Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Global warming will make La Niña events longer and more frequent: study

The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a cycle which causes periodic variations in the winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean. Through both its warm El Niño phase and its cold La Niña phase, ENSO can cause flooding, heat waves, tropical storms and other types of extreme weather. The La Niña phase specifically is associated with unusually warm winter temperatures in the South, unusually cool winter temperatures in the North and more severe hurricanes during hurricane season.

These things matter now because, according to a recent study published in the scientific journal Nature, global warming is going to cause the La Niña phases to be both longer and more frequent. The international team of researchers concluded this by analyzing data acquired through the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). According to Dr. Geng Tao from Ocean University of China, the first author of the study, “these findings suggest that weather extremes as seen during the 2020–2022 La Niña will probably occur more frequently in the near future.” The authors particularly pointed to an extreme weather event from 2020 that they project will become more common.

“A three-year-long La Niña event beginning in 2020 had a key role in triggering consecutive seasonal droughts in parts of the United States and the Horn of Africa, and in causing floods in eastern Australia,” the authors write. “This rare ‘triple’ La Niña sparked worldwide discussion about how global warming could change the duration of these formidable events.”

“Only Murders in the Building” trailer: Meryl Streep is a “stinkerooni” stage star who can’t act

Buckle up there’s another murder . . . but not in the apartment building.  This time it’s on a stage, and the victim is Paul Rudd. One of the possible murder suspects is this season’s guest star Meryl Streep, whom we see in the “Only Murders in the Building” Season 3 trailer, which dropped Wednesday.

The quirky, Emmy-winning whodunnit comedy is back, and the trio of nosy residents of The Arconia – Mabel (Selena Gomez), Charles (Steve Martin) and Oliver (Martin Short) –  attempt to crack the case in the murder of Rudd’s character Ben.

Ben, Charles, and Streep’s character Loretta are all actors in a Broadway production directed by Oliver teased at the end of last season when Ben coughs a little and falls dead in the middle of his debut performance. His untimely death was a cliffhanger, leaving the audience confused and wondering about his fate. And if you remember prior to Ben’s collapse, he and Charles were backstage having a chilling conservation — Ben calling Charles a “piece of s***.”

“Who are we without a homicide?” Mabel asks in the trailer. Now it’s up to the murder podcasters to investigate the star-studded ensemble which includes not only Streep but also “Joy Ride” star Ashley Park as another lead suspect in the Broadway production. Other guest stars include Jesse Williams, Jane Lynch and Matthew Broderick.

The third season of “Only Murders in the Building” premeires Aug. 8 on Hulu. Watch the trailer on YouTube

 

 

 

 

“The View” host Alyssa Farah Griffin claims “majority” of Republicans don’t want to impeach Biden

On Wednesday’s episode of “The View,” co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin argued against claims that the House GOP is keen on impeaching President Biden, instead asserting that the “majority” of Republicans know “it’s a mistake” and “a sideshow.” The latest threat of impeachment was made Tuesday by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who said Republican lawmakers may consider an impeachment inquiry of Biden over unproven claims of financial misconduct, the Associated Press reported. Republicans have launched investigations of Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who had been expected to plead guilty to two charges of failure to pay taxes under a deal he struck with the government last month. He ultimately pleaded not guilty Wednesday after his plea deal unraveled when the judge raised questions about the terms of the agreement.

Although Farah Griffin said Hunter Biden “is 50 shades of shady,” she added that using him to further target the president is “a joke” of a plan. “The vast majority of Republicans in Congress do not want to impeach Joe Biden,” she said. “This is something that a fringe base within the House Republican conference is pushing. It’s a mistake.

“It’s a sideshow at this point!” Farah Griffin continued. “If you don’t like Joe Biden, you gotta beat him at the ballot box. But, by the way, you won’t do that if you nominate Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis.”

 

“You OK, Mitch?”: McConnell freezes up during news conference, causing concern for his health

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., gave everyone a scare on Wednesday after appearing to go stiff mid-way through a weekly Republican leadership news conference, requiring assistance to be led away from the podium to regroup.

According to NBC News, McConnell was in the process of making opening remarks regarding an annual defense policy bill when he froze up, standing in silence at the podium for 19 seconds. Wyoming Sen. John Barasso, who is also a physician, was at his side to administer assistance, asking, “You OK, Mitch?” Nearby, “Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa made a hand gesture that initially appeared to resemble the sign of the cross. But her office later clarified that she was motioning for Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota,” per the outlet. Earlier this year, McConnell suffered a nasty spill at a hotel in Washington, resulting in a concussion and it’s unknown at this time whether the two incidents are related. After returning to complete the news briefing he’d been in the process of, he said, “I’m fine,” and went on as though nothing had happened. According to an aide, he’d complained of feeling “lightheaded,” but wouldn’t elaborate further. “He’s doing a great job leading our conference and was able to answer every question the press asked him today,” Barrasso added, smoothing over concerns regarding McConnell’s ailing health. 

 

Jason Aldean’s controversial “Small Town” video reportedly edited out Black Lives Matter references

The music video for Jason Aldean’s controversial hit song “Try That in a Small Town” has been quietly edited to remove images of a Black Lives Matter demonstration following allegations that the lyrics are pro-gun and pro-lynching. The video, which currently has an astounding 19 million views, is now six seconds shorter than when it was uploaded to YouTube on July 14. It no longer contains news footage from Fox 5 Atlanta depicting violent confrontations during the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020. Portions of the news clip appeared twice in the original music video — in one instance, they were projected on the wall of the Maury County Courthouse in Columbia, Tennessee, where a Black man named Henry Choate, was lynched in 1927. The courthouse was also the site of the 1946 Columbia Race Riot.

Per The Washington Post, it’s unclear when exactly the video was edited, although several changes appear to have been made since last week. Amid widespread criticism, Aldean has vehemently defended his song and video, asserting that the allegations are “meritless” and “dangerous.” Right-wing media also jumped on the Aldean support train, with several commentators bashing “cancel culture” and congratulating the 46-year-old country singer for unapologetically standing by his song.

Although Country Music Television officially removed Aldean’s video from its channel following backlash from the NAACP and several online critics, the song continues to rise to popularity. “Try That in a Small Town” broke into the Billboard Hot 100 chart at No. 2 on Tuesday.

Jan. 6 investigator: New Jack Smith evidence signals that “Trump was acting in bad faith”

At least two more fake electors have been subpoenaed in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into former President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge and overturn the 2020 election results, NBC News reported.

The electors are scheduled to appear in early August before the grand jury in Washington, marking their first testimony, a source told the outlet. 

These individuals were part of groups of fake electors operating in seven battleground states. Most of them signed documents falsely claiming that Trump had won in states won by President Joe Biden.

Numerous witnesses have already testified before the Washington-based grand jury as part of the investigation, including two electors from Nevada who appeared before the same grand jury last month.

For months now, Smith’s team has been conducting an investigation into Trump’s elaborate plan to remain in the White House even after losing the election. This scheme ultimately led to his supporters violently attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

The special counsel’s office has interviewed multiple former officials inquiring about Trump’s state of mind prior to the election and asked witnesses about Trump retaliating against officials, who challenged his narrative concerning election security.

Investigators have also interviewed Chris Krebs, the head of DHS’s cyber agency, who was fired by Trump shortly after releasing a statement in November that confirmed there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. 

“The special counsel appears to be investigating what President Trump said and did in private to further show that Trump’s public statements and actions about election fraud were not borne out of good faith or [an] honest mistake,” Temidayo Aganga-Williams, white-collar partner at Selendy Gay Elsberg and former senior investigative counsel for the House Jan. 6 committee, told Salon. 

We need your help to stay independent

Now, the Department of Justice has also reached an agreement with Bernie Kerik, the former NYPD commissioner involved in gathering evidence of alleged election fraud on behalf of the Trump campaign in 2020, according to The Daily Beast

Kerik will hand over records that were related to his role as Trump’s “on-the-ground investigator looking into eventually disproven conspiracy theories about ballot stuffing and fake voters,” The Beast reported. 

In February 2020, then-President Trump granted Kerik a full pardon, effectively nullifying his 2010 conviction on eight felony charges related to tax fraud and providing false information to federal officials. Following his conviction, Kerik served almost three years in prison before being released in 2013.

When Smith previously requested the documents, Kerik’s legal team had refused to hand them over, citing attorney-client privilege. They argued that the privilege applied because Kerik was working on behalf of Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.


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


On Friday though, Trump waived the privilege and agreed to have the documents turned over, Kerik’s defense lawyer Timothy Parlatore told The Beast.

Smith is now anticipated to receive close to 2,000 pages of material documenting Kerik’s examination of unfounded fraud claims and his team is expected to interview Kerik next month.

The files include affidavits alleging extensive “irregularities,” questionable statistical analyses claiming to expose “fraudulent activities” and investigative materials concerning a senior employee of Dominion Voting Systems, according to CNN.

These records could be crucial for federal prosecutors, as they seek evidence regarding Trump’s decision-making process, during which he persistently made groundless allegations about the 2020 election being “rigged,” despite being informed otherwise by top advisers.

“Trump’s persistent disregard of evidence contrary to his election fraud claims will be essential to demonstrate Trump was acting in bad faith,” Aganga-Williams said.

Sinéad O’Connor’s family asks for privacy while confirming the singer’s death at 56

Irish singer, Sinéad O'Connor — who gained worldwide notoriety in 1990 with the release of her single, "Nothing Compares 2 U," written by Prince — passed away at the age of 56.

In a statement from her family obtained from The Irish Times, they provide no indication as to the singer's cause of death, giving only the following brief confirmation of her passing: "It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of our beloved Sinéad. Her family and friends are devastated and have requested privacy at this very difficult time."    

