," he says, "I have observed that older adults often face unique challenges, such as medical conditions or medications affecting sleep. Addressing these factors with a healthcare professional is crucial for developing a tailored approach to sleep improvement."

As Sultan puts it, "The concept of normal sleep does change as we age, and recognizing these shifts is essential for maintaining optimal health."

"Generally speaking, sleep ability declines as we age as the mechanisms that control sleep become less robust over time."

The real culprit to watch out for as we age isn't the amount of sleep, but quality of it. Older people have unique vulnerabilities around getting a deep, steady rest. A 2017 analysis in the journal Sleep Medicine Clinics explained how so-called "sleep architecture" can change with age, including "advanced sleep timing, shortened nocturnal sleep duration, increased frequency of daytime naps, increased number of nocturnal awakenings and time spent awake during the night, decreased slow wave sleep, and other changes."

Auckland sleep psychologist Dan Ford, clinical director of the Better Sleep Clinic, puts it simply, "Generally speaking, sleep ability declines as we age as the mechanisms that control sleep become less robust over time." But nothing is set in stone. He adds, "Healthy older adults do not necessarily show these changes in their sleep parameters."

Why do those gorgeous, lengthy sleeps of our younger years become so elusive as we age? There are a whole litany of reasons. There's menopause, with its discomforts and night sweats. Bathroom issues can likewise keep a person of any gender up and down all night long. Changes in the urinary tract, along with other factors like bladder obstruction, make nocturia (frequent nighttime urination) far more common in adults over the age of 60.

There are other physical factors as well — the National Council on Aging estimates that "56% of people age 65 and older have a high risk of developing obstructive sleep apnea." Our circadian rhythms also change as we age, edging us to what can make us feel like we're living in a different time zone from our family and friends. And then there are the mental health issues. Grief, loneliness, financial loss and other stressors can wreck a good night's rest, and the symptoms of depression and anxiety often go undiagnosed. A 2018 study on insomnia in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine found that "As many as 50% of older adults complain about difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep."


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


So if you're noticing that your nights now typically involve periods of wakefulness, is playing a little catch up when possible during the day a good idea?

"Napping can be a helpful strategy for older adults," says Dr. Ryan Sultan, "but the timing and duration matter. Short naps of around 20 to 30 minutes can boost alertness without interfering with nighttime sleep. However, extended or late-afternoon naps might disrupt the sleep-wake cycle, making it harder to fall asleep at night." Mileage can vary even there, though — I have a friend in his late 50s who regularly konks out before making dinner. He calls it a "nappetizer."

For those who have a hard time resisting longer naps, Rod Mitchell, a Calgary psychologist with expertise in cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia, recommends offsetting grogginess with a "coffee nap." He says, "Combine a small, controlled intake of caffeine (such as a half cup of coffee) followed by a short, 20-minute nap. This method can enhance the restorative effect of napping, with the caffeine kicking in just as you wake up, potentially offering a more refreshing experience." 

However many candles may be on your own next birthday cake, we all need to prioritize adequate rest. We know that building healthy routines like regular bedtimes, avoiding too much caffeine and late-night doomscrolling or binge-watching and getting adequate physical activity are the best bet for a better night — even if it's all easier said than done. Our culture typically regards aging as a failure and sleep as for the weak. But the plain fact is that our bodies change over time. That doesn't mean that once you hit your AARP era, you suddenly can function just fine on 5 hours of sack time. Instead, if you want to feel younger, you just might actually need to sleep more.

Ed Sheeran’s hot sauce and Kim Kardashian’s “Kimade” : Why celeb-backed foods are the future

The Hollywood-food crossover prevails as more celebrities flock to announce new cookbooks, lines of cookware and ghost kitchens nationwide. Take for example Stanley Tucci’s latest GreenPan Cookware collab, Chrissy Teigen’s array of swanky yet efficient cookbooks, Pauly DelVecchio’s (a.k.a. DJ Pauly D from MTV’s “Jersey Shore”) Italian Subs and Selena Gomez’s line of Our Place multifunctional cookware. The list offers just a taste of how vast celebrity-food partnerships have become in recent years. And it underscores the trendy business venture’s place in pop culture, especially as countless celebrities are now launching their own food, drinks and snacks.

“What does a celebrity actually know about making a good cookware set?” asked Bon Appetit’s Megan Wahn. “What the heck does it mean if you’re the chief creative officer of a beverage company? What does a singer know about making hot sauce or granola?”

