Scientists got tiny worms stoned — and found that they got the munchies just like us

Humans and worms don’t appear to have much in common, but a new study demonstrates that we both get the munchies when ingesting weed and weed-like substances. Smoking marijuana or downing a few edibles has a predictable effect on most humans thanks to the drug THC, which is a cannabinoid that triggers feelings of euphoria, enhanced or distorted perception (such as taste or time) and a ravenous appetite known as “the munchies.” Even though the last common ancestor between humans and worms lived over 500 million years ago, after which we drifted apart evolutionarily, both species evidently experience something comparable.

The idea to give worms cannabinoids to came to Lockery after Oregon legalized cannabis in 2015.

A new study in the journal Current Biology monitored the feeding behavior of a type of worm called a nematode after being given a naturally produced cannabinoid called anandamide (AEA). Many mammals, including humans, generate anandamide to regulate mood, appetite and many other functions in the body. The name anandamide comes from the Sanskrit word for “bliss,” because AEA is implicated in reward circuits in the brain. In other words, it can make you feel good.

The human brain produces its own drugs, including cannabinoids and even psychedelics, though not typically at levels that really make you feel high. Endocannabinoids like anandamide and 2-AG (2-arachidonoylglycerol) perform critical functions in the body, including regulating appetite. Structurally, AEA and THC are very similar, which is why THC works on the human body at all. When scientists at the University of Oregon’s Institute of Neuroscience gave AEA to a nematode called Caenorhabditis elegans, they found that the worms also got the munchies, which reveals something quite fascinating about human evolution.

Why bees love weed — and why it might even be good for them

“Nematodes diverged from the lineage leading to mammals more than 500 million years ago,” Professor Shawn Lockery, the study’s lead author, said in a statement. “It is truly remarkable that the effects of cannabinoids on appetite are preserved through this length of evolutionary time.”

C. elegans are a well-studied organism that is about 1 millimeter in length — not much longer than a sharpened pencil point. They are transparent and typically found in soil. Despite their size and distance from humans on the tree of life, they still have an endocannabinoid system that works like a much more primitive version of our own. Mammals have cannabinoid receptors called CB1 and CB2, whereas C. elegans have a receptor called NPR-19 — which, despite how it sounds, has nothing to do with either public radio nor COVID-19.

Later, Lockery and colleagues genetically modified the C. elegans worms, inserting a human version of the cannabinoid receptor, with similar results.

These nematodes eat the bacteria in decaying plant matter, using a tube called a pharynx, which is a muscular pump that constitutes its throat. Even with rudimentary senses for vision and smell, C. elegans can detect food and even displays preferences for food types. The idea to give worms cannabinoids to came to Lockery after Oregon legalized cannabis in 2015.

“At the time, our laboratory at the University of Oregon was deeply involved in assessing nematode food preferences as part of our research on the neuronal basis of economic decision-making,” Lockery said. “In almost literally a ‘Friday afternoon experiment’ — read: ‘let’s dump this stuff on to see what happens’ — we decided to see if soaking worms in cannabinoids alters existing food preferences. It does, and the paper is the result of many years of follow-up research.”

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

In the experiment, which was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Lockery and colleagues first found that giving nematodes AEA made the worms want to eat more, with increased appetite for their favorite foods as well. This was determined by putting the worms into a T-shaped maze, with different bacterial food sources on either end. The “stoned” worms went straight for their preferred meal.

This is similar to humans who get the munchies: we don’t just crave food, we want anything and everything high in sugar and fat. Later, Lockery and colleagues genetically modified the C. elegans worms, inserting a human version of the cannabinoid receptor, with similar results.

“We found that the sensitivity of one of the main food-detecting olfactory neurons in C. elegans is dramatically altered by cannabinoids,” Lockery said. “Upon cannabinoid exposure, it becomes more sensitive to favored food odors and less sensitive to non-favored food odors. This effect helps explain changes in the worm’s consumption of food, and it is reminiscent of how THC makes tasty food even tastier in humans.”

This is one of the few studies that looks at how cannabinoids affect invertebrates and their feeding behavior. Intriguingly, this relationship seems to have reversed sometime along the evolutionary timeline. In other words, cannabinoids in some invertebrates cause the opposite of the munchies.

“Early in evolution, the predominant effect may have been feeding inhibition. For example, cannabinoid exposure shortens bouts of feeding in Hydra [a tiny jellyfish-like creature] and larvae of the tobacco hornworm moth Manduca sexta prefer to eat leaves containing lower rather than higher concentrations of the phytocannabinoid cannabidiol [CBD],” Lockery and colleagues wrote in the paper.

Fruit flies also experience appetite suppression when exposed to cannabinoids.

“The picture that emerges is that whereas, the original response to cannabinoids may have been feeding suppression, the opposite effect arose through evolution, sometimes in the same organism,” the paper continues. The nematode C. elegans “exhibits both increases and decreases in consummatory and appetitive responses under the influence of cannabinoids.”

Next, Lockery’s lab hopes to give nematodes psychedelic drugs to see how they react. While on the surface this study sounds somewhat ridiculous — a group of serious scientists essentially getting worms stoned — it actually reveals something quite striking about human evolution. We have a system in us that tells us to gorge on high calorie food when stimulated, but this isn’t a recent development, evolutionarily speaking. Mother Nature built the endocannabinoid system over half a billion years ago, and it has benefitted animals all the way to our own present.

about cannabis and marijuana

Alvin Bragg’s battle with Jim Jordan continues: Judge stalls GOP questioning of former aide

A federal appeals court judge on Thursday halted House Republicans, at least for now, from questioning a former prosecutor in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, in the latest round of a battle between Bragg and the GOP over the criminal investigation of Donald Trump.

Bragg has filed suit against House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, alleging a “brazen and unconstitutional attack” on his prosecutorial powers of Trump. As previously reported by Salon, Bragg’s lawyers have moved to stave off the enforcement of subpoenas by Jordan, including one sent to former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz — who at one time helped lead the Manhattan investigation into Trump — shortly after prosecutors revealed the 34 felony counts brought against the ex-president.

On Thursday, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved Bragg’s request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Pomerantz from appearing before the Judiciary Committee. His deposition had been scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m., according to USA Today.

“Never seen anything like this”: Expert says Bragg’s Jordan lawsuit reveals “effort to intimidate”

According to the order released by the court, a three-judge panel will “consider the motion seeking a stay pending appeal of the district court’s order” following written arguments from both sides.

The appeals court’s decision came swiftly after U.S. District Judge Mary Vyskocil on Wednesday declined Bragg’s request to temporarily block Pomerantz’s subpoena. Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, wrote that the subpoena “was issued with a ‘valid legislative purpose’ in connection with the ‘broad’ and ‘indispensable’ congressional power to ‘conduct investigations.’ It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate what legislation Congress may consider or how it should conduct its deliberations in that connection.”

Former Judiciary Committee lawyer and U.S. diplomat Norman Eisen strongly disagreed, co-authoring an amicus brief in response to Vyskocil’s ruling, along with a number of former prosecutors and members of Congress. Eisen shared the brief on Twitter Thursday morning.

“The Jim Jordan subpoena, in my view overreaches, and [intrudes] upon activities of the Manhattan DA that are far far beyond the lawful purview of Congress.” Eisen told Salon. “The situation here is exacerbated by the obvious motive of interference on behalf of a political ally, Donald Trump. Jordan and the other members of the MAGA caucus in the House have made no secret of that.”

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

In her ruling, Vyskocil also stated that she “does not endorse” either Bragg or Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee’s agendas nor was it her place to consider them, according to CNN. She appeared to endorse the view that this was a “political dogfight,” noting that Bragg is “an elected prosecutor in New York County with constituents, some of whom wish to see Bragg wield the force of law against the former President and a current candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.” Jordan, she added, “has initiated a political response to what he and some of his constituents view as a manifest abuse of power and nakedly political prosecution, funded (in part) with federal money, that has the potential to interfere with the exercise of presidential duties and with an upcoming federal election.”

Jordan, who subpoenaed Pomerantz to question him about Bragg’s investigation of Donald Trump, has argued that Bragg is pursuing a political prosecution. Bragg argues that House Republicans are defending Trump by interfering with his criminal case.

As the clash between Bragg and Jordan continues, Congress is considering Republican-led legislation that would change how criminal cases against former presidents are carried out, according to committee lawyer Matthew Berry.

One bill would prohibit the use of federal funds in the investigation of presidents, while another would require criminal cases involving a former president to be resolved in federal courts, ABC7NY reports. Both come in the wake of Trump’s indictment.

Eisen told Salon that Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee are proving their ulterior motives in “the excuses they put forward.”

“They say they want to investigate the spending of federal money but no federal money was spent on this prosecution,” he said. “They say they’re interested in passing legislation to protect future presidents from state prosecution, but they don’t need to hear from Mr. Pomerantz to pass that legislation.” The true reason for the subpoena, he concluded, was “abundantly clear.”

on Alvin Bragg and the Trump prosecution

A grand finale for “Star Trek: Picard” establishes why this crew is the greatest generation

It took eight episodes for the sendoff season of “Star Trek: Picard” for me to stop fighting the welling and let a tear or two flow. A scene where the full “Next Generation” crew sits around a table for the first time in decades is what did it.

The circumstances necessitating this reunion are grave. Even so, in those frames, everyone looks happy to see each other. In taking a beat to appreciate that fellowship the writers achieve something few series pull off well: It takes devoted viewers out of the scene without dropping our connection to the action.

We understand that this moment, along with the rest of the season, is as much about celebrating the cast as it revels in the long-delayed coming together of Starfleet Admirals Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) and Will Riker (Jonathan Frakes), the resurrection of Data (Brent Spiner) and with him, the resumption of his friendship with Geordi La Forge (LeVar Burton), the reinventions of Dr. Beverly Crusher (Gates McFadden) and Worf (Michael Dorn) and pressing Deanna Troi (Marina Sirtis) back into the service of the saving the star system.

Showrunner Terry Matalas knew exactly what he was doing by giving this scene the pause and weight it merits before plunging the old guard into a battle for Earth, the Federation itself and the known galaxy.

Jonathan Frakes as Will Riker, Brent Spiner as Data, Patrick Stewart as Picard, Michael Dorn as Worf, Marina Sirtis as Deanna Troi, LeVar Burton as Geordi La Forge and Gates McFadden as Dr. Beverly Crusher in “Star Trek: Picard” (Trae Patton/Paramount+)

That arrives an episode later when the mysterious plan related to Frontier Day reveals another entity’s revival, Picard’s greatest foe. All season long Jean-Luc and Beverly have been battling and fleeing a Changeling incursion that has compromised Starfleet and has designs on their son Jack Crusher (Ed Speleers). Only in the final moments is the full extent of their plan revealed – they’ve joined forces with the Borg and, using Jack as the key, intend to assimilate all of Starfleet in a single swoop.

In another twist that invites multiple interpretations, the fleet-wide infection of Borg-altered DNA into the physiologies of Starfleet personnel only affects younger beings – in human terms, those 25 and under. It’s up to the olds to save the day, along with solidly built but obsolete technology and weaponry.

And that turn of events coaxed forth a fresh batch of nostalgic tears, as Geordi reveals the surprise he’d been holding back for the right moment: the sight of a fully restored and spaceworthy Enterprise-D – the beloved, reliable O.G. from “TNG.”

“Star Trek: Picard” challenges us to consider that our icons change, yes even in franchises

“The Next Generation” ended in 1994 with “All Good Things . . .” an excellent closer by any standard. A season ago if one were to ask whether “Picard” could pull off a conclusion of similar quality they’d be laughed out of the room. Season 2 was a mess – not unwatchable but certainly unworthy. I’m in the small group that enjoyed the first season of “Picard” for the way it endeavored to expand upon the title character’s profile while digging into his flaws.

Season 3 of “Picard” discovered a way to look back with affection and reach toward the future with confidence.

That season was shepherded by Alex Kurtzman, who co-wrote 2009’s “Star Trek” and fell back on that big-budget feature’s emphasis on action. Kurtzman surrounded Picard with a pirate crew, including a disgraced Starfleet officer Raffi Musiker (Michelle Hurd), and reintroduced Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan) as a vigilante. But as much as people loved seeing a “Voyager” favorite return as an ass-kicker, the whole idea that any ass-kicking was central to a Picard-related title was not universally well-received.

Jeri Ryan as Seven of Nine, Todd Stashwick as Captain Liam Shaw in “Star Trek: Picard” (Trae Patton/Paramount+)

Apart from that, although “The Next Generation” gave its crew a marvelous send-off, the abrupt discontinuation of their theatrical missions left the sense that there were more stories to tell.

The issue with the new Paramount+ rendering of Gene Roddenberry’s universe has been how “Star Trek” is being realized – which is to say, as tales that diverged from the franchise creator’s optimism and humanistic bent to play with grim darkness.

In the main, that’s rubbed people the wrong way, especially those who view “Star Trek” as a set of ideas that can be tinkered with but are obligated to operate within a prescribed set of boundaries. “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds” hews closest to the original series and canon and the “TNG” framework.