O'Connor made headlines over the years for her outspoken views; struggling with both mental illness, heated controversy following her appearance on "Saturday Night Live" in 1991 during which she ripped up a photo of Pope John Paul II, and for mourning the tragic loss of her teenage son in 2022. As fans and peers flood social media with remembrances, she will primarily be remembered for the unique body of work she leaves behind, and for her signature soulful voice. "Thinking about Sinead O'Connor's conversion to Islam and name change to Shahuda' Sadaqat in 2018. inshallah she finds peace in the next life, as she didn't have it in this one," a fan wrote on Twitter following the news of her death, sharing a photo that best sums up her unique spirit. 

You deserve to eat everything on vacation — here’s how I learned that I do, too

It’s vacation season. Is your summer body ready and in full effect? Well, mine isn’t, and guess what — I still had a fantastic time. So I invite you to take a stand with me, put the dumbbell down, and pick the drumstick up

As a pawn of capitalism, I work like labor laws don’t exist: late nights, early mornings and Sundays are as normal to me as $0 income tax bills are to billionaires. I don’t fuss, I don’t complain, I just pull up. This mentality means I don’t always have time to spend 86 hours in the gym like the people on Instagram. But in all seriousness, like many Americans, I get stressed a month or so before vacation time. 

Why? 

Because I know that I will be going to a beach or a pool where I’m going to be the tubby writer wondering why full-body transformations never take place during that week of excessive exercise I attempted before I left. This has happened for the past few years, and this year’s 2023 vacation was precisely the same — until it wasn’t. 

“Beach, Daddy!” my 3-year-old daughter said, with tiny wet eyes, mid-spring, “I want the beach!” 

And because I love my child and work like I have ten children, this was going down. I found a family-friendly resort in Puerto Rico with a pool and direct access to a beach. Daddy pulls up, he shoots, and he scores

My daughter’s eyes lit up as we walked into the hotel room. It was beautiful, as was the pool we saw 10 minutes later, and then the beach where we would post up another five minutes after that. As a matter of fact, the only thing that I didn’t think was beautiful was my gut, as it looked like I had just swallowed a ten-pound watermelon. And I must admit that this bothered me because I feel like I don’t overeat and try to exercise as much as I can, but here we are. 

“Señor Watkins, it is a beautiful day. How are you?” a waiter in a clean white polo with matching chinos asked. “Can I offer you anything?” 

“Thank you so much,” I replied. “We just got here, so I’ll look at the menu, get in the water, build some sandcastles with baby girl and then circle back in about an hour.” 

And we did the whole song and dance, even spending an extra hour in the ocean. It turns out that my daughter is part fish and only hunger could pull her out of the water. So, we relocated from the beach to the poolside and revisited that menu. It was full of pizza, burgers, more kinds of pizza, beer-battered chicken tenders, fried fish tacos, milkshakes, liquor-infused shakes, French fries … A varsity wrestler who needs to pile on an additional 20 at your local high school would be in heaven. 

My baby is a baby, so I can order her pizza and French fries. In her mind, that would be edible heaven, But what would I eat — a salad? The one salad they had on the menu? 

We need your help to stay independent

I ordered a drink and pizza and fries for baby girl. She ate like a three-year-old that was playing  in the sun all day and was hungry for a nap. Happily, I watched her doze off, tired and full and satisfied, but the growls from my stomach almost woke her up.

I moved over a little and  leaned back in my chair, seeing  all the other dads at the pool. Most were not so fit and seemed like they were having the times of their lives. Like me, maybe they did what they had to do to ensure their wives and children could carve out a couple of days for relaxation, waves and sunshine. I looked down at the side of my leg and saw that there was still some sand left over from the beach, so I walked over to the shower to rinse it off. 

While there, I took a long gaze at the beach, and it hit me like a ton of bricks — you deserve to eat everything in sight. 

I took a long gaze at the beach, and it hit me like a ton of bricks — you deserve to eat everything in sight.

Looking at the beach made me realize that I actually hate the beach. You never know how deep the water is. Sand gets all over your shorts, hair, ear, mouth and, if you have to drive, then your car and hotel room. Why would a person want to swim on the beach when their resort is connected to a lovely swimming pool is beyond me. Also, an unidentifiable black bug with a hooked face and 12, or maybe 30, legs bit me while I was playing in the sand, so now I’m pretty sure I’m poisoned by something that hasn’t even been discovered yet, all because my daughter wanted to be on the beach. Add that to traveling in the airport with a three-year-old who has to go to the bathroom on the plane every two minutes.

But looking at the beach, I realized that it also represents something that I didn’t have when I was coming up — my family never went on vacations as vacations were a luxury we could not afford. 

I realized then that I not only deserve to eat like a person on vacation, but I also earned it. Part of the vacation is the dining experience. I was ready to order. 

“I would love to try those fish tacos,” I happily said to the beach attendant. “Let me get an order of guacamole and, oh my God, my daughter’s pizza looked amazing. Please send out another and I don’t really care about the order it comes out in.” 

It was all delicious, too delicious — and it tasted like the well-earned break for which I’ve been working all year. 

While on the island, I ate like this every day. And the beautiful part is that I don’t feel guilty. We have our whole lives to diet and exercise and eat salads when we would much rather have pizza. So, if you are fortunate enough to have a vacation, do yourself a favor and eat like you are on vacation, because it isn’t promised. 

A new TikTok trend has people drinking toxic borax. An expert explains the risks

A potentially dangerous trend has gained prominence on TikTok, with a number of people mixing borax into water and drinking it for supposed health benefits.

This isn’t new. Social media platforms have been host to many dangerous “challenges” — and users have been dosing themselves with questionable substances for years.

There’s no evidence to support the latest claims about borax. So how dangerous is it? And how can we assess the safety of the many other substances we use in daily life?

 

What is borax?

Borax, or sodium borate decahydrate, is a salt made of a combination of boron, sodium, oxygen and hydrogen. It comes in the form of a colourless crystalline solid that can easily be dissolved in water.

Borax and the related boric acid are commonly used in household products including laundry cleaning products, wood preservers, fertilisers, contact lens solution and ant killers.

Borax crystals are also widely available in supermarkets, hardware stores and garden centers. These products are typically pure borax, but other additives may be present.

 

Don’t confuse borax with boron

TikTok users posting videos of themselves ingesting borax and water solution have falsely claimed it can help treat inflammation, joint pain, arthritis, lupus and a range of other conditions.

This is yet another hoax “remedy” in a long list of false hope products. Alternative therapies are often touted as being “natural” and therefore supposedly non-toxic.

But while borax is naturally occurring, this isn’t a guarantee of safety. Arsenic, ricin and the toxin responsible for botulism are also 100% natural, but can be highly toxic to humans.

And although the element boron specifically is considered essential for plants and some animals, its role in the functioning of the human body is less clear. Boron can be found in some of the foods we eat, such as grapes and potatoes, but isn’t classified as an essential nutrient. The very small amount of boron your body may need can be safely obtained by eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables.

 

How dangerous is borax?

Borax is not considered safe to ingest.

In toxicology, the median lethal dose, or LD50, is the approximate dose required to kill half the animals in a population being studied.

The LD50 for borax in rats is about 5g per kilogram of body weight. This is a relatively large dose, which means acute toxicity causing death is unlikely in humans. But just because a dose won’t kill, that doesn’t mean it isn’t harmful — and it definitely doesn’t mean it’s good for you.

Borax was used extensively as a food preservative in the early 1900s. That was before the work of Harvey Washington Wiley and his poison squad uncovered a range of side effects to consumption, including headaches, nausea, vomiting, gastric discomfort and more.

Borax is also classified as a reproductive toxin, which means it “may impair fertility” and “may cause harm to the unborn child”. It is banned as a food additive in Australia, the United States and several other countries.

 

Safety first, last and always

A number of dangerous social media challenges have gone viral over the past decade. One notable example was the “Tide pod challenge“, in which users recorded themselves biting or eating laundry pods.

The consumption of laundry pods has caused a number of deaths (although these can’t necessarily be linked to the Tide pod challenge). From 2013 to 2022, poison centres in the US have managed around 10,000 cases each year related to children age five and under being exposed to laundry detergent packets.

Clearly, we shouldn’t be drinking borax or eating laundry pods. Yet such substances can’t always be avoided — so the best protection is to understand the dangers associated with them.

Apart from reading the generic safety warnings on a product, such as “CAUTION” or “KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN”, consumers can dig a little deeper through the use of resources known as safety data sheets (or SDS).

Every product containing hazardous substances must legally have an SDS. So whether you’re using a shampoo, hand sanitiser, vinegar or borax, there will almost certainly be an SDS available. Here’s the SDS for Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, as an example.

You can find the SDS of a product online by searching the product’s name and “SDS” in Google. These documents follow a standardised format and provide details of hazards associated with a product.

They also include standardised hazard pictograms that represent the associated physical, health and environmental risks. You’ve probably seen these before, such as a “flammable” sign on a deodorant or a “corrosive” sign on a household cleaner.

As far as borax is concerned, the main product shown in the TikTok videos has an SDS that lists the human silhouette and exclamation mark pictograms. These correspond to the listed hazards of skin irritation, serious eye irritation and potential damage to fertility or an unborn child.

A number of precautionary statements follows — with advice on appropriate personal protective equipment and how to store and dispose of the product.

Further details go beyond the typical consumer information and include composition, first aid information, toxicological information and fire fighting methods. These are helpful for medical professionals treating patients and fire fighters dealing with chemical spills and fires.

Safety data sheets aren’t perfect, but they are a useful resource. So the next time you see an unusual “miracle cure” on social media or there’s a chemical in your home you aren’t sure about, consider reading the SDS.


If you have been exposed to a potentially harmful substance, call your local poison information centre or seek medical attention.