Not much, nothing really and not much. After all, celebrities live to entertain — on-screen, off screen, on the covers of tabloids and in snarky headlines. Their whole public persona is also a tool of profit, both for themselves and for those who exploit their popularity. Simply put, celebrities (both their face and name) are the driving force behind so many of these food products. It’s less about whether a specific item tastes good and more about how much money and online buzz it will generate. Think about it: a plain, simple energy drink is, well, just plain and simple. Once you pair it with a celebrity endorsement then suddenly, that same drink transforms into something sexy and lucrative.

That’s the case with Kim Kardashian’s latest collaboration with the vitamin and supplement business, Alani. The reality TV star, businesswoman and aspiring lawyer has her own energy drink flavor that’s essentially a healthified rendition of pink lemonade. Called Kimade, the drink boasts  vitamin B6 and B12 and features a blend of tart lemons and sweet strawberries, making it “the ultimate sip of sweet with a dash of sour!”

Of course, no Kardashian-backed product is complete without an elaborate photoshoot. As Kim shows us, Kimade can be enjoyed during a workout sesh while wearing a white bodysuit, matching white kitten heels and white acrylic nails. It can also be enjoyed outdoors, namely during a ski excursion that calls for a skin-baring outfit — white puffer jacket paired with matching colored bikini bottoms. Or after a long day of surfboarding in your favorite pink bikini! 

A pack of six Kimade beverages can be purchased for just $18. Clearly the enticing price and the promise of a good time were enough to intrigue consumers because Kimade is currently sold out on Alani’s official website.

Other noteworthy celebrity-backed foods include Ed Sheeran's Tingly Ted Hot Sauce, which is made in partnership with Kraft Heinz. According to the company’s website, Ted is a grumpy bear who is also Sheeran’s sidekick and co-creator of the “first tingly sauce known to man (and bear, of course)." For just $13, customers can buy not just one but two Tingly Ted signature sauces: the classic Tingly sauce and the Xtra Tingly sauce, which amps up the spice level.

There’s also Jason Mraz’s Granola (launched in collaboration with Michele's Granola, Mraz’s now sold out Mystical Magical Matcha Granola flavor is named after his newest album, “Mystical Magical Rhythmical Radical Ride”), Taika Waititi’s eponymous caffeinated canned beverage brand Taika, Mariah Carey's Cookies (unfortunately, they are not available via online order at this time) and Millie Bobby Brown’s Florence by Mills Coffee Concentrate.

We need your help to stay independent

Amid the digital age, celebrity endorsements are proving to be incredibly powerful as companies seek ways to hike profits and expand their customer base. Social media, in particular, serves as a catalyst for good business, allowing both companies and celebrities to attain free PR. Users try a product and then spotlight it on their social media, which increases publicity and encourages others to follow suit. 

A product doesn’t necessarily have to taste good in order to garner this treatment. It just has to look enticing enough. Take for example McDonald’s Grimace Shake, the berry-flavored milkshake that became an internet sensation from June 12 to July 9 of this year. The shake went viral on TikTok with the #GrimaceShake trend, where users filmed themselves drinking the shake and then finding themselves in sinister situations. The trend failed to portray the short-lived shake in a favorable manner, but it certainly benefited McDonald's financially. According to the fast food giant’s quarterly earnings report, net sales were up 14% and net income increased to $2.31 billion, compared with $1.19 billion a year earlier.

Marketing psychology also plays a key role in the effectiveness of celebrity-backed products. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business studied people’s eye movements and pupil dilation when they came across mock advertisements of snack foods that featured either celebrities or generic models. They found that people are more likely to choose products that are endorsed by a celebrity rather than a non-celebrity. That decision is also made pretty quickly.


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


“Viewers had less pupil dilation when choosing a product that was advertised with a celebrity, an indication that they were spending less time deliberating their choice and were more confident about their decision,” the findings explained. 

Celebrities help build “consumer confidence,” meaning consumers associate the high-profile traits of A-listers with the products they are touting. That doesn’t mean celebrities can make consumers choose a product they absolutely hate. But they certainly aid in hyping up the visuals of a specific food, snack or drink. It’s why Kim’s Kimade is packaged in a slim pink can alongside funky typography or Sheeran's Tingly Ted Hot Sauce is sold in a cartoonish-looking squeeze bottle. 

Food marketing basically plays into two of our key senses: sight and taste. Sight is what lures consumers in. Taste is what makes them stay.

The fact that celebrity-backed foods are already increasing in quantity and variety is reason to believe that similar endorsements are yet to come in the future. As for whether companies will soon place more emphasis on their Hollywood endorsers and forgo taste is something only time can tell. What’s certain though is that food companies are capitalizing off of celebrities and vice versa. It’s a symbiotic relationship that won’t be perishing anytime soon.