If “Strange New Worlds” won over fans old and new by reprising the familiar episodic beats of “Star Trek” and “Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 3 of “Picard” discovered a way to look back with affection and reach toward the future with confidence.

By incorporating the characters, plot developments, and sentiment of the old TV series – all of them, including “Deep Space Nine” and the aforementioned “Voyager,” and a couple of Easter eggs acknowledging the ’60s original – it appeases those fans who miss their old friends and thrill at the possibility of seeing them in new adventures.

It also gives viewers a gift in Todd Stashwick’s Captain Liam Shaw and Amanda Plummer’s Vadic, the relentless bounty hunter who giggles at every death she metes out in her quest to seize Jack. Plummer performance dances the line between maniacal and hysterical; she’s the galactic version of the Joker with all of the chill and none of the punchlines.

Stashwick’s Shaw, though, adds necessary sobriety to all the swashbuckling as the prickly captain of the U.S.S. Titan. He is compelled to help Picard, Riker and the Crushers and resents nearly every minute of it – but follows through because he’s duty-bound, Starfleet to the core. Shaw isn’t merely a sarcastic foil to the old guys, he’s genuine and honest and has good reasons to despise his forebears. They’re allowed to get away with far more than he could because they’re considered heroes while officers like him will be lucky to get a few paragraphs in the organization’s record books.

The only way this season fell short [is] that by the time the entire team finally assembles, “Picard” is nearly over.

Shaw reminds us of the ways “Picard” refuses to pander to the legacy of Picard, Riker, Worf, Crusher and the rest. But as it surfaces their mistakes and past transgressions, the worst being Picard’s legendary murder streak when he was assimilated as Locutus of Borg, it also empowers them to face those shadows in ways they couldn’t before.

“Picard” reintroduces Worf as a samurai; I have no notes! Crusher, formerly relegated to the ship, proves handy in a firefight, as we’re reminded again in a comedic moment that cuts the finale’s tension during a critical action sequence.

And Data, who died in “Star Trek: Nemesis” and died again in the first season of this show, is reborn in the best way, integrating the programming of his malevolent twin droid Lore’s emotionality with the goodness he learned by living with the Enterprise crew.

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

Describing all of this as fan service isn’t entirely inaccurate, but it gives short shrift to the ways Matalas honors everything “The Next Generation” was. Seeing Spiner and Burton reconnect with such joy, along with watching Frakes’ Riker spar with Dorn’s Worf, provided the kind of delight we may not have realized how much we’ve missed until we took in these scenes.

Brent Spiner as Data and LeVar Burton as Geordi La Forge in “Star Trek: Picard” (Trae Patton/Paramount+)

They also call out what may be the only way this season fell short, in that by the time the entire team finally assembles, “Picard” is nearly done. I can’t say I disagree with the way Matalas and his writers spaced out each crew member’s reappearance, but they wrote each with such depth as to leave us wanting more.

That needed to be done, since a key scene from the finale’s ending, and an epilogue, hint that the adventures of Seven of Nine, Jack Crusher and Raffi – and the Starship Enterprise – are not finished. That gives us hope that we haven’t seen the last of our old friends, either.

If some of this sentimentality softens our expectations for other “Star Trek” titles, including the upcoming movie “Section 31” starring Michelle Yeoh, so be it. As one character observes in this final season, evolution isn’t an act of preservation, it’s addition. “Picard” reminds us of this by sending off The Next Generation crew one last time honorably, and perhaps even hopeful for what may come next.

All episodes of “Picard” are streaming on Paramount Plus.

about “Star Trek”

The author of “The Dinner Party Project” on the easy secrets of being a great host

I used to a party person. I used to have people over, on a weeknight, like it was no big deal. But then the pandemic hit, and the next thing I knew it was three years later and I realized I’d barely entertained a soul in all that time. I knew I needed to get my groove back. Enter Natasha Feldman. “There’s just something about having dinner and drinks at a friend’s house that is 1,000x more memorable than going to a restaurant,” the creator of Nosh with Tash writes in her debut cookbook, “The Dinner Party Project: A No-Stress Guide to Food with Friends.”

In my heart I know this, and you do too, but if you need a little extra motivation, the book doesn’t just make a case for having friends over, it offers easy guidance on how to do it with ease and panache. There’s a flowchart of strategies depending on how much time you have, if you’re feeling fancy or nostalgic, and how much you’re all planning on drinking. There are tips for “avoiding disasters.” And of course, there are gorgeous recipes — like for a “very adult salad,” for “your new favorite herby meatballs,” and for Rice Krispies Treats with an addictive secret ingredient.

I talked to Feldman recently about overcoming our fears around entertaining, and why, even as a cookbook author, she doesn’t think you need to cook to show your guests a good time. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

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

I work from home; my spouse works from home. Sometimes I think I’ve forgotten how to talk to people in any other format than Zoom.

I feel like as we become people that are more and more obsessed with work, our working relationships and even school relationships become much more about that particular thing, rather than a sense of community.

“Even the most introverted person can find a version of dinner party that makes their life better.”

We’re social creatures. My husband is incredibly introverted, but he loves when the people that he loves are around and he’s in a space where he feels like he can be completely himself. Even the most introverted person can find a version of dinner party that makes their life better, creating an intentional community with people that bring you up, that you can share what your struggles are, that you can all be in each other’s corner. There’s this small tribal mentality that has been beaten out of our modern society. I don’t think our like brains are ready for that yet. We live in a global world. We have access to everyone on the internet. But we still need our little cozy cocoon of friends and family to help us feel safe.

As the world gets crazier and crazier, I feel the need for intentional creating of community with the people that you want to be in your life. If you don’t work at it, it just disappears.

The ultimate guide to hosting your first fondue party

On your Instagram, you’ve talked about being diagnosed with OCD. I’m sure you have your own personal OCD obstacles around entertaining. It doesn’t necessarily mean you have to have a perfectly clean kitchen. But it does mean that there are certain challenges.

Until you know what you have and what’s going on, it’s almost impossible to talk about it. Honestly, I didn’t even feel like it was something I should talk about. I just thought it was this weird, shameful secret that I had. Then as soon as I started getting real help for it, I was able to bring in my community.

We’ve all gone on this journey over the years of helping me figure out what it is like. The worst of it was when I was in it by myself, and the shame around it and feeling even more isolated than it makes you feel because your brain just works a little bit differently. My whole life changed when I discovered that it was something that I could talk about, and that nobody cared. Everybody’s got something. Not that it’s not a big deal to deal with. But it’s not a big deal to the people that care about you. It’s not a big deal to anybody else. And I think dinner parties and having your people together is the best way to be able to destigmatize it for your own mind.

What’s your response to people who say they can’t cook, or they’re really scared, and ask, “Why can’t we just meet at a bar? Why can’t we just eat at a restaurant?”

“Worst-case scenario is you burn dinner and it’s really funny and you order pizza.”

When anybody asks me that the first thing that I want to dig in is, why are you scared? This book isn’t a deep journey into the depths of your mind. But I think if you actually ask somebody that question, it’s very hard for them to find an actual reason to be scared. What is the worst-case scenario? You have people over and the dinner is bad? What a great worst-case scenario. There are so many things where the worst case scenario is very bad. With a dinner party, it’s absolutely nothing. The worst-case scenario is so manageable. And also doesn’t happen. Worst-case scenario is you burn dinner and nobody has a good time. But really, worst-case scenario is you burn dinner and it’s really funny and you order pizza.

I’m going to tell you all of the arguments against entertaining that I can certainly can go through in my head. “My place doesn’t look that great anymore. I’m so ashamed of my space. You’re going to come and see my mess, and the mess is a metaphor.” Because you go on Instagram, and everybody is aspirational and every table looks beautiful.

I call this the mid-’90s Martha syndrome, where we have decided that a dinner party is a well-set table and sconces, and you have octopus arms, and you can do a zillion things at once. Your makeup is perfect and you have a cute apron on.

The reality of that being a dinner party is antiquated. If you want to hold yourself up to that sort of standard, you also have to understand what comes along with that. If that’s what you want to strive to be, then that is one thing. But if you want to be a normal person who has people over for dinner, then you have to hold yourself to a different standard. Yes, some people’s homes are disgusting and if that is your home, then there are some things you need to do. You need to have a clean toilet. You need to have toilet paper, you need to not have full trash bins.

You also are who you are. There’s a certain level of small tidying that is totally reasonable. If you have an absolute pig pen in your home, set a timer for 30 minutes and clean. The amount that you can actually do if you focus on it is tremendous.

Also be kind to yourself. If you feel like your place is too gross to have people over, then your place is too gross. But if you have papers around because you’re working and dog toys and kid stuff and normal life things, that’s what everybody else has. This is an opportunity to get closer with people and to become more comfortable with where you are in your life. It might be a little uncomfortable, but I think that that’s part of the stew. It’s something that you just have to figure out.

I used to live in a really tiny apartment, and we would just eat at the coffee table and sit on the floor. I would take the cushions off the couch and put them on the floor so you had like something a little bit soft to sit on. You have to think a little bit more strategically about what you want to serve. If we’re eating at a coffee table, I used to always keep the food in the kitchen and you would make yourself a plate and then bring it to the table, because family style on a coffee table is not feasible. But having six people that are kind of tight with plates and wine glasses and a pitcher of water is totally feasible.

It’s having the conversation with yourself about, if the place is too messy for you, let’s clean. But if it’s not, then it’s just who you are. That’s fine. And nobody cares.

Your friends love you. Your friends want to see you, and then you can see their homes and realize, “Oh yeah, we’re all just doing our best.”

The toilet paper, though, you just have to.

Here’s another concern. “I don’t have any time.”

I have an “Always have snacks” policy. I don’t care if it’s four bags of potato chips or if you open up Oreos and put them out. You have to have something for people to eat so that they don’t feel like they’re going to starve when they’re at your house. But you can have everybody come over, you can put out chips, and you can literally order takeout together. Maybe you made a dessert or maybe you got a Costco apple pie. Or maybe you have a fun bottle of wine that you want to open. The dinner party is not predicated on what you made and what you didn’t.

I wrote a cookbook. I understand the juxtaposition of writing a cookbook and also being like, “You don’t have to cook.” But I think that’s true. Having people over and doing something together and creating that space is the important part. Open a bag of chips. Everyone can be like, “Where are we going to order from?” and just order food. Then nobody’s starving, and then the food comes and you have a good time and it’s in to-go containers. You can eat off paper plates. You can make it as low lift as you want. Where the dinner party can meet you where you’re at is where you should begin. Then I think we should never stop challenging ourselves.

If cooking a meal is something that scares you, then have a few [takeout parties] and then try it. Your friends are already used to the flow and it’s fun for everyone. You have snacks and nobody’s starving, and you can play around. But you just have to know who you are and start there. You don’t want to start ten steps ahead.

And if you don’t have time to order takeout, then you shouldn’t have people over. Then it’s not the right week. Then you text your friends and say, “You know what, we’ve got to do it next week. This week’s too crazy.” That’s fine too.

Which of your recipes would you suggest is doable for even the most frightened person?

For the most frightened person, I really love the cacio e pepe mac and cheese. It’s easy to throw together. All of the recipes in the book have steps that you can do in advance. You can do it a day in advance, you can do two days in advance. The path of least resistance is to work in advance. But something that comes together quickly and is really freaking tasty is cacio e pepe mac and cheese.

Then I have a simple bistro salad. You wash your greens the day before. You make a dressing the day before and you just toss it together. Super, super duper easy. That’s a really fun one. And everybody loves, everybody wants mac and cheese 24 hours a day, right? It’s just a reality of human nature, and it’s a fun twist on it. It’s slightly unique, but it hits that same comforting note. It’s really not something you can mess up, because you can just always add more cheese.

about great entertaining

Is ice cream . . . healthy? Here’s what the evidence says

Ice cream lovers worldwide were probably rejoicing when a recent article suggested that indulging in your favorite flavor might be healthy. The article drew upon a 2018 doctoral thesis, which suggested that people with type 2 diabetes who consumed more ice cream had lower risks of heart disease. But as exciting as this sounds for those of us who sometimes enjoy indulging in a bowl of raspberry ripple, when we actually examine the study, it’s likely this link comes down to variety of other factors.

The 2018 research the article drew upon looked at data from the Nurses’ Health Study I and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. These were two large observational studies conducted by researchers at Harvard University which began in 1976 and 1986 and went on for around 20 years. The purpose of these studies was to track the health of participants over a long period of time and uncover whether there were links between certain diseases and lifestyle factors (such as diet).

To conduct their analysis, the researchers only included data from participants of these two studies who reported having type 2 diabetes when the studies began — so around 16,000 people total. The participants with diabetes had also provided information about which foods they typically ate over the previous year. They were not instructed to eat or avoid ice cream at any point.

The researchers found that those who ate ice cream no more than twice a week appeared to be 12% less likely to develop cardiovascular disease, compared to those who didn’t eat ice cream.

But it’s important to note that this link between ice cream and heart disease only became apparent when other aspects of a person’s health, including how healthily they ate, were taken into account. This suggests that eating an overall healthy diet is perhaps more important in reducing cardiovascular disease risk in people with type 2 diabetes, than eating ice cream.