Nathan Kilah, Senior Lecturer in Chemistry, University of Tasmania

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

Fact-checker calls out falsehoods in Tommy Tuberville’s tales about his dad in World War II

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., has previously described the role his father, Charles R. Tuberville Jr., played in World War II — that he was a tank commander who earned five Bronze Stars, participated in the D-Day landing and lied about his age to join the army. But the Washington Post investigated the Alabama Republican’s tales about his father in a new report, determining that some were either dubious or false. 

The Post asserted that the report is not questioning Charles Tuberville’s “heroism or service,” but assessing the accuracy of some of the claims. The outlet determined that Charles Tuberville did not join the military at 16, citing the draft registration card that he submitted on his 18th birthday. Claims that Charles Tuberville was a tank commander were also determined to be dubious as his tombstone lists his highest rank as technician fifth grade, a designation that indicated technical skills but not combat leadership. He also was not a recipient of a bronze star — let alone five — as none of the after-action reports on his battalion from June 1944 to August 1945 list him as a recipient.  

It also remains unclear whether Tuberville’s father participated in the dangerous D-Day invasion. The communications director for the Alabama senator said the report of separation indicated Tuberville was part of the 746th Tank Battalion and his date of arrival in theater is listed as June 6, 1944. The Post, however, did confirm that Tuberville’s father, was awarded a Purple Heart.

“Good luck with that defense”: Experts mock Trump’s Truth Social meltdown amid looming indictment

Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday teased that his legal team would “have fun on the stand” with witnesses who refute his widely debunked election fraud conspiracy theories if he is indicted in connection to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

“We’ll have fun on the stand with all of these people that say the Presidential Election wasn’t Rigged and Stollen [sic],” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday morning. “THE TRIAL OF THE CENTURY!!!”

Legal experts mocked the former president’s latest exclamation online Wednesday, taking jabs at his defense and propensity for taking the stand.

“Yeah, good luck with that defense,” criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor Ron Filipkowski tweeted.

“This man will never take the stand. Never,” Bradley Moss, a national security and security clearance lawyer, added.

Trump on Tuesday also took aim at President Joe Biden, citing a post from RealClearInvestigations reporter Paul Sperry about special counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into the classified documents Biden is accused of removing from the White House after leaving office in 2017.

In a post shared to Twitter, Sperry reported Tuesday that Hur is working to negotiate conditions with the Department of Justice and Biden’s legal team, including his personal attorney Bob Bauer and White House counsel, for a potential interview with the president in connection to the probe. 

We need your help to stay independent

Trump praised Sperry for the post later that day on Truth Social, adding a dig at President Biden’s retention of classified documents, which were found in Biden’s old Delaware office by his aides earlier this year and swiftly returned to the government.

“Biden is the one ‘Obstructing Justice,’ not me. He didn’t have the PRA, because he wasn’t President. I did,” Trump wrote, referencing the Presidential Records Act, which legal experts have told Salon does not apply to the charges he’s facing from the Justice Department. “He is fighting hard so they don’t see the documents that he took, especially the Classified Documents taken when he was a Senator, a major no, no!”


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


He also directed his attention to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., shortly afterward, regurgitating claims that the government is orchestrating a “witch hunt” against him.

“So, let’s get this straight? The Democrat SLIMEBALLS in Congress, then headed by Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Impeached me over a PERFECT PHONE CALL (I Won!), and are now Indicting me over their continuing, illegal, and long running Witch Hunt, but Crooked Joe Biden, who has stolen and extorted millions of dollars, won’t be Impeached or Indicted by a very kind, friendly, and politically correct Republican Congress. Gee, that seems very fair to me?” he said.

Hunter Biden plea deal is back on after nearly falling apart in court

Hunter Biden agreed to a revised plea deal Wednesday for the two federal misdemeanor counts he incurred regarding his failure to pay taxes in 2017 and 2018 following a disagreement over a separate gun charge earlier in the day that led the judge presiding over the case to pause the proceedings until the parties could reach a resolution, CNN reports

According to NBC News, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika questioned earlier on Wednesday the terms of the plea deal the president’s son struck with U.S. Attorney David Weiss of Delaware, another Trump-appointed official. Noreika asked whether the gun charge was linked to the deal and if there were more serious charges that could be brought against Biden. Weiss confirmed that the investigation into Biden is ongoing and further charges may be brought, prompting protest from Biden’s lawyers, who believed he would be given immunity.

The original deal said that prosecutors would recommend probation for the tax violations, while dropping a separate felony gun charge if Biden met certain conditions outlined in court. The revised deal now covers the time period from 2014 to 2019 and only handles Hunter Biden’s conduct related to tax offenses, drug use and gun possession. Both sides have also agreed that the new deal does not protect Hunter Biden from potential future charges.

School-approved Cheetos? Why we must protect school food from corporate interests

Universal access to healthy school meal programs is essential for children’s well-being, but Canada lags behind its peers in providing nutritious food to children.

While the federal government committed to a national school food program in the 2019 budget, it has not funded its implementation.

A report on the 2022 consultations on a national school food policy will soon be released. It’s likely that the food industry will have made their corporate interests heard and industry-affiliated corporations are known to lobby Canadian policymakers to influence federal nutrition policies.

Public engagement is key to building inclusive and accessible public policy. The consultations heard from provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments and community organizations about the value and role of healthy school food. It also heard from the food industry — and this is problematic.

The food industry uses policy consultations to advance competing corporate industry interests to the detriment of public health.

 

Food industry lobbying

We have good reason to sound the alarm about the power of the food industry in shaping diets and health. The food industry regularly borrows from the political playbook of tobacco, alcohol and other health-harming industries. They do this to protect their commercial interests.

The federal government has not yet ruled out a significant role for the food industry in the creation of a national school food program. This openness to industry influence or interference is cause for concern due to the profit-driven mandate of businesses that make or process unhealthy and unsustainable foods.

The current patchwork of school-based meal programming across Canada also creates an unhealthy and unsustainable reliance on volunteers and charitable giving. Food companies have been free to strategically position themselves as key players in food security through philanthropy.

If Big Food becomes even more involved with school food, who will really benefit? Our children, or shareholders?

The development of a national school food program will be attractive economically to the food industry as multi-national food companies will see it as a way to increase sales and introduce their brands to children at a young age.

By subtly positioning their products in schools, the food industry exerts its power to establish its credibility. We saw this with the infamous “school-approved” Cheetos in the National School Lunch Program in the United States.

 

Burnishing reputations

At a time when food companies are attempting to engage in reputational management in the face of soaring food costs, being seen as the solution to food insecurity might help their image.

In fact, the food industry promoting itself as being “part of the solution” represents an evolution of non-market tactics that are designed to effectively manipulate public and political perspectives, including regulatory decisions, to favour industry interests over others. This includes children’s health.

There are three steps the federal government must take to prevent corporate influence in the development of a national school program:

 

1. Define the role of the food industry

In collaboration with the provinces and territories, the government must define the role of the food industry and commercial entities in providing food to schools. Schoolchildren must be protected from marketing campaigns and efforts to make junk food more readily available.

Ultimately, food companies and their charitable foundations should not have a seat at the table in the development of a national school food program or its governance.

 

2. Invest in the school food program

The government must properly fund a national school food program. This will allow Indigenous governments, provinces and territories, along with local school communities, to tailor and customize their food programming free from the influence of corporate charitable giving.

Although the level of investment to make a national program a reality is likely to be significant, relying on the corporate sector to offset these costs should not be an option.

 

3. Pass protective legislation

The federal government can make Bill C-252, the Child Health Protection Act, a government bill and increase the chances of its speedy adoption.

It’s currently a private member’s bill tabled by Liberal MP Patricia Lattanzio to amend the Food and Drugs Act and prohibit food and beverage marketing directed at children.

Bill C-252 isn’t perfect and regulations would need to be drafted. But it could provide an additional layer of protection to prevent corporate entities from marketing to children while they’re attending school.

Developing and implementing a national school food program can help build the foundations for a healthy population over the long term. The federal government must limit the influence of the food industry on a national school food program to protect the health and well-being of Canadian children and youth.

Sara F.L. Kirk, Professor of Health Promotion; Scientific Director of the Healthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University; Amberley T. Ruetz, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan; Rachel Prowse, Assistant Professor, Nutrition and Dietetics, Memorial University of Newfoundland, and Steve Machat, PhD Candidate, Interdisciplinary Studies, Dalhousie University

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

Every beginner cook should have these 7 spices in their cabinet

Most of us understand that throwing bulk ingredients into a pan — no salt, no pepper, no seasoning —and then eating them as-is in not a particularly transformative culinary experience. That said, it can sometimes be intimidating for beginner cooks to know where to start when the time comes to build out their spice cabinet. 

But here’s a little secret: Most food, on its own accord, is innately good. Spices (and fresh herbs) just build upon that already intact flavor. That means that you don’t a cabinet full of expensive cutesy-named spice blends in order to prepare some truly high-quality food.

 So, for those who are looking to bulk up the spices in their cupboard or diversify their at-home cookery, here’s a simple run-down of the top spices all cooks should have at their disposal.

A few notes before getting into it

  • This is largely geared towards savory cooking. If we were talking other types of cooking (sweets, baking, beverages), I’d venture into more warming spices, such as cinnamon, cloves or cardamom, as well as staples like vanilla extract. I do, however, often use nutmeg in certain savory applications, such as when cooking greens or any sort of cream or Bechamel-based sauce (props to Rachael Ray for this). 
  • I am not including any dried herbs, as they are indeed herbs, not spices. I will note, though, that my number-one most used item in my spice cabinet this year is freeze-dried chives, which I have become obsessed with and use in practically everything I make.
  • I’m not going to include seeds, but I will say that sesame seeds (both white and black) and mustard seeds are some of the most commonly used “spices” in my cupboard. 
  • This list only includes singular, stand-alone spices — no blends or mixes (garam masala, curry powders, ras el hanout, Berbere, dukkah, Bell’s) — but I love each and every one of those. 
  • There are many, many other spices that I love to use — sumac, coriander, bay leaves, allspice, fennel, turmeric — but those aren’t necessary for a “beginner” pantry.