It could also be the case that participants who reported eating ice cream before joining the study could have stopped eating ice cream altogether just after joining the study — possible because they may have been made aware they were at greater risk of cardiovascular disease. This would then make it appear that eating ice cream was linked with lower risk of cardiovascular disease, when the reverse was true.

It’s also important to make clear that this was an observational study — meaning that it can only show an association between eating ice cream and lower risk of heart disease. It can’t actually prove eating ice cream in and of itself is directly responsible for decreasing risk of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes.

To be able to test if ice cream has an effect on cardiovascular disease risk, it would probably need to go through a clinical trial, where one group ate ice cream as part of their diet and the other group ate a placebo for ice cream. This would be practically difficult to do and given the potential costs is unlikely to ever happen without significant funding from the food industry.

Can ice cream be healthy?

Surprisingly, there have not been a lot of studies that have looked at the specific effect of ice cream on health. Studies that have done typically only had participants consume quite a small amount (around less than a quarter of a serving per day) — meaning it was not enough to develop any meaningful conclusions about its effect.

But one Italian study suggested that consuming more ice cream may be linked to a higher risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver (a risk factor for type 2 diabetes and heart disease). However, the researchers also found that this link existed for other foods, such as red meat — suggesting that the quality of a person’s overall diet may matter more for health than a specific food.

Ice cream is also considered an ultra-processed food — meaning that because of the processing methods used to create it, it’s typically very high in calories, fat and sugar. Ultra-processed foods have been linked to a range of health issues, including increased risk of developing both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Nutrition guidelines also encourage us to limit our intake of sugar and fat because of this. This makes it pretty likely that too much ice cream may have a negative effect on health.

But it may not all be bad news if you’re someone who enjoys dairy products in general. Evidence for the potential benefits of dairy fat has been growing over the past 20 years, with research showing fermented dairy products — such as some types of yoghurt — and cheese in particular may reduce risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes. However, more research will be needed to see whether ice cream may be associated with similar benefits because of it’s dairy fat content.

Research also shows that diets containing calcium-rich foods are associated with a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. But there are many other foods — including dairy, pulses and nuts — which are also sources of calcium. These also have other nutritional benefits without the negative high sugar content of ice cream.

While it can be exciting to see headlines claiming our favorite foods may have unexpected health benefits, it’s important to analyze the research. Often, the effects of one food can be exaggerated by research method errors or other factors — such as the participant’s diet or lifestyle.

At the moment, we simply don’t have enough good quality evidence to suggest that ice cream definitely has any health benefits. But a couple of small portions a week — paired with an otherwise healthy diet and exercise regime — is unlikely to do much harm.

Duane Mellor, Lead for Evidence-Based Medicine and Nutrition, Aston Medical School, Aston University

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

Here’s the real lesson of the Fox News trial: It’s time to break up Big Media

When greed is the only thing that motivates you, disaster usually awaits.

Just ask Fox News.

Rupert Murdoch and the executives at that network found that out the hard way when they decided to broadcast lies about Dominion voting machines. It cost them to the tune of $787 million this week, after Dominion’s defamation suit was settled out of court at the 11th hour.

The American people found that out too when the executives at Dominion Voting Systems decided to settle for the hefty payout rather than take Fox to trial and air all the network’s dirty laundry in public.

Believe me, there’s still a healthy amount of train-spotting going on at Fox. From Murdoch through Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and many others, evidence showed that Fox executives and anchors knew they were broadcasting lies and repeatedly insulted the network’s audience. Fox on Tuesday acknowledged the court’s rulings “finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.” But the network won’t have to admit on-air that it spread election lies, a Dominion representative told CNN.

Fox News has learned nothing — the mainstream press can’t let them forget

Dominion’s executives also learned something about the cost of greed when internet trolls and late-night talk show hosts started criticizing them for settling with Fox.

For many people watching this trial unfold, it was never about the money. It was about exposing Fox for its lies — perhaps even to those who worship the network’s coverage as if it were gospel. So much for that.

It’s the largest defamation lawsuit settlement in history, but for those who wanted to hold Fox accountable, it was a bitter pill to swallow. “It would have been nice to see them dragged into court and embarrassed for all of their lies,” a congressman confided to me over a morning coffee. I couldn’t agree more, but I don’t think that will happen. I don’t think it would matter if it did.

Those who worship Fox will keep on doing so no matter what the facts show. They believe in the “alternative facts” disseminated within the Fox informational silo and happily spew hatred at those who don’t hold Fox in such high esteem. Pointing out that Fox obviously doesn’t care about its audience only serves to fill the network’s acolytes with even more resolve. “They tell the truth. You can’t handle the truth,” I’ve heard Fox fans say, giving their best and worst impressions of Jack Nicholson.

Maybe it’s just a short attention span.

As if on cue, my coffee companion asked if I remembered the crew from “Ted Lasso” visiting the Brady briefing room a few short weeks ago. I said I did, of course. Then I was asked if I thought they were dropping a hint about season four when actor James Lance, appearing as a journalist from the show, was called on in the briefing room and asked a question about Kansas City as a possible World Cup site. “Isn’t that Jason Sudeikis’ hometown? I wonder if season four will take place in Kansas City.”

I was still thinking about Fox News, so I hadn’t given “Ted Lasso” much, if any, thought. “You know, I think that’s where the series is going,” I was told. I literally did a double take. It would have been a spit-take, but I’d already swallowed my coffee.

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

With all that’s going on in the world, and given how our conversation began, I wasn’t prepared for speculation on the future of a fictional TV show. What’s next? What’s wrong with “Mandalorian” season three?

But, that my friends, is the world of 2023. It is increasingly divisive and fueled by angst. What’s left to discuss safely but friendly fiction? The news, especially when delivered by Fox News, is too aggravating to address if you are cogent and capable of rational thought.

I’d rather talk about anything else. I’d like to talk about the debt ceiling, the need to pay teachers more and congressmen less. I’d love to talk about the war in Ukraine, Jim Jordan’s ill-fated trek to New York to try and embarrass Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, maybe even the over/under on whether Marjorie Taylor Greene and George Santos are on the same medication, before I’d talk about “Ted Lasso.” Not that I dislike the show — that’s not my point.

All the distraction and disinformation spewed onto the desiccated landscape of journalism by Fox News has helped lead America into our current dystopia. There is no other way to look at it

My point is that all the distraction and disinformation spewed onto the desiccated landscape of journalism by Fox News has helped lead us into our current dystopia. There is no other way to look at it. The country is overwhelmed with violence and hatred. A teenager gets shot in the head because he knocked on the wrong door. A cheerleader gets shot getting into the wrong car. Mass shootings happen so often you can barely digest the details from the last one before the next one occurs and dominates the media landscape for a day or two, often inaccurately portrayed and seldom discussed in any depth. Why? Because American journalism is driven by capitalism. It needs the money and will bend any issue to suit the preconceived notions of its audience.

As Don Henley once put it, the people love dirty laundry.

Fox is merely the worst of the sinners.

In March 1969, Canadian philosopher and media theory expert Marshall McLuhan, in an interview with Playboy magazine, no less, warned us about the “numbing” sense that instantaneous transmission of information brings to our culture. “In the past, the effects of media were experienced more gradually, allowing the individual and society to absorb and cushion their impact to some degree,” he said. “If we understand the revolutionary transformations caused by new media, we can anticipate and control them; but if we continue in our self-induced subliminal trance, we will be their slaves.”

McLuhan said societies have always been shaped “more by the nature of the media … than by the content of the communications.” That was 1969 and Fox News wasn’t even a nightmare in Rupert Murdoch’s tortured mind yet. Social media and the internet were years away.

But it is Fox News, which more resembles a WWE match each night, and is one of the largest providers of information on the planet, that has proven McLuhan right. The medium is the message. Fox claimed to its viewers after settling the suit with Dominion that it would continue to dedicate itself to the truth — and the Fox sheep bleated with approval.

In other words, when Fox personalities preach for truth, justice and the American way, even as their favorite politicians call for banning books and the use of the word “gay,” or come down hard on Dr. Frank N. Furter and drag shows, in a culture where we spout the worst racist, misogynistic tropes while handing out cheap firearms and bullets in the name of God — well, we know plenty of people will gladly continue buying the nonsense.

The fight for gun control began in earnest in 1964, not long after Lee Harvey Oswald used a rifle he had purchased by mail from Chicago to assassinate John F. Kennedy in Dallas. It picked up speed after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr., Bobby Kennedy and Malcolm X. But as Sen. Joseph Tydings told us in an essay written for the same March1969 issue of Playboy that featured the McLuhan interview, the NRA had somehow found an “Alice in Wonderland” defense for gun ownership in the Second Amendment. All constitutional scholars, the attorney general and even the Supreme Court in 1969 agreed that “there is no constitutional impediment to firearms-crime-control legislation. Indeed, they agree, the Constitution refers to the public’s collective right to a citizen militia or a National Guard.”

Guiding the fight in 1969, as now, to keep guns cheap and plentiful was the NRA, which foiled gun legislation 54 years ago with “a grass-roots political vendetta that far outlast the spontaneous expression of public concern,” Tydings said, using media, advertising and lobbying to put pressure on Congress.

Today, with its right-wing friends embedded at Fox and other, smaller networks, the NRA has an easier time of it than ever before, even as the deaths mount. According to polls In 1969, 80 percent of the public supported gun control and we still couldn’t stop the flow of weapons. In 2023, the AP reports that 71 percent of Americans still favor stricter gun laws, but you wouldn’t know that if you watch Fox.

Today the leading cause of death among children is gun violence. More people have died of gun violence in this country than in all of our wars combined. But turn on Fox News and watch how the personalities drum up support for guns, belittle the opposition and appeal to fear and hate.

Because of today’s deranged media landscape, millions of white people believe that the scales of justice have been tipped against them. They believe their racism and misogyny are justified and that people of color, women and the LGBTQ community seek angry retribution against “God-fearing white people.”

Fox News plays to this fear and does whatever it can to make sure people watch this deadly make-believe circus sideshow night after night. It’s the Fox revenue stream.

The Dominion case exposed the dark side of Fox’s revenue stream and showed, without a doubt, that today’s media are one of the greatest problems we face today.

McLuhan argued more than 50 years ago that we would be enslaved by “new media” if we couldn’t adapt to it. Here we are in 2023, bound together in the blood of the dead, the lies of the living and the constant barrage of fiction parading as fact on Fox News.

What is left to do?

Fox slipped the noose this week and while that cost Murdoch a boat-load of money, there is little reason to believe this will force any substantial changes of habit at his network.

“Fox has admitted to telling lies about Dominion,” Dominion CEO John Poulos said. “Truthful reporting in the media is essential to our democracy.”

It’s beyond time to remove greed from the media equation, bust up the monopolies and reintroduce the fairness doctrine. That’s how to make America great again.

He’s right, but transparency is of vital importance. Dominion’s suit, had it proceeded to trial, would potentially have embarrassed Murdoch much more than losing gobs of sweaty cash. It would have also shone light on the ethically challenged actions of high-profile personalities at the network, and could have led to real change. That did not happen, and the nation is poorer because of it — while Dominion is a lot richer.

The audience suffered.

America suffered.

It is beyond time to remove greed from the media equation. Bust up the media monopolies, reintroduce the “fairness doctrine” and truly make our country stronger by better informing the masses through a diversity of media ownership and viewpoints.

Fifty-four years ago in an independent publication, Playboy, these issues were discussed in greater depth and with far more care than they get today. That is simply unacceptable.

And for the record, I don’t think season four of “Ted Lasso” will take place in Kansas City.

But I also don’t care.

from Brian Karem on America in the Biden era

Fox News has learned nothing — the mainstream press can’t let them forget

The most striking thing about the Fox News statement released Tuesday afternoon is the utter lack of remorse. The network had just settled a massive lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems, right before the opening of a defamation trial caused by Fox repeatedly airing conspiracy theories accusing the ballot box company of stealing the 2020 election from Donald Trump.

“We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false,” the Fox statement reads, before going on to insist on “FOX’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards.”

The statement is, in a word, preposterous. It’s phrased in a way as to imply the falsehoods were unintentional, even though the evidence from pre-trial court documents shows Fox leadership openly discussing the choice to intentionally air information they knew to be untrue. There’s no apology. The false claim of “highest journalistic standards” is pure gaslighting. It’s so silly that CNN’s Jake Tapper struggled not to laugh while reading it.

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News pressed the CEO of Dominion about Fox’s statement, noting, “what you didn’t get was an apology.” Dominion’s lawyers have been tap-dancing around this issue when asked, claiming that they’re satisfied with “accountability,” even though the original suit demanded an apology. Of course, the size of the settlement — a whopping $787.5 million — tells the story. It suggests Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch was willing to pay a lot of money to avoid admitting fault, much less apologizing for it.

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

There’s a simple reason for this: Fox News desperately wants to present itself as a real news organization. Their value to their viewers is that they offer the trappings of legitimate journalism. It adds an ennobling air to their real function, which is propaganda.

Unfortunately, Fox has good reason to believe that, as long as they keep up the ruse, the world of mainstream media will bend over backward to validate the right-wing network as a peer.

In accepting Fox’s false claims to be “news,” mainstream media outlets end up degrading the entire profession of journalism.

Tapper may be giggling now, but he has a long history of defending Fox News from its critics. In 2009, the CNN host called Fox a “sister” organization and lambasted Barack Obama’s White House for correctly regarding Fox as a propaganda outlet. He was still at it 13 years later, criticizing President Joe Biden for accurately calling Fox “journalist” Peter Doocy a “dumb son of a bitch.”

As Dan Froomkin of Press Watch wrote in March, “Fox has long been accepted and normalized by establishment media figures.” Part of this is because Fox staffers move in media circles. It’s socially more comfortable for real journalists to play along with the farce, rather than confront people they may later see at cocktail parties. Part of it is that everyone in the media is so used to accusations of “bias,” usually from conservatives, that they reflexively reject it. But in accepting Fox’s false claims to be “news,” mainstream media outlets end up degrading the entire profession of journalism.

The trial Fox News deserves

Even though Fox has refused to apologize or admit fault, there are already troubling signs that mainstream journalists are entertaining the idea that Fox leaders have learned their lesson and the network will behave like a responsible journalistic outlet from here on out.

“The one question that only time will answer is whether the settlement was enough to cause Fox News to change the way it handles such incendiary and defamatory conspiracy content,” Jim Rutenberg and Katie Robertson write in the New York Times.

In reality, this is not a mystery and we do not need to wait to solve it. We already know the answer: Fox News has not changed and will not change.

The first clue was the refusal to apologize, even though it likely cost the company millions more than they would have had to shell out if they’d admitted fault. More importantly, if you turn on Fox News on any given night, you’ll see that they are still churning out a steady stream of conspiracy theories. As Angelo Carusone of Media Matters told MSNBC Tuesday, Fox News nodded approval of the Big Lie over 50 times in the first two months of 2023 alone.

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

In just the past few weeks, Fox News has falsely portrayed Pentagon leaker Jack Teixeira as a “whistleblower” exposing “crimes.” In reality, the documents released are valuable as intelligence, not because of any cover-up. Plus, Teixeira appears to have been just trying to impress his online friends and didn’t have any whistleblowing agenda. Host Sean Hannity also falsely accused the government of persecuting Christians in its attempts to prevent domestic terrorism. The network ran with unsourced rumors about the Nashville mass shooter, in order to stoke a conspiracy theory accusing trans people of organizing to murder Christians. And Tucker Carlson has been falsely portraying a convicted murderer as a victim of zealous prosecutors, simply because the guy targeted Black Lives Matter protesters.

The hope is that the goldfish-short memories in the Beltway will kick in and, within a few months, Fox will be back in the good graces of serious journalists and politicians.

Perhaps nothing more perfectly illustrates Fox News’ commitment to lies than the case of Jeanine Pirro.

Her on-air persona is almost comically unhinged. Her devotion to the Big Lie was central to Dominion’s defamation case. Yet Pirro is still on-air and, if anything, she’s even more unleashed. Promoted to a gig on the network’s highest-rated show, Pirro imagines we’re in a “fascist state” because the mainstream networks won’t air her bizarre falsehoods. She defends white supremacists posting unchecked on social media. And she still makes pretty specific accusations, such as claiming that billionaire George Soros “is absolutely behind the destruction of law and order in America,” which is a popular but anti-semitic conspiracy theory.

Fox News texts reveal the truth: The Big Lie was a con — that the viewers were in on

At best, Fox has simply gotten savvier about who they lie about, targeting vaguely defined groups of people, like trans people, rather than deep-pocketed individuals or corporations that can sue for defamation. But overall, the company hasn’t changed. Their function is still to legitimize often bizarre conspiracy theories and hateful ideas, ones that have often been pulled out of the fever swamps of right-wing social media.

In order for that to work, Fox has to maintain its social status as a “real” news organization. They do that by having other news organizations and mainstream institutions, such as the White House, treat them with the respect and belonging offered to credible outlets. That’s why they were likely willing to pay through the nose to make the Dominion lawsuit go away. The hope is that the goldfish-short memories in the Beltway will kick in and, within a few months, Fox will be back in the good graces of serious journalists and politicians, enjoying the validating glow that keeping such company offers.

Fox viewers, I’ve long argued, know that their network is offering them lies. Indeed, the Dominion court filings show that the major driver of Fox conspiracy content is viewer demand that the network air the lies they’re hearing on social media. But, due in no small part to the well-documented vein of insecurity that fuels the American right, their audience nonetheless craves the trappings of respectability. It’s not enough for American conservatives to wallow in lies. They want those lies dignified with the label “news.” Fox News makes its money by being this laundry service, a fancy news-like network that puts lipstick on the MAGA pig.

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

Above all, that’s what the Dominion lawsuit threatened. It’s why Fox would pay more to avoid admitting they lied on purpose. Not because anyone doubts it. It’s that their value to the audience is in maintaining the collective fantasy that their “alternative facts” have the same status as actual facts. It’s a much easier trick to pull off if real journalists play along. There are some signs that some outlets, like CNN, are done playing Fox’s game.

If you think this settlement is going to change what Fox News does in a real way, you are going to be in for a rude surprise. https://t.co/jEeMVQHdSw https://t.co/pKSE7nYd0c

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) April 19, 2023

Murdoch and company want this settlement to be an excuse for the Beltway establishment to return to old habits of treating Fox like it’s the real deal. For the sake of the larger profession of journalism, it’s important for the mainstream press to resist the pressure to backslide.

Trapped in the Trumpocene nightmare

Are we closer to the end of the Age of Trump or still somewhere near the beginning? Stuck and wandering in circles in the middle of it all?

I do not know. There is solid evidence to support all those propositions.

Donald Trump has (finally) been arrested and arraigned in New York for alleged crimes connected to hush money payments he made to his mistresses during the 2016 Election. This is the first of other, far more serious indictments that likely await him for election fraud, financial fraud, and stealing top secret and other highly classified documents. These legal cases could, in theory, force Trump out of the 2024 presidential contest. Of course, Trump has publicly stated that he will not end his presidential campaign even if indicted or on trial.

Trump and his era have cleaved our culture and history in two.

Trump remains very popular among his MAGA base and Republican voters more broadly. He almost quite literally owns the Republican Party and remains its presumptive 2024 presidential nominee. However, Trump’s support continues to soften among the right-leaning independent voters that he would presumably need in order to capture the White House again. Republican Party elites and other insiders are continuing their efforts to undermine Donald Trump because while they agree with his neofascist agenda they increasingly view him personally as a liability and not the best vessel for injecting that poison into American society long-term.

He increasingly appears to be listless and bored. His crowds still adore him, but he does not have the same awe-inspiring command over them that he did even several months ago. If Trump is not getting enough narcissistic energy from his followers he may choose to skulk off, claiming some type of “victory”, and then play kingmaker.

Let’s all stop pretending anyone but Trump will be the GOP presidential nominee

As seen in Wisconsin and other parts of the country, there appears to be a growing pro-democracy resistance movement that is finally winning substantial victories, however belatedly, to slow down if not reverse – at least for now – the rising fascist tide. But navigating these possibilities and realities requires that we must first take a full accounting of how we, the Americans, arrived at the Age of Trump and the larger social and political disaster it embodies.

In an excellent new interview with The Lincoln Project podcast, journalist and author Jeff Sharlet describes this horrible journey and destination as the “Trumpocene”:

The Age of Reagan, many political scientists and historians would say it goes from 1980 to 2016. And that Reagan was so influential, for better or worse, he shaped some of the fundamental terms of how the United States thinks of itself, how it acts in the world. Democrats like Obama and Clinton deal with that in one way, Republicans another, but it’s the reigning paradigm. That changed. We’re now in the Trumpocene. How long it goes? Who is its avatar? That I don’t know. But we’re in the Trumpocene. That is a definitive change. You take down a major party, you have transformed American life.

He continues:

There is this undercurrent in the book of grief but not mourning, which is to say, we’ve lost some things….Weirdly, at a young age, 44, I had two heart attacks. That actually helps me understand some of what’s going on in the book. … Part of your heart wall is dead. It’s scar tissue. Now you can learn to live with that. I am healthier now than I was before, but that part’s not coming back….The GOP is not coming back. The Age of Reagan, for better or worse, is not coming back….We’re in the Trumpocene, what do we do now?

In many ways, the Age of Reagan laid the rotten foundations that spawned the Age of Trump.

A fascist Jesus Christ: MAGA turns Donald Trump into a martyr

As political scientist Bertram Gross warned in 1980, Ronald Reagan was “the friendly fascist.” In that role, Reagan, a B-movie celebrity pitchman actor and supporter of the Red Scare, who then became governor and soon after President of the United States, was an agent and symbol of a culture of distraction and intellectual and emotional immaturity. The embodiment of capitalism and consumerist excess, Reagan was a man who used racism and white supremacy as political weapons and was among other horrible things a tool of the moneyed classes and other financial elites who gutted the social safety net and placed the American Dream even further out of reach for the average American.

In his book, “Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America”, Gross offered this prescient warning about Reagan’s rise to power – one that applies even more to the Age of Trump some four decades later:

I see at present members of the Establishment or people on its fringes who, in the name of Americanism, betray the interests of most Americans by fomenting militarism, applauding rat-race individualism, protecting undeserved privilege, or stirring up nationalistic and ethnic hatreds.

As unseemly and frightening as it may be to the mainstream news media, the political class, and many among the general public, Donald Trump and ascendant neofascism are not as a blip or aberration in American history. They are actually the result of decades and centuries-long forces and processes. In many ways, Donald Trump is a “great” man of history.

And, as Jeff Sharlet points out, Americans are not the same people anymore. Trump and his era have cleaved our culture and history in two.

To begin to properly understand Donald Trump, this great man of history, and what he represents, does not require that one wait for future historians to put this all in the proper context (which of course is a necessary project). Nor does the task demand that one goes off to do research in a little-studied archive or learn ancient Aramaic or Sumerian or some other dead language.

On a near daily basis, as he has for at least the last seven years, Trump tells his followers, the public, and the world exactly who he is, what he believes, and what his plans are for the future. Trump the neofascist demagogue is America’s unrestrained id with all the violence and ugliness – and yes evil – that comes with it.

For example, in a speech to the National Rifle Association last Friday, Trump amplified fascist threats and white supremacist conspiracy theories, lies, and encouraged political violence against transgendered people (a group of human beings whose only “crime” is existing) that he vilified as being violent predators who are part of a cult that is creating death and destruction all over the United States. Trump’s claims are willful lies and inversions of reality.

Then, in an “interview” last Tuesday night with Fox “News”, Trump told Tucker Carlson that he will not end his campaign for president even if he is found guilty and convicted of a crime, such as the felonies he is charged with in New York. As seen on Jan. 6 and throughout his public life, Trump truly believes himself to be above the law. He also continued with his megalomaniac delusions and lies, telling Carlson that the court officials cried and apologized to him when he was arrested and arraigned in New York.

As repeatedly demonstrated by his public behavior, Donald Trump “the great man of history” is also very vengeful and actively wants to commit acts of violence and other harm against his “enemies” and all others who would dare to oppose him. To that point, Donald Trump, in a series of Hitler-like speeches and proclamations, has promised his followers that he will be a force of vengeance and “justice” for them and that upon his return to the White House in 2024 he will initiate a “final battle” against their shared enemies.

In a recent conversation here at Salon, psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank, who is the author of the book “Trump on the Couch”, warned:

[T]rump is dominated by the death instinct which includes pleasure in being destructive. A person who has that temperament is going to manage his anxieties and fears and other stress by escalating fantasies of destructiveness. In Trump’s mind, he is visualizing burning things and blowing them up. He is fantasizing about hurting other people. Those fantasies of harm and destruction bring him great pleasure. A person like Trump may be fantasizing about committing acts of mass murder.

If Trump were a mafia boss, he would get his consiglieres to act on his behalf. For Trump to truly be calm and at peace he would need to rule the world, to dominate everyone and everything around him. Trump lives to make other people scared. He will also not let himself feel dependent on, or need, other human beings.

At their core, fascism, and other anti-democracy death cult movements are a politics of emotions, the imagination, dreams, revolution, dystopian-utopian dreaming and nightmares, violence, Armageddon, and the irrational. These are among the defining features of the Trumpocene.

The book “Moving Beyond Fear” explains the awesome power of the irrational in the context of Hitlerism:

Hitler believed fervently in the politics of emotion that would turn an insecure people from democracy to dictatorship. He could appeal to an anxious populace ready to surrender everything for the great leader who alone can protect them and restore their greatness….This illustrates one of the darkest sides of fascism and Hitler’s Security Story. It is based not just on extreme authority and emotionalism, but a cultivation and worship of the Irrational. Embedded in religious mysticism and exclusionary and violent devotion to the Tribe, Nation or Great Leader, this authoritarian version of the Security Story became a legitimating force behind some of history’s worse tyrannies, whether brutal Roman emperors like Caligula or Nazi leaders such as Hitler.