We need your help to stay independent

 

01
Salt (obviously)
This should go without saying.
 
I’m a proponent of the flavor and texture of kosher salt; I use Morton’s and Diamond Crystal interchangeably. Literally every single thing you cook will benefit from some grains of salt, whether you’re making hot chocolate or Pastitsio.
 
I keep a small bowl or ramekin of large-grain kosher salt next to my stove, which I use in everything I cook and I use my fingers to season my food. This allows you to feel the grains, to intuit precisely how much you are adding: not too much, not too little.
 
Also, please remember to always season as you go — do not wait until you’re about to serve to season. You should be seasoning during practically every step or component. If you’re seasoning a piece of protein, no matter if it’s a halibut filet, chicken thigh or filet mignon, be sure to sprinkle your salt from a bit higher than you would normally, which will help to properly disperse and more evenly season your food. I also enjoy using a finishing salt for certain dishes. 
 
And don’t forget to toss some over your shoulder for luck.
02
Garlic powder
Some people get very, very offended by garlic powder, which is such a ludicrous thing to get riled up over. In many instances, I use both fresh garlic and garlic powder, because they add a completely different shade of garlic flavor. For example, I don’t love raw garlic in guacamole; even one clove can be overwhelming or acrid, a sharp contrast from the smooth, mellow avocado and bright cilantro and lime. Garlic powder, however, adds a dried, toasted note of garlic without being overpowering or unpleasantly sharp. Be mindful of not over-using garlic powder, though.
 
Conversely, if I’m making some sort of pan sauce, I’ll add three or four chopped cloves, which will mellow out as they cook. If I’m making chicken parm, I”m going to add garlic powder to every component of my breading process. Keep both on hand and determine what’s the best use for each depending on the dish you’re making — or, of course, just use both! 
03
Paprika
I adore paprika. Growing up, we really only had it on grilled chicken, but I’d argue it’s the best, well-rounded spice to add to . . . practically anything from vegetables to proteins to rice or buttered egg noodles.
 
I like a generic paprika for some added flavor and color, but others swear by Hungarian or smoked, which add a whole new dimension of flavor. Sometimes, if you’re at a loss for what to cook or you’re looking to make a gluten-free, dairy-free, soy-free, nut-free, uber-healthy protein, sautéed chicken cooked in oil with nothing other than salt, pepper and paprika is always a safe bet.
 
I appreciate paprika’s reliability. It’s always there for you when you need some extra “oomph” but don’t know which flavor dimension to pursue. 

 


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


 

04
Cumin
I’m obsessed with cumin, but it can be much more potent than most paprikas. If you add an extra shake or two of cumin to anything, that dish might then become cumin-focused, which rarely happens with paprika. And while I adore the smoky depth of cumin, it can be overpowering in certain capacities. Generally, though, I love it when making any taco, in guacamole, in grilled chicken or on roasted vegetables.
 
Many will swear by toasting whole cumin seeds and then grounding them, but honestly, I’m usually not taking that extra step. While that might amplify the adored flavor even further, let’s be honest: Store-bought ground cumin never hurt anybody. 
05
Onion powder
While I’m not one for “salt and pepper,” I am one for “garlic and onion powder.” (Lately, I’ve been especially partial to Burlap & Barrel, which has some of the most potent garlic and onion powder I’ve ever tried.) I rarely ever use one instead of the other; they often go hand-in-hand, making their way into practically everything I cook, from turkey meatballs to chicken cutlets to chicken meatloaf to tacos. Onion powder is quite subtle — not intense like garlic powder — and just like with garlic, I tend to use onion powder and actual alliums together. Sometimes that’s onion, sometimes scallion, sometimes shallot. Really, whatever I have on hand. 
 
I’m pretty much an allium stan all around, so I might use onion powder a bit more than other cooks, but I promise it’s an important, reliable spice to have on hand that’ll deepen the flavor of pretty much anything you make. 
06
Black pepper
Get ready: I don’t love black pepper. Like, at all . . . I hardly use it. But this is a list for the general beginner cook and let’s be frank, “salt and pepper” is a generally understood culinary pairing. Who am I to break them up? 
 
Anne Burrell once said that salt is something to be used 100% of the time, while pepper should be treated as a spice, which completely re-shaped my perception and also helped me feel better about not using pepper nearly as much as others do, fully embracing my “hater” status.
 
Now, don’t get me wrong, I love some cranks of fresh-ground black pepper on salads (garden, Caesar, raw vegetables), on chicken breasts or on cacio e pepe, but I’m not automatically adding pepper to every single thing I make. But for a novice who doesn’t have my proclivities, please do buy a great grinder of some black peppercorns and use them as you see fit. 
07
Cayenne powder or crushed red pepper (red pepper flakes)
Hater round 2: I literally never use these products. I have a strikingly low tolerance for spice so they have no place in my spice cabinet.
 
However, I know that most people adore spicy food, so this is a must-have for most. I once enjoyed crushed red pepper and would throw it into certain sauces or dishes, but cayenne has never been for me. Cayenne adds a sharper, more pointed spice, while crushed red pepper is a bit more utilitarian and has a more dynamic “spice” profile. 

“Any other place, his career would be over”: Fox colleagues disgusted at Gutfeld’s “useful” Jews jab

Fox News anchor Greg Gutfeld has been awash with criticism after he said that Jewish people “had to be useful” in order to survive the Holocaust during Monday’s broadcast of the network’s top show, “The Five.”

Fox News staffers and insiders told The Daily Beast that the remarks were a “disgusting thing” for its resident “comedian” to say, adding that “at any other place, his career would be over.”

Gutfeld made the comment while defending Florida’s new and controversial history education curriculum, which will endeavor to teach children that slavery provided Black Americans with “personal benefit” by helping them develop skills. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican presidential candidate, has suggested that experiencing slavery was a beneficial experience for come enslaved people and has defended the “anti-woke” lesson plans amid nationwide criticism.

During Monday’s edition of “The Five,” the panel blasted Vice President Kamala Harris’ rebuff of the education standards as racist. Jesse Watters, a co-host and newly minted primetime anchor for the network, criticized Harris for not wanting “African-Americans and white Americans to know that Black Americans did learn skills despite being enslaved.”

The hosts’ conversation shifted, however, when the sole liberal panelist, Jessica Tarlov, made a connection between slavery and the Holocaust, wondering if Florida schools would go on to teach that Jewish people received some benefit from the Nazis’ systemic murder of them in concentration camps.

“Obviously I’m not Black, but I’m Jewish,” Tarlov began. “Would someone say about the Holocaust, for instance, that there were some benefits for Jews? That while they were hanging out in concentration camps they learned a strong work ethic? That maybe you learned a new skill?”

Gutfeld referenced Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl’s famous book to respond to Tarlov’s question. 

“Did you ever read ‘Man’s Search for Meaning’?” Gutfeld said. “Vik Frankl talks about how you had to survive in a concentration camp by having skills. You had to be useful. Utility! Utility kept you alive!”

A clip of Gutfeld’s comments soon spread across social media, prompting immediate backlash from media observers and journalists who believed the host had crossed the line. 

“I wanted to throw up after this comment,” Juliet Jeske, a research associate for the Tow-Knight Center News Integrity Initiative at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY, wrote of the viral clip she tweeted from her Fox News tracking account, Decoding Fox News. “How would he not know that Jews were sorted the day they arrived in some camps and were immediately murdered. I thought that was common knowledge. A lot of them were children.”

We need your help to stay independent

Gutfeld’s comments have also drawn critiques from people within the conservative network, which has long since navigated the controversy generated by the inflammatory rhetoric of its commentators. The Anti-Defamation League has repeatedly admonished the network for pedaling “racist” and “fringe” commentary, including white supremacist ideology like the “Great Replacement” theory. 

“Obviously, it is a disgusting thing to say, same with Jesse’s remarks on the matter,” one unnamed Fox News producer told the Daily Beast. “Just generally speaking, I’m amazed that FOX has any ability to retain employees from multicultural backgrounds. Our workplace is shockingly diverse given the vitriol that often makes it to the air. Understand that they’re likely here for the same reasons I am, these jobs are scarce, but I can’t help but feel awful for them because they undoubtedly see this nonsense and can’t do anything to stop it.”

When asked for a reaction, another reporter simply told the outlet “yikes,” while a Fox insider hinted that there was a “lot of internal worry” about Gutfeld’s controversy, especially since he recently ascended to a primetime slot.

“At any other place, his career would be over,” the insider added.

The host faced severe criticism this week for misrepresenting the message of Frankl’s book and downplaying the horrors of the Holocaust.

“Everyone else at Fox fine with Gutfeld suggesting Jews sent to concentration camps could survive ‘by being useful?’ How can any of his fellow panelists show up tomorrow to sit there next to him?” neo-conservative commentator Bill Kristol, who is Jewish, rhetorically asked online Monday night. 


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


“This f**king imbecile @greggutfeld is beyond absurd. He argues that Jews honed skills in the Holocaust that allowed some to survive,” Trump impeachment whistleblower Alexander Vindman, who is also Jewish, added on Monday night. “More than SIX MILLION men, women, & children died because they weren’t useful enough. @FoxNews is complicit in this hateful tirade. #NeverAgain.”

Eric Kleefeld, a senior writer for watchdog Media Matters, argued that, in making those comments, Gutfeld “unrionically extolls” the infamous phrase “Arbeit macht frei,” which translates to “Work sets you free,” that hung above the entrance of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz.