Hitler made no bones about the power of the irrational and his commitment to an emotional racialized politics that spoke to ordinary people’s most primitive needs for security, survival and pride or respect.

In all, the Age of Trump and the Trumpocene are a fascist fever dream. The American people, after seven years of experience, are only somewhat closer to seeing its borders. But the American people will not be able to escape unless they and their responsible leaders understand the power of its many dimensions. Only then will the American people, perhaps, finally be able to escape this Trumpocene nightmare.

about the dangers of the Trump era

A church claims to have created a drug that combines ‘shrooms and toad venom. Experts are skeptical

A Texas church has claimed to invent a novel psychedelic drug used as its sacrament — and has ostensibly been giving it to members of its clergy as one might a communion wafer. But a recent chemical analysis has poured cold water on these religious claims. The Church of Psilomethoxin, founded in late 2021, claim that “magic” mushrooms cultivated with a toad venom extract produce the chemical psilomethoxin, which is a drug similar to both of the powerful psychedelics psilocybin and 5-MeO-DMT, both of which are banned in most places on Earth.

“As far as I’m aware, almost nobody has ever synthesized the molecule, let alone ingested it.”

5-MeO-DMT (5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine) occurs naturally in many plants, and even humans make trace amounts; but is best known as the primary ingredient in the venom of the Colorado River toad (Incilius alvarius). For decades, people have been extracting the milky white goo from these amphibians which live throughout the American Southwest and vaporizing it to get one of the most intense psychedelic experiences known to humans.

Some people call 5-MeO-DMT the “God molecule” because the experience combines a huge adrenaline rush, vomiting and sometimes thrashing with otherworldly love and pure bliss. And it typically only lasts about 20 minutes, yet some research suggests this is enough to alleviate depression, anxiety and PTSD.

On the other hand, psilocybin, the drug that gives certain mushrooms a “magic” touch, can be a much more pleasant experience depending on the dose. Eating a few grams can trigger feelings of time dilation, enhanced colors, distorted visual effects and inner feelings of love, joy and connectedness to the universe. The experience can last four to six hours. It too can help mitigate mental illness — and humans have been eating these fungi for thousands of years.

New research illuminates how the human brain creates its own psychedelic drugs

Psilomethoxin, however, is a totally different story, according to Andrew Gallimore, a neurobiologist, pharmacologist and chemist based in Tokyo, Japan who studies psychedelics.

“It’s a novel and unusual molecule in that it bears the ring substituents of both 5-MeO-DMT and psilocin — so it’s a kind of hybrid of both molecules,” Gallimore told Salon in an email. “However, until it’s actually tested in humans, anything beyond that is pure conjecture. As far as I’m aware, almost nobody has ever synthesized the molecule (although a 10-step published synthesis does exist), let alone ingested it, so we don’t even know if it’s psychoactive.”

The church claims to have taken the theoretical and made it possible through what they call “sacred synthesis” using phalaris grass, a plant that often contains 5-MeO-DMT, and mixing it in the substrate mushrooms grow in.

In other words, even if someone did cook up psilomethoxin in a lab or using a cake of mushroom mycelium, there’s no evidence yet that it would have an intoxicating effect that will introduce you to God or the DMT entities, strange creatures that many people report seeing when they take the main ingredient in ayahuasca. Nonetheless, the Church of Psilomethoxin claims to have taken 5-MeO-DMT and given it to psilocybin-containing mushrooms, causing them to suck up the substance and spit out psilomethoxin (4-HO-5-MeO-DMT), which they have been giving to members who pay an annual fee of $55.55.

The idea isn’t as crazy as it sounds. Alexander Shulgin, one of the most prolific psychedelic chemists in history, proposed that this might be possible based on the work of Dr. Jochen Gartz, a German mycologist and chemist. In 1988, Gartz authored a paper describing how adding chemicals to psilocybin mushrooms could influence them to generate new tryptamines, a class of drugs that includes psilocybin, 5-MeO-DMT and psilomethoxin. Drawing from this research, Shulgin suggested toad venom could generate novel psychedelics — specifically psilomethoxin — if mixed with mushroom growing mediums.

“[W]e believe this sacrament has been bestowed upon all of humanity for the purpose of helping humans ascend into fourth-density consciousness,” the church’s website reads. “Through our work, we hope to raise the vibration frequency and soul density of all our members, thereby aiding humanity into its ascension into higher states of consciousness.”

The church responded to the paper in a lengthy post on its website, accusing the researchers of “attempting to capitalize on the burgeoning psychedelic renaissance.”

Naturally, a pair of researchers were skeptical of these claims. Receiving a sample from an anonymous church member, Samuel Williamson and Dr. Alexander Sherwood from the Usona Institute, a non-profit psychedelics research organization, applied analytical chemistry techniques to see what was actually inside the sacrament.

The sample came in a non-specific capsule, but when ran through a mass spectrometry machine, which can easily detect the shape of molecules, no psilomethoxin was found. However, psilocybin and other naturally-occurring mushroom metabolites were found in the analysis. So while there are trip reports out there describing taking the Church of Psilomethoxin’s signature psychedelic, it is most likely a placebo effect or just tripping from regular old mushrooms, the authors conclude. Their results were published on the preprint server ChemRxiv, meaning they have not yet been peer-reviewed.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

With this in mind, Sherwood and Williamson wrote, “it is evident that their [the church’s] claims of producing a novel compound, psilomethoxin, by incorporating 5-MeO-DMT into the substrate of cultivated Psilocybe mushrooms are more akin to ‘fungi fiction’ than reality.”

“The lack of evidence of novel compounds in the sample coupled with the implausibility of the proposed biosynthetic pathway suggests that the Church of Psilomethoxin is engaging in misleading marketing practices and may be misrepresenting the material that they are distributing,” the authors added. “It is crucial for the scientific community to continue scrutinizing such claims and provide accurate information to the public, ensuring that the distribution and use of psychedelic substances are based on factual data and not on unsubstantiated assertions made by organizations like the Church of Psilomethoxin.”

The church responded to the paper in a lengthy post on its website, accusing the researchers of “attempting to capitalize on the burgeoning psychedelic renaissance.” Salon reached out to the church and will update this article if we hear back.

“First, it should be noted that the Church has never, at any time, laid claim to the fact that Psilomethoxin has ever been positively identified in its sacrament,” the church wrote on its website. “Why? Because at this juncture, it is scientifically impossible to make such claims as there is no reference sample in existence. Our claims to the existence of Psilomethoxin, at this time, are solely based on faith, bolstered by our and our members’ own direct experiences with the Sacrament.”

Faith or not, it’s not difficult or too terribly expensive to send a sample to a lab for analysis. Gallimore argued that this chemical analysis should have been performed long before the church began distributing and advertising the substance.

“Feeding a molecule to a live culture in the hope that it will be taken up and converted to a desired molecule is always going to be somewhat unpredictable — it’s possible the molecule will fail to get into the mycelial cells or, if it does so, be metabolized to a different molecule or simply degraded,” Gallimore said. “Hoping for a clean uptake of 5-MeO-DMT and transformation to psilomethoxin is a bit of a long shot. It certainly could work, but there’s every chance it won’t. Without knowing exactly how the Church went about this process, it’s impossible to know whether their procedure might be optimized.”

“The Church’s claim that it is ‘scientifically impossible’ to confirm the presence or absence of the psilomethoxin molecule in their sample because there ‘is no reference sample in existence’ is frankly baffling and seems to betray a lack of understanding of how novel molecules are isolated and characterized from organic sources,” Gallimore added.

Psilomethoxin could be still be synthetized through other means, but again, there is really no documented history of humans, not to mention animals, taking this drug or what its effects may be. It could turn out to be extremely toxic or have no effect at all. While in very rare cases some people have died from 5-MeO-DMT overdoses, psilocybin deaths are essentially unheard of. But we have absolutely no idea what psilomethoxin does to people.

“Whilst I’m entirely sympathetic to the idea that people should be free to alter their consciousness with whatever molecules they choose, as long as they’re not harming anyone else in the process, people also have the right to full disclosure about the substances that groups such as the Church of Psilomethoxin are supplying,” Gallimore said. “I also accept that the Church has never officially made explicit claims as to the content of their material ‘sacrament.’ However, ‘faith’ and ‘direct experience’ of this substance is not a substitute for proper chemical analysis, especially with a molecule with no history of use in humans.”

about psychedelic drugs

Bills to create new Texas courts would likely reverse Democratic gains, restore GOP dominance

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Bills being debated in the Texas Legislature would create two new statewide courts, which supporters say would be more efficient and lead to fairer decisions but opponents deride as unnecessary, politically motivated and potentially unconstitutional.

Senate Bill 1045 would create a 15th state appeals court with jurisdiction specifically in cases brought by or against the state of Texas; agencies, departments or boards of the executive branch; or state universities, including any of these entities’ officers. It would have five justices, elected statewide.

Senate Bill 27, with its companion, House Bill 19, would create a new state district court to hear business cases involving transactions larger than $10 million. It would have seven judges appointed by the governor every two years, and appeals would be heard by the new appeals court.

Texas has never had a specialized business court, though 26 states have some form of one. The Legislature last created a new appeals court in 1967, when it added a second court to the Houston area to manage caseloads in the state’s most populous region.

SB 1045 passed the Senate at the end of March, 25-6, and now sits in the House judiciary committee. SB 27 and HB 19 — a priority for House Speaker Dade Phelan — have not yet passed their respective chambers.

Corporate attorneys who testified in favor of the business courts idea at a Senate hearing March 29 said their clients value consistent, timely rulings. They said a court reserved for complex cases and run by judges with specific expertise in business law would provide both.

Under the existing system of district courts with general jurisdiction, large business cases often languish for years and soak up resources that are better used elsewhere, said lawyer Mike Tankersley of the nonprofit Texas Business Law Foundation.

“I think our judges are doing an amazing job, having been given a difficult, almost impossible task of having to manage these battleship-sized cases among the normal cases that the rest of the public has to see their rights adjudicated in,” Tankersley said. “Only a small fraction of cases will end up in this [new] court.”

Samuel Hardy, head of litigation for Dallas-based Energy Transfer, said some of the pipeline company’s cases have taken more than six years to resolve in Texas courts. Having a court that exclusively handles specific areas of business law would let judges with expertise make decisions more quickly.

“It is important that big commercial cases have a venue and a forum where their unique needs are met, where they don’t take away from family court and criminal proceedings, and they can be heard in a forum that will have the case resolved efficiently,” Hardy said.

Bryan Blevins of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, which represents defense and plaintiffs attorneys, said the group opposes a business court because it would create two systems of justice. Because large companies can expect to have cases there frequently, opposing parties who are new to the court would likely be at a disadvantage.

“My clients expressed to me a concern predominantly of why … is there one set of justice for big companies and big claims versus my claim?” Blevins said. “How am I going to be treated in a court where the predominant players are large businesses and law firms?”

Lawyer Michael Smith of the Texas chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates said the organization opposes the bill in part because members believe it would make cases more complex, not less, as parties fight over which court a case belongs in. And he warned that allowing the governor to appoint judges every two years would leave the system susceptible to political pressure, as parties with cases before the court could seek to influence the governor’s selections.

“This doesn’t give us an independent judiciary,” Smith said. “It gives us employees of the executive branch which are serving two-year terms.”

Texas needs a new court of appeals because issues impacting the state deserve to be heard by judges elected statewide, rather than the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals, said Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican and author of SB 1045.

These types of cases, she said, contain “complex and nuanced legal issues,” and the heavy workload has prompted the 3rd Court to transfer many cases elsewhere. A new court would help alleviate that problem.

“Creating a 15th intermediate court of appeals with statewide jurisdiction in civil cases brought by or against the state will allow judges to apply specialized precedent in subject areas important to the entire state,” Huffman told the Senate Jurisprudence Committee on March 22. “These are not regional issues; they are issues of statewide concern. Judges selected statewide should be deciding them, and they should be experts in these types of cases.”

Texans for Lawsuit Reform general counsel Lee Parsley, the only witness at the hearing to testify in favor of the bill, echoed Huffman’s argument about how voters statewide should be able to select the judges who vet the constitutionality of state laws.

Four Democratic appeals court justices testified against the bill, arguing that it is a solution in search of a problem.

Justice Gisela Triana of the 3rd Court of Appeals said the Legislature has published no studies justifying why a new court is needed, which has typically been the case with past judicial reforms. Her own research found that only about 10% of cases before the 3rd Court would have been transferred to the proposed court, or about 130 cases annually.

“Right now, the 80 (appeals court) justices we have statewide carry a load of about 130 cases each,” Triana said. “This court of five would basically be doing the work of one justice.”

Justice Cory Carlyle of the Dallas-based 5th Court of Appeals said a new statewide appeals court would be contrary to the Texas tradition of allowing citizens to appeal their cases to locally elected judges. He said it would also take power away from rural areas of the state, noting that of the 18 justices on the current statewide courts, the Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals, 15 are from Dallas or Harris counties.

“It’s been that way for a long time, and I think we can accurately forecast where it will go from here with this court,” Carlyle said.

Several opponents argue that the proposed courts would be illegal.

The Texas Constitution requires appeals courts to have “appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with the limits of their respective districts,” which has been understood to mean each court must represent a particular geographic area of the state.

For district courts like the proposed statewide business court, it says “the State shall be divided into judicial districts.”

Amy Befeld, a lawyer with Texans for Lawsuit Reform, which supports the bill, noted the constitution also states the Legislature “may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof.”

The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly given deference to state lawmakers in reshaping the courts as they see fit, Befeld said.

“In other words, the effect of the language is to place the subject at the complete disposal of the Legislature,” she said at the March 29 Senate committee hearing.

Opponents of both bills also see them as another attempt by Republicans to usurp power from Democrats, who have come to dominate elections in the state’s largest urban areas. Other bills proposed by Republicans this session would limit the ordinance-making power of cities and allow the state to take over local elections offices.

Most Texans recall the 2018 midterm elections as the time Democrat Beto O’Rourke came within 3 points of unseating U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. But down the state’s notoriously long ballot, a Democratic wave swept through the judiciary. Democrats won 31 of the 32 contested elections for state appeals court seats. They became the majority on half of the 14 state appeals courts, when previously they had held seats on only three courts.

Between 2018 and 2022, the 3rd Court of Appeals switched from all Republican to all Democratic justices. Because the judicial district includes Austin, the seat of state government, most cases involving state laws, agencies or officials are filed there..

While the all-Republican Supreme Court can overrule appeals courts — and reversed the 3rd Court 10 times between 2016 and 2022, according to Triana — the high court hears fewer than 10% of filed appeals.

A new appeals court with justices elected statewide would likely result in an all-Republican bench. Democrats have not won a statewide office since 1994, and the two courts currently with statewide jurisdiction consist solely of Republicans.

“Given how adamantly Republicans have opposed ‘court-packing’ at the federal level in recent years, the hypocrisy is more than a little galling,” Steve Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, wrote of the legislative proposals in a recent op-ed.

Huffman in 2021 authored a bill that would consolidate the 14 appeals courts into seven, a move Democrats said would allow Republicans to take control of at least five. She later withdrew the bill in the face of opposition.

In the March 22 hearing, Dallas Democratic Sen. Nathan Johnson asked Huffman if the new appeals court would result in a “dramatic shift in partisan affiliation” among the judges hearing cases involving the state. She downplayed the impact.

“As of today, but maybe not in five years,” Huffman said. “I can’t predict.”

Disclosure: Energy Transfer, Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Texas Trial Lawyers Association have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

We can’t wait to welcome you Sept. 21-23 to the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, our multiday celebration of big, bold ideas about politics, public policy and the day’s news — all taking place just steps away from the Texas Capitol. When tickets go on sale in May, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/19/legislature-create-courts-republican-bills/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Supreme Court extends deadline for major abortion case, suggesting lack of unanimity in opinion

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court announced that it might need until the end of this week to decide the fate of mifepristone, a drug that comes in the form of a pill used by millions to terminate early pregnancies. Their ruling could result in the ban of the drug, which would mean that medication abortions involving mifepristone would be de facto outlawed in the United States. Currently, medication abortions involving mifepristone account for more than half of all abortions performed in the United States.

Hence, the landmark case has far-reaching implications for abortion rights, as well as determining whether individual judges have the authority to impose their decisions against the will of federal agencies.

The Supreme Court jurists initially said their decision would be ready by Wednesday April 19, but on Tuesday, explained that they will need more time. Until then mifepristone will remain available.

There are several possible explanations for the delay, although it is likely that it indicates that the judges are not unanimous in their opinion, according to The Washington Post. When judges request delays in cases like this, it is often because dissenters want more time to draft their opinions or because behind-the-scenes negotiations are occurring to develop a consensus.

Abortion pill decision: Medical abortions will just be more painful

Earlier this month, mifepristone was banned by Trump Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, who on April 7th aligned with an anti-abortion group called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in their crusade against the abortion pill. The right-wing group pushes a discredited conspiracy theory alleging that the initial approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was based on incomplete data. Mifepristone is a safe drug that has been available for over 20 years, with scientists and doctors overwhelmingly agreeing about its safety. In ruling that the FDA had acted illegally in approving it and thereby banning it, Kacsmaryk used right-wing activist jargon instead of medical terminology, ignored the majority of scientific studies on mifepristone, and incorrectly stated that medical abortion is unsafe (patients need hospitalization in fewer than one percent of cases).

Kacsmaryk’s ruling did not remain uncontested for long. Shortly after it was announced, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially overturned his decision by pointing out that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the FDA’s process in 2000 was unconstitutional. On April 13, an appeals court blocked the part of the ruling that struck down the FDA’s 2016 update to the drug, which stated that it was safe to use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. On the following day, President Biden’s administration filed an emergency application asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the case.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

Speaking to Salon earlier this week, David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline’s School of Law, explained that there are several options now for the Supreme Court.

“We’re waiting to see what the Supreme Court does,” he said, adding that the court could “lift the stay and let the Fifth Circuit decision take effect,” which would mean mifepristone is still approved but could be subjected to the restrictions that existed in place in 2016. In that scenario, “the complication being with the states that signed on to the Washington lawsuit, and we don’t know if the Supreme Court is going to say anything about that because it technically doesn’t have that case before it.” Cohen was referring to a lawsuit in Washington state filed by 18 Democratic attorneys general which challenges the FDA’s authority to regulate mifepristone in case FDA approval is taken away.

“Then you’ve got the other side where the Supreme Court could say, ‘we are going to keep the stay in place while the Fifth Circuit appeal plays out,'” Cohen said. “They could say, ‘we’re going to keep the stay in place for the entire litigation and let the case go back to the district court, to go to the full trial.'” If the Supreme Court decides not to take the case, mifepristone access might wind up being limited anyway due to the inevitable logistical complications the legal procedures would cause.

By contrast, if the Supreme Court sides with Kacsmaryk, it would directly contradict all prior legal precedent regarding the FDA. Courts have consistently ruled that the FDA alone has the latitude to decide if and how to enforce its own statutes. Perhaps more significantly, Kacsmaryk is the first judge in American history to claim the authority to single-handedly pull a drug from the market — district courts do not have the power to unilaterally ban drugs.

As Salon’s Amanda Marcotte recently pointed out, if Kacsmaryk’s decision stays in place, it will not actually make it impossible for women to have safe medical abortions, as other pills will still be available; instead it will make them more painful. Marcotte described Kacsmaryk’s history of describing people who support intercourse outside of married procreation-oriented sex with the term “sexual revolutionary,” and argued that Kacsmaryk’s decision was “rooted in a deeply sadistic urge to inflict pain on other people for having very normal, natural, and universal desires, such as the desire to have sex without making babies.”

about mifepristone and the Supreme Court:

Nebraska Republican: Abortion ban needed to ensure dominance of white population

As lawmakers in the Nebraska legislature debated and advanced a near-total abortion ban last week, one Republican took to the floor and delivered an argument undergirded by a white supremacist conspiracy theory in support of the ban.

In a speech last Wednesday, Republican State Sen. Steve Erdman said that an abortion ban is necessary because there are too many of “those foreigners” and “refugees” in the state — coded language for non-white people.

“Our state population has not grown except by those foreigners who have moved here or refugees who have been placed here,” he said, adding his untrue and racist claim about a lack of population growth among white people due to abortion. Video of his arguments was posted online by Heartland Signal.

Erdman also said that the absence of an abortion ban in the state, where the procedure is currently banned after 21 weeks and six days, is part of what’s fueling a labor shortage in the state, revealing what Republicans view as the value of their constituents. The aborted fetuses are “people that could be working and filling some of those positions that we have vacancies,” he said. (Republicans’ arguments about a labor shortage are also untrue — Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that unemployment is lower in Nebraska than it has been in the past decade.)

The Republican’s argument invokes white nationalists’ “great replacement theory,” a conspiracy theory that global elites are trying to replace white people with people of color. It is a completely debunked idea that has nonetheless gained hold among the right and the Republican Party, especially as it has been used to supposedly justify antisemitic and racist violence.

The “great replacement theory” was invoked by the shooter who killed 10 people and injured three in a supermarket in a majority-Black neighborhood in Buffalo, and the man who killed Jewish worshippers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018. It has also increasingly been referenced by Republicans opposed to humane immigration regulations.

In his argument, Erdman invoked the theory to justify another type of violence: forced birth. Experts have said that the growth of white supremacist rhetoric on the right and the rise of abortion bans and attacks on trans people are deeply linked.

Bans on trans and abortion rights are both about taking away the public’s bodily autonomy — specifically, the bodily autonomy of already marginalized populations. Black people already suffer from higher rates of parental mortality than their white counterparts, and experts have said that abortion bans will exacerbate that problem.

Meanwhile, as misogyny becomes more prevalent on the right, and abortion bans aid in far right white supremacist groups’ missions to increase the population of white people by forcing white women to give birth, some especially abhorrent groups advocate for doing this via sexual assault. Since abortion bans largely affect cis women — and since right wingers refuse to acknowledge that some trans people can also become pregnant — abortion bans also serve these groups’ desire to control women.

This is perhaps evidenced by Erdman’s own arguments for abortion bans. During the debate on the abortion ban last week, the Republican state senator also openly said that the life of a pregnant person is less important than the bundle of cells growing in their body.

“Those who we should care for are the babies. It’s not the mother. It’s not those who are choosing to have an abortion,” he said. “It’s the babies. It’s the babies.”

DeSantis’ “Florida blueprint” wipes the LGBTQ community off the map

On Wednesday, The Florida Board of Education approved an extension to Gov. Ron DeSantis‘ “Don’t Say Gay” agenda that will enforce a ban on classroom instruction or discussion on sexual orientation and gender identity through the 12th grade.

These new regulations will go into effect in one month after a “procedural comment period.”

In addition to the classroom ban, the Florida House of Representatives passed three additional bills further targeting transgender youth, drag shows and transgender medical care.

Ron DeSantis’ Disney obsession: Why he can’t let it go

In response to this attack on the LGBTQ+ community, Equality Florida, the state’s leading LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, issued a statement saying:

“The GOP-led legislature has made clear that they see their role as little more than a rubber stamp for the anti-LGBTQ, anti-freedom agenda of Governor Ron DeSantis. Today, the House passed bills that will rip health insurance and Telehealth access away from transgender people, dissolve child custody agreements, forcibly detransition transgender young people, target small businesses and municipalities that dare to host drag performances, and empower people to monitor one another’s genitals to ensure they are in the “right bathroom.” Free states don’t wield the power of government against the people. Free states don’t criminalize health care or terrorize small business owners. The damage that DeSantis and his legislative cronies have done to Florida will outlast their career ambitions. Shame on Republican lawmakers for plunging our state into right wing chaos in service to one man with a desperation to be President.”

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

“Gender ideology has no place in our K through 12 school system,” DeSantis said on Wednesday in a quote obtained from CNN. “It’s wrong for a teacher to tell a student that they may have been born in the wrong body or that their gender is a choice and so we don’t let that happen in Florida.”

DeSantis is currently on his “Florida Blueprint” tour and stopped in South Carolina on Wednesday evening to pull topics from his book “The Courage to Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Revival.”

about this topic

“Heartbreaking and unconscionable’: Biden admin ignored warnings of migrant child labor

The Biden administration received repeated warnings from both within and outside of the federal government in recent years about a rise in the exploitation of migrant children for child labor, but ignored the evidence it was presented with and in some cases retaliated against whistleblowers, an extensive report by The New York Times showed late Monday.

According to the report, officials in the Biden administration including Susan Rice, director of the U.S. Domestic Policy Council, oversaw the loosening of restrictions on vetting potential sponsors for unaccompanied migrants under the age of 18 as emergency shelters that were set up to house the minors struggled to meet demand in 2021. Reports of the problem also reached Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

At least five staffers at the the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told the newspaper that they raised concerns about the welfare of children who were sent to live with improperly vetted sponsors, and that they were retaliated against by officials who were growing “exasperated” with employees who insisted the department take steps to protect the minors in its care.

The report includes accounts from a former official at HHS who oversaw the government’s program for unaccompanied migrants under the age of 18, a senior employee at an immigrant rights advocacy group, and an immigration lawyer who worked in 2021 vetting prospective sponsors for unaccompanied minors.

The attorney, Linda Brandmiller, told the Times that she immediately flagged at least two suspicious potential sponsors who had contacted HHS to offer to take in some of the unaccompanied minors, allowing them to leave the emergency shelters that had been set up for an influx of young migrants over the U.S.-Mexico border.

One person explicitly said they planned to employ three underage boys at a construction company, and another said they could take in two children who would then have to work off the cost of their travel.

Brandmiller told the shelter she was working at in Texas that no children should be sent to the sponsors and warned that a 14-year-old boy had already been sent to one of the people, as well as emailing HHS supervisors and saying, “This is urgent.”

At least one boy was sent to one of the sponsors despite Brandmiller’s warnings, and she was abruptly fired from her job with no explanation a few days later.

As such instances of retaliation have been taking place, said Times reporter Hannah Dreier, “the number of children being trafficked or exploited has skyrocketed.”