Gutfeld also garnered a condemnation from the Auschwitz Museum, which called his comments an “oversimplification” of the atrocity and fact-checked the self-proclaimed “King of Late Night.”

“While it is true that some Jews may have used their skills or usefulness to increase their chances of survival during the Holocaust, it is essential to contextualize this statement properly and understand that it does not represent the complex history of the genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany,” the museum wrote on Twitter in a lengthy statement.

“Viktor Frankl’s observation about the specific situation in Auschwitz, which at some point became a camp that connected the functions of a concentration camp and extermination center and where deported Jews went through the selection process, highlights how some Jews became registered prisoners and might have used their skills to gain favor or prolong their lives in that particular setting,” the statement continued. “Yet, it never gave them complete protection.”

The statement also noted that there “were no selections in extermination camps” and that “being useful did not offer protection” in the final stages of the Holocaust, ending with a firm correction of Gutfeld’s comments.

“Therefore, while it is accurate to acknowledge that some Jews may have survived temporarily due to their perceived usefulness, it is crucial to remember that the Holocaust was a systematic genocide with the ultimate aim of exterminating the entire Jewish population,” the statement concluded. “It would be more appropriate to say that some Jews survived the Holocaust because they were considered temporarily useful, and the circumstances of the Nazi regime’s collapse prevented their murder. We should avoid such oversimplifications in talking about this complex tragic story.”

A spokesperson for the ADL also told The Daily Beast that, while the crux of Gutfeld’s suggestion was unclear, what was apparent was his lack of knowledge of the facts.

“It is not clear from Gutfeld’s comments if he is arguing that Jews learned skills in the Holocaust, or that Jews who had skills had a better chance of staying alive. The latter is something that is well-documented, while the former is nonsense. That said, many millions of Jews, who, in Gutfeld’s words, had ‘utility’ were still murdered,” the spokesperson said.

“Moreover, the main argument in Frankl’s book was more about how those who had something to live for–a relative they wanted to be with, a book they wanted to write, research they were in the middle of, etc.–had a better mental chance of surviving because it motivated them not to give up,” he added.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates condemned Gutfeld’s remarks in a statement to CNN.

“What Fox News allowed to be said on their air yesterday — and has so far failed to condemn — is an obscenity,” he began. 

“In defending a horrid, dangerous, extreme lie that insults the memory of the millions of Americans who suffered from the evil of enslavement, a Fox News host told another horrid, dangerous and extreme lie that insults the memory of the millions of people who suffered from the evils of the Holocaust,” he continued.

“Let’s get something straight that the American people understand full well and that is not complicated: there was nothing good about slavery; there was nothing good about the Holocaust. Full stop,” Bates added. “Americans deserve to be brought together, not torn apart with poison. And they deserve the truth and the freedom to learn, not book bans and lies.”

Though Gutfeld has built his brand, in part, by assuming the role of Fox News’ resident “edgy” provocateur, he has also taken aim at others for referencing the Holocaust in offensive ways. 

During a 2015 segment, Gutfeld rebuked actress Shirley MacLaine for suggesting in her memoir that Holocaust victims could have been “balancing their karma from ages before” due to the possibility that they may have been Roman soldiers or crusaders in another life.

“That’s not just offensive but an example of imposter intelligence, for intellect without boundaries is mere stupidity,” Gutfeld said, adding, “Shirley wasn’t in a concentration camp, allowing her to use their hell for fun and profit.”

Gutfeld, who debuted his latest book on Tuesday, concluded: “Did Shirley write this awful book as punishment for her being a horrible creep in a previous life? No, because she’s a horrible creep in her present life.”

Fox News did not respond to the Daily Beast’s requests for comment. 

Jim Gaffigan on making darker jokes in today’s divided America: “It’s a decent vehicle for comedy”

“We have to acknowledge some of the chaos that exists and the fear that exists,” says Jim Gaffigan. “If we’re not a little bit cynical, we’re living in a little bit of denial.” Wait, the Hot Pockets guy says what? 

Over his over two-decade-long career and 10 stand-up specials, Gaffigan has gained a reputation as a “clean” comic, the guy who ruminates about bacon and the challenges of raising his brood of five kids. And it’s accurate to say that those aspects of his sensibility are as true as they ever have been. But the comic, actor and author is also, like all of us, a person who’s lived through some rough times, and wants to talk about it.

In his new Prime Video special, “Dark Pale,” (which he wrote and directed and the New York Times calls his “best yet”) Gaffigan remains funny as hell, taking umbrage with family life and hot air balloons. And he also talks about death. “We have PTSD,” he told me on “Salon Talks.” “We’ve all lost someone, whether it’s through the pandemic or just in everyday life.”

Longtime fans of Gaffigan know that a touch of dread has always been part of his worldview. And over the past few years, his evolution has taken his observations in plenty of new places — even if some critics haven’t always recognized the whole picture. “In one special,” he recalled, “I had five minutes on cancer, and people were like, ‘He’s still clean. He talks about food.'” 

But while there are plenty of other aspects to Gaffigan’s comedy than his measured Midwestern pace and jokes about fast food, he also knows the label that matters the most to him. “The entertainment industry is perception,” he says. “The only adjective that really matters with stand-up is ‘funny.'” Watch Jim Gaffigan’s “Salon Talks” episode here.

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

You talk in this special about death, funerals and some really dark stuff. What has it been like going back out there with this particular special?

The audience has obviously all gone through the same stuff. We all have had this emotional development where we wanted to talk about the pandemic, didn’t want to hear about the pandemic, [were] frightened of it coming back. We all occasionally will hear about somebody getting COVID, and you’re like, “Wait a minute.” We have PTSD. We’ve all lost someone, whether it’s through the pandemic or just in everyday life. 

“We live in such a voyeuristic, exhibitionist era that if you are not revealing some of yourself, you’re not going to develop a relationship with the audience.”

I feel as though there’s a maturity there. Initially, people were just ecstatic to get out. My relationship with audiences is that there is the value of time. My ticket prices aren’t that high anyway, but if people are giving me two hours on a Friday night, it better be worth those two hours, because we don’t have time. When people walk out, I definitely want them to be like, “All right, that was worth it,” because I’m the same way. When I’m disappointed by a movie, it’s not that it was 14 or 16 bucks – it’s that, “Oh man, that’s my night.”

Every special that you’ve done is its own moment in your life, family and career. What was the story that you wanted this one to tell?

Some of it is that nihilism is pervasive and maybe it’s necessary for how we process today, because we have to acknowledge some of the chaos that exists and the fear that exists. If we’re not a little bit cynical, we’re living in a little bit of denial. That’s where I see the world. In a parallel way, my comedy specials, my children were younger and now three-fifths of them are teenagers, and it’s a nightmare. Do you know what I mean? It’s really hard.

I know exactly what you mean. That is the word.

When you have young kids, either people don’t tell you how hard it is with teenagers or you don’t hear it because changing a diaper is like a cakewalk compared to waiting for a teenager to come home on a Saturday night.

There are bookshelves galore about how to parent up to the age of two, and there are no books about how to parent an adult.

There are no books on how to parent a kid that’s been exposed to social media for six years.

Speaking of your parenting, you took your son with you on this tour. Jack, who, if I’m not mistaken, gave you the title of your first book, “Dad Is Fat,” as well.

Yes, he did.

Tell me what that experience was like, and why you wanted to do this.

“Changing a diaper is like a cakewalk compared to waiting for a teenager to come home on a Saturday night.”

We did two separate weeks of tour. Some of it was that I want to spend time with my son. Some of it is also, he’s expressed interest in stand-up. He is also one of the funniest people I know. You can tell a kid something or you can have them experience it. I wanted him to understand the preparation that goes into stand-up and also that there is something involved in it that is outside of just saying the most irreverent thing. 

We did two week-long tours, and I think he learned it. But there is also something of human beings, we learn things and then we have to relearn them. He is very funny, he could definitely do it for a living. But there is something about the entertainment industry, the amount of humiliation and rejection you have to consume. Not everyone has that appetite. I think he might, but I also know that when I was 17, I’ve probably had 10 different lives since then. I feel like every five years I’m a different person.

For a long time you have been known as the “clean comic.” You’re the clean guy, you’re the Catholic guy, you’re the guy with a lot of kids. Yet I’ve watched your stuff, and you talk about death, diarrhea and your politics and beliefs. That runs, I think in some ways, contrary to that image. What’s that about?

The entertainment industry is perception. In a lot of ways you don’t have control over that, and in a lot of ways, it’s none of your business. I remember initially being resistant to being known as the clean comedian, just because the only adjective that really matters with stand-up is “funny.” Like in one special, I had five minutes on cancer, and people were like, “He’s still clean. He talks about food.” 

You don’t have control over what people will take away or what people will assign to you. It’s a strange thing where I go with the flow. I’ve had numerous acting roles yet with every acting project, people are always like, “What’s it like to be an actor?” These are intelligent people that have seen my IMDb page, but in their perception, I am a guy who only tells jokes about food. It doesn’t bother me, and it’s not an indication of someone not doing their research. It’s just the perception.

Has there been a shift in the last couple of years when you have been a little more vocal about where you stand on certain issues? Or does your audience know you? Do they know that that’s what you’re going to do?

There’s two answers to this. One, I do like the idea of, not thinning the herd, but purifying it a little bit. So if I say something that the setup is like, “We all agree on gay rights,” and then I just do another observation, if that initial statement turns people off, it’s like, that’s fine. 

“I wanted him to understand the preparation that goes into stand-up and also that there is something involved in it that is outside of just saying the most irreverent thing.”

On the other side of it, I do feel like the relationship I have with people that come to my shows is that they don’t necessarily have to agree with everything as long as I’m not preachy. In “Dark Pale,” I have stuff about global warming. When you travel around the country doing material, you can get a different sense with how an audience is taking in a premise. There are times when I’m talking about global warming, someone in the audience will be like, “All right, I don’t necessarily agree with this premise, but I think you’re funny and I want to see your take on this.” In this divided America that we live in, we don’t necessarily agree with everything, but it’s a decent vehicle for comedy.

I’m always so fascinated with the way that you use the voice of the audience in your act, and you’ve been doing that for a long time. That voice has changed over the years. What is that voice now? How do you tap into that? What do we sound like to you now?

I’m this slow-talking midwesterner, and I was in New York City in the early ’90s, before YouTube or satellite radio. Stand-up was closer to combat than what it is now. The audience wasn’t as educated on what stand-up is or even how to consume it. So it was a tool of just always speaking for the audience if they had a judgment, because I’m this white bread guy. If I went on stage, they’d be like, “Does this guy know how white bread he is?” It’s like if I bring it up, not only does it communicate self-awareness, it’s a shared like-mindedness. 

I don’t want to lean on it, but also, it adds an element of an additional point of view, which is always fun. So if my point of view on a topic is pro it, then the inside voice can be against it. It also is just a great way of defusing a situation. I did it when I was a teenager. People just feel at ease where it’s like, “All right, at least he knows he’s late.” 

You’ve been talking about your family as long as you’ve had one, which is over 20 years now. Your kids are getting older now, they’re transitioning into adulthood. How do you balance now how you talk about them? Do they get any veto power in what you say? How do you create good boundaries so that they feel safe?

It’s this moving target because you never want to go full Kardashian. We live in such a voyeuristic, exhibitionist era that if you are not revealing some of yourself, you’re not going to develop a relationship with the audience. My general approach on parenting is that if a parent is complaining, it means they’re involved, and I’m not hiding anything from my children. 

It is hyperbole, but it’s weird because it’s one of those things where a 10-year-old’s view on having a father that’s a comedian is different from a 17-year-old’s. My dad was a small town banker. I am aware of it. I would talk about my children as opposed to a specific individual. If it was a specific individual, and if I’m highlighting their behavior, it would be something that they would like. It would be them standing up to authority in an empowering way as opposed to the behavior of making them embarrassed. My kids are more worried about a photograph being posted. 

It is interesting because we do live in this day and age where some of their peers are really into comedy, or their families are really into comedy, and they might have an awareness. And then some kids are not into comedy and it would never come up. Comedy is something that’s enjoyed by everyone so it doesn’t hit a particular type of kid. It could be an athlete, it could be someone that really excels in academics, and not that those are mutually exclusive.

Plus you live in New York City — all the kids’ parents have Emmys.

I’ll run into my kids’ friends when I’m doing shows because they’re going on stage. It’s a strange thing in New York City. Or I’ll be auditioning for something and I’ll see some kid’s parent. So New York City’s a small world.

“Incandescently stupid”: Former DHS official says he had to “dumb” down classified memos for Trump

Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security under Donald Trump, shared how he often had to oversimply national security reports for the former president.

“This fifty-page memo that we would normally give to any other president about what his options are is something Trump literally can’t read. The man doesn’t read. We’ve gotta boil this down into a one-pager in his voice,” Taylor told podcast host Brett Meiselas on Tuesday. “And so I had to write this incandescently stupid memo called something like, ‘Afghanistan, How to Put America First and Win.’ And then bullet by bullet, I summed up this highly classified memo into Trump’s sort of bombastic language because it was the only way he was gonna understand,” Taylor added. “I mean, I literally said in there, ‘You know, if we leave Afghanistan too fast, the terrorists will call us losers. But if we wanna be seen as winners, we need to make sure the Afghan forces have the strength to push back against these criminals.’ I mean, it was that dumb and that’s how you had to talk to him.”

Kevin Spacey cleared of all sexual assault charges by UK jury

Former “House of Cards” star Kevin Spacey has been found not guilty of several counts of sexual assault against four men between 2001 and 2013, a British jury ruled Wednesday.

The jury consisted of nine men and three women, who heard testimony over four weeks in London. Jurors began deliberations on Monday and took two days to reach a verdict. Spacey was accused of sexual assault, causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent and causing a person to engage in penetrative sexual activity, the BBC reported. He has been cleared of all charges in the U.K.

“I am humbled by the outcome today,” Spacey said following the verdict, adding that he was “enormously grateful” to the jury.

During the trial, an alleged victim of Spacey took the witness stand to share his claim that the veteran actor had performed oral sex on him while he was sleeping. The man reportedly said, “I was taken advantage of, I believe drugged.”

Spacey is a two-time Academy Award winner who took home a best supporting actor Oscar for the 1995 film “The Usual Suspects” and a lead actor statue for the 1999 movie “American Beauty.” His acting career, however, came under fire in 2017, after fellow actor Anthony Rapp accused Spacey of sexually assaulting him at a party in the 1980s when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was 26.

Last year, a New York jury found that Spacey didn’t molest Rapp in 1986 in a $40 million sexual battery lawsuit. The alleged misconduct between Rapp and Spacey came to light amid #MeToo, a reckoning against sexual misconduct and abuse in Hollywood and across industries. All told, more than a dozen men have come forward with allegations against Spacey over the last five years.

“What about the others?”: Court filing reveals 8 search warrants in Trump classified documents case

Recently unsealed court motions showed that eight search warrants and affidavits were filed in connection to former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents case.

Prosecutors filed a motion last month asking for permission to disclose the warrants and other documents to the legal teams of Trump and his personal valet, Walt Nauta, who were both criminally charged for mishandling classified documents at the ex-president’s West Palm Beach estate, according to NBC News.

The unsealed motion also indicated that prosecutors have not shared the “contents, locations, or devices sought by the search warrant” with the public, and asked that the court keep that information private. 

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance called the development “fascinating.” 

“One of which was the warrant for last August’s search of Mar a Lago. But what about the others?” tweeted MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin.

The general public was aware of one of the warrants, which was used to initiate a sweeping search of Mar-a-Lago led by the FBI in August of 2022. NBC reported that though there are an additional seven warrants, it does not necessarily mean that federal authorities also scoured that same amount of physical locations, and could have been for electronic devices, storage facilities, and other parts of Mar-a-Lago.

We need your help to stay independent

“Remember this could well be about search warrants for email accounts, not just physical locations,” New York University Law Prof. Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, wrote on Twitter.

Federal prosecutors pushed for the other warrants to remain shielded from public knowledge, writing in the motion, “The government, accordingly, has never publicly revealed the existence of any of its search warrant applications, or even the number of warrants at issue; it sought a limited unsealing of the instant search warrant application only after the former President publicly revealed its existence.”

Melania “livid” over Trump lawyers’ handling of sexual abuse case: report

Though Melania Trump has remained silent and largely out of the public eye in the wake of her husband’s sexual abuse and defamation case by writer E. Jean Carroll, the former first lady has privately expressed skepticism about the lawsuit, two unnamed sources familiar with her remarks told The New York Times. According to the sources, she privately questioned why Carroll could not recall the exact date she said Trump sexually assaulted her in a high-end, Manhattan department store dressing room.

Melania Trump was also reportedly “livid” when she watched the coverage of Donald Trump’s deposition in the case, in which he, among other contentious comments, confused Carroll with his ex-wife. The former president’s blunder is not what drew Melania Trump’s ire, however. Instead, sources said, she was angry with his legal team’s failure to raise more objections during the deposition. 

Despite being silent amid her husband’s ongoing legal battles and the onset of his renewed presidential bid, Melania Trump has expressed support for his candidacy and an interest in doing events for his campaign next year. Kellyanne Conway, a longtime Trump adviser and close associate of Melania Trump, told the Times that the former first lady was “all in” on her husband’s candidacy and has maintained her status as his “most trusted and most transparent adviser.” Conway added that both Trumps have privately talked “priorities” for a second term. 

Kevin McCarthy’s new plan: Impeach Biden over nothing, just to confuse everybody

Last fall, as we were all girding ourselves for the impending “red tsunami” and contemplating what it was going to do to the remnants of the Biden agenda, I wrote that we should be prepared for the revenge of the MAGA cult and an inevitable Republican attempt to impeach Joe Biden. At that time, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia had already filed five impeachment resolutions, and it was well known that Donald Trump would not be happy if the incoming Republican majority didn’t deliver payback for the two impeachments on his record.

One of the resolutions Greene filed on Biden’s very first day in office claimed that he had tried “to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept benefits from foreign nationals in exchange for favors.” That was, of course, based upon the bogus Ukraine scandal that prompted Donald Trump’s first impeachment. Nothing would be more satisfying to Trump than to see Biden impeached for allegedly doing what Trump actually did when attempting to blackmail the Ukrainian president into smearing Biden.

Then-presumptive House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a staunch Trump acolyte, was asked by Punchbowl News before the midterm election if would pursue a Biden impeachment. He replied:

I think the country doesn’t like impeachment used for political purposes at all. If anyone ever rises to that occasion, you have to, but I think the country wants to heal and … start to see the system that actually works.

Clearly that whole “system that actually works” thing didn’t pan out, so now McCarthy is signaling that the GOP is ready to go ahead with an impeachment inquiry. Here’s what he told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday:

This was always going to happen. As Barton Gelman wrote in the Atlantic before the midterm election:

[T]here is little reason to think that McCarthy can resist the GOP’s impulse to impeach once it gathers strength. He is a notably weak leader of a conference that proved unmanageable for his predecessors Paul Ryan and John Boehner. If he does in fact reach the speakership, his elevation will be a testament to his strategy of avoiding conflict with those forces.