Senior staff at HHS risked their jobs to warn the Biden administration that the rush to send migrant children to sponsors was putting kids in danger.

Several say they were pushed out in retaliation. Meanwhile, the number of children being trafficked or exploited has skyrocketed. pic.twitter.com/k9mdGZ6nQn

— Hannah Dreier (@hannahdreier) April 18, 2023

As Common Dreams has reported, companies including Packers Sanitation Services Inc. and Hyundai have been found in recent months to rely on the labor of migrants under the age of 18, in violation of child labor laws. According to the Times, Rice’s team was briefed regularly for several months on Packers’ employment of more than 100 Spanish-speaking children in meatpacking facilities where they operated the industrial cleaning company’s equipment and in some cases were injured while using Packers’ sanitation chemicals.

Former U.S. Labor Secretary Martin Walsh told the Times that his department frequently included data about skyrocketing levels of child labor in weekly cabinet-level meetings at the White House, and the agency updated its official data in December to show that child labor law violations had soared by 69% since 2018.

“We sent reports to the White House, so they knew we were working on this stuff,” Walsh told the Times.

According to the Times, officials at the Labor Department and HHS each said that the other department was responsible for ensuring that unaccompanied minors were not being exploited for child labor.

Jallyn Sualog, a former career HHS employee who helped oversee the division responsible for migrant children, warned her superiors in 2021 that she had heard reports of children who had been sent to sponsors who’d lied about their identities or who planned to exploit them.

“If nothing continues to be done, there will be a catastrophic event,” Sualog told her supervisors, before filing a complaint with the HHS Office of the Inspector General—after which she was removed from her position.

“I feel like short of protesting in the streets, I did everything I could to warn them,” Sualog told the Times. “They just didn’t want to hear it.”

The result of the administration’s refusal to listen to whistleblowers including Sualog and Brandmiller was called “heartbreaking and unconscionable” by the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), an economic justice nonprofit group.

Disturbing report on migrant child labor under Biden administration highlights the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform and protection of human rights.

Truly heartbreaking and unconscionable.

Reporting via @hannahdreier https://t.co/lJlE7yC9Y7

— CLASP (@CLASP_DC) April 17, 2023

Former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro decried the “stunning lack of oversight and accountability by the Biden administration.”

Stunning lack of oversight and accountability by the Biden administration despite repeated direct warnings by staff about the exploitation of migrant children. This story keeps getting worse. https://t.co/8gXfDR1Ks4

— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) April 17, 2023

“Imagine if our government spent its time and energy protecting immigrant children from being exploited through child labor,” said progressive policy group Justice Democrats, “instead of on separating families and putting immigrants in cages.”

How a viral “food disgust test” took over Twitter — and revealed a lot about its participants

Another day on Twitter brings another trending topic. And this time around, it’s an online test that measures your specific food disgust triggers.

Created by IDRlabs — an online platform that offers science-related articles, assessments and tests based on peer-reviewed scientific research — the food disgust test asks users to respond to 32 food-related statements on a scale of agree to disagree. In particular, the statements encourage one to think if they’d eat a slice of apple that has turned slightly brown, use dirty utensils or eat moldy cheese and more. The responses are then used to determine your specific triggers, which include animal flesh, hygiene, human contamination, mold, fruit, fish, vegetables and insect contaminants. A food disgust percentage is also calculated. The lower the percentage, the less disgusted you are by such foods, while the higher the percentage, the more disgusted you are by them.

It’s time to ditch the shame surrounding “trash foods”

“Christina Hartmann and Michael Siegrist at the Technical University of Zurich have discovered that people’s disgust concerning food can be broken into eight distinct scales,” read the test’s description. “The factors that determine why people differ on the various triggers for food disgust are not well understood, but the authors hope their instrument will contribute to a greater mapping-out of individual differences in this regard.”

The test explained that an animal flesh sensitivity “is thought to have the most cultural basis, and many vegans and vegetarians report increased disgust on this parameter after adopting these diets.” On the other hand, a hygiene sensitivity “may reduce the risk of infection, but some research also suggests that it may increase one’s risk of autoimmune disease.”

Although the food disgust sensitivity test is rooted in science, IDRlabs maintained that it is intended to be used for educational purposes only. An accurate food disgust assessment can be made only by a qualified mental health professional.

Regardless, it didn’t take long for the test to blow up on Twitter, where Netizens shared their results and flaunted their low scores. Many proclaimed astonishment at their scores, despite their own difficulties with picky eating and food safety:

“[T]hat food disgust quiz going around really surprised me with how low i got when i have like pathological food safety anxiety?” wrote one user. “i guess [it’s] good at differentiating so [that’s] a point for it.” In the same vein, another said, “IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: I am in fact a PICKY eater so just cause I have a low level of disgust based on this quiz I WILL avoid foods I already know I don’t like, haha. I will try new stuff though!”

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

Some complained about the test’s vague language, which they believed skewed their scores. And, as expected, others used the opportunity to bash on cultural foods, which have long been deemed as “disgusting” within a white-centric, Western society. Specifically, many took offense to being asked whether they’d eat a whole fish if its head, eyeballs and tail were all visible. Perhaps these people need to be reminded of the juvenile and age-old saying, “don’t yuck someone else’s yum.” It’s also worth mentioning that international foods and food practices being used to gauge one’s food disgust levels is both disparaging and tiring.

Understandably so, the test gives people yet another thing to discuss on the internet. And sure, it’s also quite amusing to compare your tastes with others and debate whether eating moldy bread is actually detrimental to your health or not. I’ll admit that I eventually succumbed to the trend and took the test myself before sharing it with friends.

I ended up earning a food disgust score of 33.63%.

food analyses:

From weed brownies to buzzy honey, here is your ultimate beginner’s guide to cooking with cannabis

Allow me to make a prediction: A few generations from now, when someone says the word “cannabis,” the first thing that will come to mind won’t be a joint or a bong — it’ll be a gummy, soft drink or brownie. Eating, rather than smoking, is quickly becoming one of the more popular ways to ingest weed. Many people prefer not to smoke anything, but still want to get the benefits of cannabis, so they’ll reach for food, not a blunt. If this trend holds — and nothing seems to be stopping it — then future generations may hear about cannabis and go, “Wait, you can smoke it?”

But you don’t have to settle for dispensary prices if you want to enjoy cannabis-infused treats. This 4/20, Salon is giving you an in-depth guide on how to best cook with cannabis. There’s literally no limit to what kind of tasty food can be infused with cannabis including soda, candy, baked goods or any food that employs an oil or butter.

Meet the cookbook author who’s bringing Taiwanese-American flavors to cannabis edibles

First, we need to start with some basic plant chemistry. Cannabis is the plant, marijuana is any extract and THC and CBD are the drugs that people seek. THC is what gets people high, but also tackles nausea and pain while CBD is not intoxicating and is used more for stress or pain relief. But these are somewhat unstable compounds that break down easily. In the plant, THC and CBD mostly exist in their acid forms: THCA and CBDA.

Unless you decarboxylate them — that is, apply heat to remove the acid — THC will not be intoxicating. That’s why you can’t just eat buds expecting to get high. It would take swallowing a ton of plant material for a pathetic buzz. Heating these compounds is the only way to unlock their potential. THC and CBD are molecules that are lipophilic, which means they love fat. This is why stoners can test positive for a drug test weeks after smoking a joint. The drug binds to our fat molecules and is eked out slowly over time.

We can use this feature to our advantage by decarboxylating marijuana (don’t worry, it’s easier than it sounds) and getting the THC and CBD to bind to a fat molecule, such as butter or coconut oil. Then you can use this fat to turn essentially any food into a stoney treat.

Do you need a decarboxylator?

If you have a kitchen stove, you can decarboxylate your weed just fine. But if you want to make the process a little easier, use more precision or just need an excuse to purchase another kitchen appliance, there are plenty of decarboxylators on the market.

Most are blender-sized devices that will run around $150, but while I can’t personally vouch for their efficacy, I did use a decarboxylator once to make weed-infused beer with the NOVA Decarboxylator from Ardent — and it worked! But if you want to keep things simple, especially for your first time, you don’t need anything aside from a regular old oven.

How much weed will you need?

The amount of marijuana you need to start with depends on the serving size of the recipes you’re making and how potent you want them to be. Once you learn the basics of cooking with cannabis with this article, you can find a more specific recipe to make sure your measurements are accurate. For a batch of brownies, for example, you’ll probably need at least a ½-ounce to an ounce of weed (14 to 28 grams.)

Note: If you rarely use cannabis and have no tolerance, you may want to go even lower. It can be difficult to properly dose your own edibles, especially given that the THC percentages on store-bought weed can be inaccurate or inflated, but this website Scientific Edibles, offers a nifty calculator that may help. When starting a new batch, it’s always best to eat a small amount first to test how potent it is.

Don’t worry — it doesn’t need to be super dank. In fact, it’s probably better if you use mid or even low-grade cannabis in cooking because 1) it’s cheaper and 2) you don’t want to make things so strong that people are falling asleep. Unless you have intractable insomnia and that’s what you’re going for, in which case, godspeed.

Regardless, the basics of decarboxylation are: Preheat your oven to 240°F (115°C), simply spread your cannabis buds out on parchment paper on a baking sheet and bake for 30 to 45 minutes. Check it every 10 minutes to avoid burning. Older weed can use less time, say 20 minutes while anything pulled directly from the plant may need an hour or more.

You can tell the decarboxylation worked if the cannabis changes color from bright green to dark brown-green. Afterwards, you’ll want to grind it up until it’s the consistency of oregano. Now you’re ready to infuse it.

Butter and oils

Cannabutter is the quintessential marijuana ingredient because it’s easy and there’s a long history of its use before some states legalized it. Once you have good butter, any food that has butter in its recipe can now be a cannabis edible. That includes brownies, cookies, cakes … You get the idea.

But the principles for butter also work for pretty much any oil, such as coconut or olive oil. To infuse cannabis in butter (unsalted is best for this), simply take the decarboxylated marijuana and simmer it in a small pot with butter and enough water to prevent it from burning. Allow it to simmer for about four hours on low heat, stirring every 30 minutes to prevent burning. Keep it below 180ºF (82º C).

Warning: Your kitchen will almost definitely smell pretty dope after this.

“The longer the melted butter and cannabis simmer together, the more potent your cannabutter will be,” according to Bon Appétit. After four hours, strain with a mesh strainer or cheesecloth. Allow the butter to solidify at room temperature. It can then be used in any recipe.

Honey

Bees love weed because the plant is so nutritious for them, but they go after the plant’s pollen, not its cannabinoids. So THC-infused honey takes an extra step or two. You can buy cannabis honey at your local dispensary, which makes it easy to use cannabis on toast, in tea or anything that calls for a natural sweetener.

To make your own, it’s recommended to start with high-quality honey, perhaps something local, raw or both. Take 7 grams of decarboxylated cannabis, put it in a cheesecloth (for easier removal) and put it in a crockpot with 1 cup of honey. Heat it on 200º (93º C) for about 8 hours.

Don’t overdo it!

Like any psychoactive drug added to food (alcohol, caffeine, certain herbs, etc.), treat cannabis with respect. It can be easily to overload a brownie and make them too strong. It is very, very unlikely to kill you, but it can be very uncomfortable to overdose on marijuana.

As my friend William Wonderful once said, go slow and stay in control. That’s a good thing to remember when eating edibles, especially a recipe you’re trying for the first time. It can take an hour or more for an edible to kick in, so if you’re not feeling anything from the first cookie, don’t gobble down two more. That’s an easy way for it all to hit you at once, making it difficult to stand or keep your eyes open.

When you eat cannabis, the THC technically metabolizes into an entirely different drug called 11-OH-THC. This is why edibles feel so different from smoking weed — it’s literally a different drug. Of course, it feels somewhat similar to being stoned on THC itself, and 11-OH-THC is just as safe as other cannabinoids, but understanding these slight, technical differences are critical for enjoying the culinary side of weed.

People have been cooking with cannabis for literally centuries, no matter what the law says, because it’s just such a pleasant way of enjoying the gifts this plant has to offer us. But because the effects of THC and CBD can be so profound, it takes just a little bit more insight and precaution to fully tap into this delicious, mind-altering substance.

cooking with cannabis

“We’re not at that point”: Dick Durbin says he’ll let Republicans continue to veto Biden judge picks

The Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Tuesday that he is not ready to ditch the arcane tradition that has given individual Republican lawmakers veto power over nominees for federal court seats in their home states.

“We’re not at that point yet,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told HuffPost when asked if he’s considering scrapping the so-called “blue slip courtesy”—a non-binding rule that Republicans tossed aside for circuit court nominees when they last controlled the Senate.

When a senator returns a blue slip, they are indicating they will allow a judicial nomination to proceed. Earlier this month, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., announced she would not be returning a blue slip for Scott Colom, who President Joe Biden nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

But Hyde-Smith’s decision, which effectively tanked Colom’s nomination even though he had bipartisan support in the Senate, wasn’t enough for Durbin to abandon the blue slip process—though he said earlier this week that “her conduct and the timing of her decision have made it extremely difficult” to preserve the tradition.