The chaotic and inane House “investigations” into Hunter Biden and their collective outrage about the alleged “sweetheart deal” the president’s son got for some minor offenses — paying his taxes late and lying on an application to buy a firearm — have been pointing in this direction for some time. There’s the notorious laptop, there’s an informant’s unverified claim that Joe Biden was in the room when Hunter made business deals, there’s another informant who is on the lam from the DOJ and there are a couple of IRS whistleblowers who say that Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a Trump appointee, was hamstrung by the Justice Department in going after Hunter. So far, that’s the extent of the “evidence,” if you want to call it that. (The Justice Department says the IRS claims are nonsense and says Weiss will testify before Congress when it’s back in session.)

We need your help to stay independent

The details of all these investigative threads are opaque but highly suggestive: It’s all unproven speculation, dubious sourcing and a lot of smoke and mirrors. But that’s the point. It’s Republican scandal-mongering 101: Throw volumes of incomprehensible minutiae into the media ether and deliver it with breathless intensity, and you can make the public believe that there must be something to it even if they have no idea what.  

Donald Trump serves as the biggest possible megaphone for this stuff. He has dubbed Biden “Crooked Joe,” the most corrupt president in history, and has repeatedly slandered the “Biden crime family.” It may seem as if the ex-president has lost his touch, since he’s merely repurposing that nickname from “Crooked Hillary” and the GOP’s longstanding assault on the Clintons, but that’s no accident. Trump is drawing on all those years of character assassination against Bill and Hillary Clinton and wrapping Joe Biden in them like a cozy old sweater. Trump is also pushing McCarthy hard, not only to impeach Biden as soon as possible but also to “expunge” his own impeachments, which would mean, at least in his mind, that he can go into the 2024 election claiming that Biden was impeached and he wasn’t.

This strategy is starting to work. We can see this because that it’s not just the usual suspects who are flogging these scandals. Some high-profile GOP anti-Trump apostates are getting in on the action too. We saw former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, supposedly a 2024 candidate himself, on “Face the Nation” this past weekend talking the alleged “sweetheart deal” for Hunter Biden:

Far be it from me to second-guess a former U.S. attorney but I was under the impression that prosecutors didn’t reveal all the details about investigations in which they don’t charge someone because it’s not fair to smear people with innuendo and suspicions of wrongdoing when there isn’t adequate evidence. Apparently, that doesn’t apply to the sons of presidents. Christie has at least, to his credit, also raised the question of how Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner got a $2 billion sweetheart deal from the Saudi investment fund, which Republicans in Congress don’t want to know about.


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


Then we have No Labels supporter and former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a never-Trump Republican, making this startling comment:

That’s the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest that Joe Biden might face “serious legal troubles,” much less that they might be on par with Trump’s, which involve two current felony indictments and quite likely at least two more. Hogan retreated a bit when pressed on that by MSNBC’s Jen Psaki, who pointed out that Hunter Biden isn’t a government official and that there’s no conceivable equivalence between Trump and Biden when it comes to “legal problems.”

It’s fortunate for Biden that the credibility of most of his antagonists is so tattered that people who aren’t already in the right-wing echo chamber aren’t particularly likely to buy into this narrative. Oh, and speaking of serious legal problems:

According to CNN, Speaker McCarthy has been in close consultation with a former House speaker who is telling him it’s time to strike. That would be Newt Gingrich, who infamously drove the Republicans to impeach Bill Clinton, only to see Clinton’s approval rating hit an all-time high on the day of the impeachment vote. That cost Gingrich the speaker’s gavel and forced him to resign from Congress over it. It’s a mystery why anyone would want to take his advice on this issue — but then, we’re talking about Kevin McCarthy.

No wonder Joe Biden smiled when he was asked about this on Tuesday.

 

Legal experts: Giuliani just made a “desperate, last-second” concession — but it won’t save him

Former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani on Tuesday conceded the statements he made about two Georgia election workers who were forced from their home by death threats from the former president’s supporters were false.

Giuliani in a two-page late-night court filing said he “does not contest” that his statements about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss were “false” and “carry meaning that is defamatory.”

The statement conceded that his statements meet the “factual elements of liability” for Moss and Freeman’s claims that his comments amounted to “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

But Giuliani is not giving up in the defamation lawsuit from the two election workers, his adviser Ted Goodman told Politico, arguing that it was just a way to move past the fact-gathering stage of the lawsuit and into the legal phase, where he can try to dismiss the suit.

 “Mayor Rudy Giuliani did not acknowledge that the statements were false but did not contest it in order to move on to the portion of the case that will permit a motion to dismiss,” Goodman said. “This is a legal issue, not a factual issue. Those out to smear the mayor are ignoring the fact that this stipulation is designed to get to the legal issues of the case.”

But the report noted that it is a “significant acknowledgment” from the former president’s lawyer, who spent months claiming that Moss and Freeman were seen on video improperly pulling ballots from a suitcase and claiming it was proof of Trump’s widely debunked election fraud conspiracy theories.

Moss and Freeman testified to the House Jan. 6 committee that they faced numerous threats and were forced to flee their home.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who is overseeing the case, threatened to impose sanctions on Giuliani over claims that he failed to preserve key evidence in the case. Giuliani’s filing on Tuesday came in response to an order from Howell demanding an explanation for why he failed to produce certain evidence and why she shouldn’t rule in the plaintiffs’ favor.

We need your help to stay independent

Giuliani attorney Joseph Sibley emphasized in an accompanying filing that Giuliani was not “admitting” to the allegations but would stop contesting them, which he said should end further efforts to obtain additional factual evidence, including emails, texts and other communications, according to Politico.

Giuliani in his statement maintained that his comments about Moss and Freeman were “constitutionally protected statements or opinions” but by admitting to the facts, he says further efforts to obtain factual evidence are unnecessary.

Giuliani in his statement disputed that he mishandled or destroyed the evidence sought by the plaintiffs, citing a statement from his attorney Robert Costello blaming the Justice Department for seizing his devices in 2021, which he claimed were returned with corrupted data.


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


Legal experts expressed doubt that Giuliani’s move would work.

Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said Wednesday it was “remarkable” to see someone in a defamation lawsuit “admit ‘yes, what I said was false.'”

Honig called the attacks Freeman and Moss “one of the most despicable, over-the-top lies” pushed by the former New York City mayor.

“What he seems to be trying to do is limit this question to, ‘Was it constitutionally protected speech?’ You have a lot of range when it comes to First Amendment political speech, but I cannot conceive how you justify attacking innocent civilian poll workers falsely like this,” Honig said.

“This is a sort of desperate, last-second gasp to try to limit his liability here,” he added. “It’s really an astonishing concession.”

National security attorney Bradley Moss also predicted the move would fail.

“This is horribly written, contradicts itself and will not suffice,” he tweeted.

“The real question in this case was always about what level of fault attaches,” explained Georgia State University Law Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis, “but even then, it’s hard to see how Giuliani and the entire Trump team showed any more care than a reckless disregard for the truth.”

65 years of NASA – an astrophysicist reflects on the agency’s legacy

Sixty-five years ago, in 1958, several government programs that had been pursuing spaceflight combined to form NASA. At the time, I was only 3 years old.

I’ve now been a professor of physics and astronomy for nearly 30 years, and I realize that, like countless others who came of age in the 1960s and ’70s, NASA’s missions have had a profound effect on my life and career path. From John Glenn’s first flight into orbit to the Hubble telescope, the agency’s legacy has inspired generations of scientists.

First flight into orbit

The date was Feb. 20, 1962. My first grade teacher, Ms. Ochs, told the class that we would be doing something different on that day. She went to the blackboard and wrote in large block letters “John Glenn” and “NASA.”

She asked if any of us knew what those words meant. None of us did, so she grabbed a globe, and using a pen with a plastic cap, she demonstrated that John Glenn, an astronaut, would soon be launched on a rocket – the pen – from Florida. When the rocket got high enough, Glenn in the Mercury capsule – the cap – would separate from the rocket and go into orbit around the Earth. She demonstrated this by moving the pen cap around the globe.

My class then sat and listened to the historic launch of Friendship 7 carrying Glenn, which was the first U.S. mission to send a man into orbit around the Earth.

A small, funnel-shaped spacecraft in orbit above Earth

During the Gemini mission, two spacecrafts attempted the first-ever space rendezvous. This image, taken in the Gemini 6 craft, shows the Gemini 7 craft just 43 feet away. NASA

There would be three more missions in the one-manned Mercury program, culminating in Gordon Cooper’s Faith 7 mission, which completed 22 Earth orbits. The program proved that NASA could put a manned spacecraft in orbit and bring it back safely to Earth. Next, NASA was ready to move on to a more maneuverable two-person spacecraft.

A two-person spacecraft

In 1965, NASA planned to launch the two-person Gemini spacecraft, and I moved on to the fifth grade where my teacher, Mrs. Wein, was also a space enthusiast. In December, NASA launched the joint missions of Gemini 6 and 7, and Mrs. Wein gave me permission to stay home from school to watch the TV coverage.

This was the first time that two piloted spacecraft performed what is called a rendezvous maneuver, where they meet up in orbit. Orbital maneuvers like this require very precise calculations and a spacecraft in which astronauts can make path changes in orbit – which is what the Gemini capsule was designed to do.

A diagram showing the Earth and the Moon as circles, with a space craft's path from Earth, to the moon, and back to Earth.

A lunar orbit rendezvous occurs when a smaller lunar lander breaks off a main spacecraft while in orbit to land on or circle the Moon before returning to the main craft. NASA, CC BY-ND

The Gemini 6A and 7 spacecrafts practiced a rendezvous maneuver in Earth’s orbit. At the time, I didn’t understand the importance of this mission, until Mrs. Wein directed me to the “S” volume of the World Book Encyclopedia. There, under “Spaceflight,” was a full-page diagram of the lunar orbit rendezvous plan that a NASA engineer, John Houbolt, had developed to get the astronauts to the Moon and back.

The central feature of the lunar orbit rendezvous was that two spacecraft, the Apollo Command Module and the Lunar Excursion Module, would rendezvous in orbit around the Moon using the same technique the Gemini 6 and 7 missions had demonstrated. The technology of this maneuver, used in Apollo missions, would later help land Neil Armstrong on the Moon.

On to the Moon

The Earth, partially covered by darkness, as visible from the moon

‘Earthrise,’ captured by the Apollo 8 mission, was the first look at Earth from afar. NASA

In December 1968, when I was in eighth grade, I watched the Apollo 8 mission orbit the Earth on TV. It was the first time that anyone, whether U.S. astronaut or Soviet cosmonaut, had left low Earth orbit. This mission gave us “Earthrise“, the first look at our home planet as seen from afar.

The Apollo 11 Moon landing happened in July 1969. I will never forget sitting in my living room as Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Excursion Module onto the lunar surface. With Armstrong’s steps, the aspirations of a lost president, thousands of NASA scientists and engineers and millions of public followers were fulfilled.

CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite captured the wonder of the moment when he slowly removed his glasses, rubbed his hands together and exclaimed, ‘boy.’

In December 1972, when I was a senior in high school, Gene Cernan became the last person to walk on the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission. Like many of us who witnessed the Apollo missions, I listened to Cernan’s final words from the Moon, where he challenged young people to continue what NASA had begun.

Inspired by Cernan’s words, I went on to earn degrees in aerospace engineering and worked on both the reentry of the Skylab Space Station and the early mission planning for the Magellan spacecraft that visited Venus.

At this point, I made a career change – I returned to school to study physics and ultimately ended up in theoretical astrophysics.

After Apollo

NASA has had a profound influence in the sciences. For one, the ability to guide unmanned robotic spacecraft anywhere in the solar system was a byproduct of the technologies necessary for the manned Apollo missions. Using this technology, NASA has sent probes to all of the planets – and some non-planets – in the solar system, revolutionizing scientists’ knowledge of our cosmic backyard.

Perhaps the most ambitious of these is the Mars Perseverance Rover, which looks for chemical evidence of past or present life on Mars. It also collects and leaves samples for a potential return mission sometime in the 2030s.

In terms of pure astronomy, NASA’s space-based observatories span the electromagnetic spectrum. The Hubble Space Telescope and its newly launched cousin, the James Webb Space Telescope, have allowed astronomers to get large telescopes above Earth’s optically hazy atmosphere. With these instruments, we can see almost to the beginning of time, since looking deeper into space also means looking back in time.

The James Webb Space Telescope is revolutionizing our view of the cosmos – there has not been an equal revolution in observational astronomy since Galileo first pointed a telescope at the heavens in 1609.

Two images showing a suite of galaxies with small boxes around faint red smudges.

Images from the James Webb Space Telescope showing early galaxies. NASA, ESA, CSA, Tommaso Treu (UCLA), CC BY-SA

Looking ahead

What will the future hold for NASA? It’s hard to say.

Recently, private enterprise has driven advances in both launch vehicles and satellite design, although NASA will likely continue to have a leading role, not only in the spaceflight but the scientific research as well.

I hope that today there are elementary teachers like Ms. Ochs and Mrs. Wein who will nurture the wonder and excitement of spaceflight in their students. But they won’t have to just listen on the radio. They can watch livestreams, like those of launches of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy in 2018 and NASA’s Artemis I in November 2022.

NASA’s first 65 years have been an amazing record of accomplishments. When the students I teach today near my age, I wonder what amazing things – about which we can only dream – they will look back on.

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

Elon Musk’s absurd Twitter rebrand: Has the far right finally broken his brain?

When contrasting the state of Twitter before and after its purchase last year by Elon Musk, it is customary to include some throat-clearing about how pre-Musk Twitter was in no way an idyllic platform. It’s become nearly unusable since then, to be sure, but even before the Musk takeover, the site was awash in trolling, dogpiling and other unpleasant behaviors. Still, one aspect of Twitter, while rarely remarked upon, was near perfection: Its graphic design. The famous bird logo wasn’t more than a case study in elegant simplicity, although it certainly was that. It had an inviting quality, creating a sense of playfulness, which the user experience all too often failed to live up to. It was almost irresistible to click that thing. The sweet shape and happy color scheme instilled the recurring hope that this might be one of those social media days that leave you flying upward, carefree and light.

No wonder Musk, a person who seems increasingly motivated by his ugliest impulses, had to destroy it. Over the past week, the colors of the site shifted from blue to black. Although you can still find it at twitter.com, the platform is officially no longer called “Twitter” but “X,” a name approximately no one other than Elon Musk seems to be using so far. And the darling bluebird of happiness has been replaced by a logo that looks like it belongs on a stormtrooper’s helmet in a bad science-fiction dystopia. (Or, as writer Jeff Sharlet has suggested on the site in question, perhaps on the awning of a “gentleman’s club” in a downscale warehouse district.)


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


Musk, who is 52 years old, seems to draw his design inspiration mainly from the brain of a teenage virgin who views Joaquin Phoenix’s version of the Joker as a role model. When announcing the changes, Musk tweeted (or “X’d,” as he would apparently now prefer), “Paint It Black.” Which is, indeed, a badass Rolling Stones song, but with famously bleak lyrics about depression, not generally the vibe you want for a social media site. As Ryan Mac and Tiffany Hsu of the New York Times report, “Inside Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco on Monday, X logos were projected in the cafeteria, while conference rooms were renamed to words with X in them, including ‘eXposure,’ ‘eXult’ and ‘s3Xy.'” As writer Julian Sanchez responded, “Everything makes more sense if you just imagine a not terribly bright 13-year-old boy got handed $236 billion somehow.”

Indeed, this vibe probably alienates most people over age 14, with one major exception: Right-wing men. As anyone who has perused the fashion stylings of the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers can attest, the far right embraces a try-hard aesthetic of masculine preening that’s so over the top it often drifts unwittingly into camp. Part of it is the evident arrested development of so many of these allegedly grown men. Another element is the tendency on the far right to embrace a supervillain identity, even going so far as to dress like cartoonish bad guys. To quote myself from earlier this year, “Far from being people who are unaware they’re the baddies, the MAGA movement is about glorying in their own self-image as political scoundrels.”

Musk himself frequently tries to pull off tough-guy posturing, generally embarrassing himself in the process, as in neglecting to remove the empty cans of caffeine-free Diet Cokes from his “look at my gun” picture. 

Reskinning Twitter in a Darth Vader look really isn’t surprising, considering how much Musk has focused on catering to the alt-right in his management of the company. He reinstated accounts of white supremacists and neo-Nazis, while banning legitimate journalists and a guy who called him “bologna face.” Musk has become well-versed in MAGA buzzwords like “woke mind virus” and frequently makes lame far-right jokes such as, “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci.” As Charlie Warzel of the Atlantic points out, Musk “chooses to spend his time as a reply guy for prominent MAGA voices, such as a user who goes by the handle @catturd2 and Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk.”

We need your help to stay independent

Whatever Musk’s personal politics may be — he has claimed that until recently he voted for Democrats — his behavior as Twitter/X overlord suggests he seriously believes that pandering to the hard right will be the genius strategy that saves his business. He openly begged Donald Trump to come back on Twitter, which so far hasn’t worked. He brought ousted Fox News host Tucker Carlson onto the platform to run a bizarre talk show overtly aimed at right-wing males, as in the whitewash job on “manfluencer” and accused rapist Andrew Tate.

To be sure, as I’ve written about extensively, there’s evidence that right-wing trolling drives social media traffic. As tech experts put it, “enragement is engagement.” Trolls get people to dunk on them and argue with them, which can cause people to stay online longer. But it’s always balancing act: If the troll-to-normie ratio skews too hard toward the troll realm, many other users get exhausted by all the negativity and go do something else. 

Musk doesn’t seem to understand that dynamic, and his deepening bromance with right-wing figures is likely to blame. As investigative journalist David Neiwert recently told me, “One of the aspects of authoritarian personalities is that they uniformly overestimate, wildly, the amount of popular support they actually have.” The American far right has a tendency to tell itself that it represents a “silent majority,” ignoring the overwhelming evidence showing that a large majority of the population rejects their views. But as those kinds of conservatives cocoon into their own communities, isolated from anyone who doesn’t belong to their tribe, they tend to overestimate their own numbers dramatically, and lose perspective on how unpopular they actually are.

Right-wing edgelords are simply not a big enough demographic to sustain Twitter, or whatever it’s called, but it’s not that hard to understand why Musk has convinced himself otherwise. He spends inordinate amounts of time online engaging with far-right trolls and echoing their ideas. Lock yourself into that bubble for long enough, and you start to believe the self-reinforcing fiction that most people think that way. 

The cold reality, however, is that the more people view Twitter as a right-wing playground, the less interested they are in hanging out there. In all probability, Musk is now accelerating the death throes of a company that was already in bad shape. Musk’s move to change the name “wiped out anywhere between $4 billion and $20 billion in value, according to analysts and brand agencies,” Fortune reports

My own personal doubts about social media started long before Musk bought Twitter. I had already started to dial back the amount of time I spent on the platform. But I had enough good memories of all the times I laughed or learned or shared something important on Twitter to feel a lingering desire to log on. I often found the cheery blue bird logo irresistible, my thumb unconsciously moving to click it open, hoping to be rewarded with tweets from people I liked, saying stuff that amused me or introducing me to something I didn’t know about. But the new logo is just a reminder that Twitter these days is flooded with scummy and hateful people, while the best folks are fleeing. Seeing that X logo definitely doesn’t inspire any Pavlovian urge to open the app. It mostly makes me feel gross and sad. Losing the compulsion to read Twitter is probably good for my mental health, but it certainly isn’t great news for the company. Especially since there are millions more users like me, who just aren’t feeling it anymore.