On top of the extended and indefinite absence of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Durbin’s continued adherence to the blue slip rule has allowed Republicans to dramatically slow the judicial confirmation process, leaving open dozens of vacancies as right-wing judges they’ve approved in recent years wreak havoc across the country.

In remarks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Durbin said the blue slip process “has a long history, but there have been instances of success and failure.”

“We have an illustration of success today,” Durbin said, noting that three Biden nominees received blue slips from senators who represent their home states, including Sens. John Kennedy, R-La., and Bill Cassidy, R-La.

But as HuffPost‘s Jennifer Bendery noted, Durbin “has so many reasons to nix” the non-binding rule, something he can do unilaterally.

“Democrats returned more than 130 blue slips during the Trump admin, confirming 84 district judges in states with at least one or two Dem senators,” Bendery wrote on Twitter. “More than two years into the Biden admin, Republicans have returned 13 blue slips. That’s as of last month.”

“Progressive judicial groups are practically shouting from the mountaintops to ditch blue slips,” Bendery continued. “Republicans did it for years with Trump’s court picks, as Dems fumed from the sidelines. The result? Trump confirmed a massive [number] of right-wing ideologues to lifetime court seats.”

The blue slip rule isn't an official Senate rule.

It’s a committee tradition; a senatorial courtesy.

Durbin could do away with it today if he wanted. Republicans ignored it when Trump was president. They confirmed piles of his judges against Dems' wishes, from their states.

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) April 18, 2023

Chris Kang, the chief counsel for Demand Justice, told Bendery that if Durbin refuses to “reform the outdated blue slip tradition,” he is endorsing “the worst kind of extreme Republican obstructionism.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to consider 13 Biden judicial nominees during a hearing scheduled for Thursday.

Durbin said during Tuesday’s hearing that he hopes Republicans and Democrats on the judiciary panel can “try to find common ground,” remarks that came shortly before the GOP blocked Democrats’ request to temporarily replace Feinstein on the committee as she recovers from shingles.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., objected to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., unanimous consent request to replace Feinstein with Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., saying, “This is about a handful of judges that you can’t get the votes for.”

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who has urged Feinstein to resign, said in response to the GOP’s obstruction that “the ball is now back in Senator Feinstein’s court to provide a specific timeline of when she can cast votes on judiciary to confirm President Biden’s judges.”

“Every day she is not on judiciary is hurting our ability to confirm another judge who will protect women’s rights and voting rights,” Khanna told NBC News. “I hope more will choose democracy over decorum and speak out about what is painfully obvious. It’s time for Sen. Feinstein to step aside to have a dignified conclusion to her public service career.”

From “Rye Lane” to “Love Is Blind,” much-needed safe spaces for Black male vulnerability are on TV

Hulu’s rom-com “Rye Lane” starts in one of the most emotionally charged places ever: the bathroom. In this all-genders bathroom at an art show, a daring overhead shot reveals people in each stall taking part in various activities: trying to solidify cryptocurrency deals, taking selfies, changing diapers and dealing with the negative results from a fun night out. Dom (David Jonsson) is sobbing in the last stall, trying to recover from how quickly his previous partner, Gia (Karene Peter) has moved on — with his best friend, Eric (Benjamin Sarpong-Broni).

Throughout the film, there isn’t a lid on Dom’s emotions, even when others want one to be.

Dom’s face is tear-stained, and he tries his best to contain his loud cries under his hand as he asks, “Why?!” while tapping through Instagram Stories of the couple painting the walls in the apartment he and Gia used to share, making cutesy couples Boomerangs in bed and proudly showing off their new union.

The hilarious, and slightly embarrassing scene, comes courtesy of Raine Allen-Miller, whose directorial debut centers on the story of two recently single strangers. Yas (Vivian Oparah), who overhears Dom crying in the bathroom, later befriends him in the art gallery, inspiring the two to spend a whole day together in South London. They traipse around Brixton and Peckham, baring their hearts, swapping relationship stories and finding new love within each other along the way.

“It is an unapologetically joyful film”: Director urges viewers to visit Hulu’s charming “Rye Lane”

Opening the movie with Dom wallowing in misery is one of the more progressive takes on post-breakup behavior portrayed in popular media. Male characters are often told to toughen up when dealing with sad situations, and are not allowed to feel a full range of emotion. Whereas female characters in the same situation are usually portrayed as overly emotional, crying over old photographs with a pint of Ben & Jerry’s in one hand and a bottle of wine in the other. Or, they’re the bitter ex, keying cars and burning the clothes of their past lover.

Everyone has cried over an ex, everyone has cried in the bathroom, but this phenomenon is usually not permitted to Black men. While Black men being vulnerable onscreen is not necessarily something new, the instances are few and far between. The good news is that the portrayals are increasing.

Marshall, Brett and Kwame on “Love Is Blind” (Netflix)

We see this in the most recent season of Netflix’s “Love Is Blind” reality dating series. With the way the experiment is structured, singles form bonds with other singles sight unseen through talking in the “pods,” being honest about their experiences and desires in hopes of becoming engaged, when they can finally see each other. “It’s as if placing a boundary in between people has actually removed a boundary” says Paul, one of the participants this season.

Three Black men – Kwame, Marshall and Brett – end up in the final couples that the show focuses on and exemplify the goals of the experiment early on. Speaking in the pods for several hours and without the pressures of societal expectations makes it easy for these hopeful singles to be vulnerable with their potential partners. They share fears of not being accepted for who they are, parenting issues they’ve faced and experiences with poverty growing up.

It’s portrayals like these that break up the more stereotypical attributes, roles and personalities associated with Black men in the media – whether it be the hardened drug-dealer or the famous athlete. Dom’s character in “Rye Lane” allows him to be added to a short, yet mighty, roster of similar characters.

Throughout the film, there isn’t a lid on Dom’s emotions, even when others want one to be. After pulling himself together in the bathroom, he joins his friend Nate (Simon Manyonda) in the art gallery and tries to portray a sense of calm, but ends up expressing his discontent with the swiftness in which Gia has erased him. As he continues ranting about how Gia’s repainting walls that he “already broke his back painting” – and then finds out about Nate attending Gia and Eric’s house-painting party – Dom loudly wails, “F**k!” in the middle of the gallery.

“Black men may have a desire to be vulnerable in their relationships but that is often suppressed by the need to keep up with a hypermasculine image.”

Nate doesn’t see the situation as big enough of a deal to be visibly upset about. Instead of validating Dom’s emotions, Nate tells his friend to calm down or else he’d “sling a sign on [him and] call it performance art,” operating as the male friend who tells you that being overly emotional isn’t becoming of the gender, versus helping a friend that is looking to be open about their feelings without judgment.

The pressue to hide any emotions that aren’t positive or from a place of anger is rooted in the hypermasculinzation of Black men, which can be detrimental to mental well-being.

“Black men may have a desire to be vulnerable in their relationships but that is often suppressed by the need to keep up with a hypermasculine image,” Marquita S. Myrick, NCC, LPC, LMHC, a Black therapist based in Tampa, FL, told Salon.

Hypermasculinty is the exaggeration of stereotypical behaviors that society has deemed to be appropriate for men and boys. From acts of violence to sexual aggression, these traits are pushed on to men through personal experiences as well as media representation. For Black men, hypermasculinity is also rooted in racism, as they’ve been depicted as inherently violent and aggressive beings since colonial times.

The depiction of Black men as hypermasculine and less emotional pushes them to believe the idea that they need to reflect a sense of strength, when they may not be feeling strong at all. This prevents them from seeking the help they need, whether it be from community or a professional.

Myrick shared that while her clientele does not include many Black men, there was a definite increase in demand for therapy from them after the summer 2020 Black Lives Matter events in which multiple Black men lost their lives to police violence.

“Prior to that I didn’t have any Black males on my caseload but that event led to years’ worth of therapy supporting Black men in unraveling their own history of abuse and neglect,” said Myrick.

Marshall and Brandon Marshall attend Speak Up For Kids Mind The Gap: Integrating Physical & Mental Heath Care presented at Museum of Science and Industry on May 21, 2014 in Chicago, Illinois. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Child Mind Institute)

Examples of receiving help, whether it be onscreen or off, from community or mental health professionals, are extremely important in order to flip the script.

The topic of therapy and mental health are taboo within the Black community, but in recent years public figures have began to advocate strongly in favor of it. In 2020, Big Sean, an award-winning rapper, openly spoke about his battle with anxiety and the practices he does to mitigate it. NFL Star Brandon Marshall shared how growing up he was told to “never show any signs of weakness” and that his Borderline Personality Disorder diagnosis prompted him to strive towards de-stigmatizing mental health in his community.

Examples of receiving help, whether it be onscreen or off, from community or mental health professionals, are extremely important in order to flip the script on the narrative that Black men can only be strong and nothing else. Dom receives his help from Yas with her companionship throughout the day, as he slowly comes out of the shell that the breakup put him in.

As they walk around South London, Dom tells Yas that he’ll be meeting both Gia and Eric, who he hasn’t seen in three months since the breakup. When Yas reveals that she too is recovering from a breakup, he asks her if she woke up every day “and [laid] there trying to muster up energy to breathe.”

At this point in the film, Yas is still a relative stranger to Dom, but he feels comfortable enough to want to connect with her on a shared experience. Even though Yas does not reciprocate his exact post-breakup sentiments, she doesn’t dismiss his feelings, which allows him to continue sharing his disappointment that while he thought he and Gia were “better than fine” during the course of their six-year relationship, clearly Gia did not feel the same way.

But when Dom meets Gia and Eric to “clear the air,” they tell Dom they want this to be “put behind them” so they don’t feel guilty every time they think about him. With this proposal, the couple acts in a similar fashion to Nate, requesting that Dom put his feelings aside for the comfort of others. Rather than go against norms and give Dom the space to rightfully grieve his lost relationship, they’re more concerned about their personal feelings. As a result, they end up aiding in the stereotype of the hardened man that’s been placed on Black men.

In “Love Is Blind,” a similar situation occurs between Marshall and Jackelina, one of the couples who makes it out of the pods to see if their engagement will lead to marriage.

Jackelina hugs Marshall on “Love Is Blind” (Netflix)

Marshall from the beginning is very open with his feelings when interacting Jackelina, and that doesn’t waver. His willingness to hold space for her fears, how expressive he is with his love for her, these are things that Jackelina cites as what initially draws her to him. “He is emotionally available, he’s able to handle my spiciness my attitude, he knows how to make me feel good and solid,” she says in earlier in the show.

However, once they’re out of the pods and reenter the real world, Jackelina ends up playing a different tune, blaming the dissolution of her and Marshall’s relationship on the idea that he’s too soft. She complains about Marshall’s lack of aggression in the bedroom and compares him to Josh, another man she was chatting with in the pods. She sees Josh as being on the “the same level as [her]: strong, masculine and tough,” traits that Marshall did not outwardly possess in her eyes.

Her switch-up reinforces stereotypes that are told to men about what women want: men who will provide, who are strong and are tough in the face of adversity. It signals to those who are the opposite, who are maybe more emotionally intelligent, that their EQ, their vulnerability is unattractive – which is harmful to both parties at the end of the day. It is why characters like Dom are needed to push back on those ideas, for the sake of anyone looking to enter a relationship, whether platonic or romantic, so they’re aware of what is healthy even if it isn’t what society deems as “attractive.”

David Jonsson and Vivian Oparah in “Rye Lane” (Searchlight Pictures)

No toughening up necessary to get the girl in the end.

Over the course of “Rye Lane,” Dom is provided the agency to reflect, lament and eventually, get over his past relationship. While others would rather he get over the situation quickly, he holds true to his emotions and takes his time working through them, whether it be by swapping anecdotes with Yas or listening to a playlist of sad songs he made in order to cope. It is Dom’s willingness to be himself, rather than hiding how he really feels, that aids the lightheartedness and authenticity of the film. And ultimately, it’s his openness that attracts Yas to him. No toughening up necessary to get the girl in the end.

“Rye Lane” is a breath of fresh air, not only to the rom-com genre, but to the tired characterizations of Black men that we see in the media. It shows that it’s OK to not be OK, it’s OK to lean on others, and sometimes you just need to cry in the public restroom to start your healing journey.

about this topic

Elon Musk and “Tucker Carlson Tonight”: A distracting match made in misinformation paradise

After months of flirtation and overtures Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk finally consummated their relationship when the billionaire sat down for an interview that aired on Monday’s and Tuesday’s editions of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

The two-night yammering touched on everything from the rise of Artificial Intelligence to the fall of Twitter and the existence of aliens, thumping on a few of Musk’s greatest hits in the spaces between. This includes Musk’s expert opinion, shared on Tuesday, that “birth control, abortions, and whatnot” would lead to the end of humanity.

“The urge to have sex and to procreate is, after breathing and eating, the most basic urge,” the heir to the Swanson frozen foods fortune says before asking Musk, “How has it been subverted?”

Musk broke it down by explaining that procreation used to be guaranteed by “simple limbic system rewards.” But ever since the “whatnot” has come into play, Musk explains, “Now you can still satisfy the limbic instinct but not procreate. So we haven’t yet evolved to deal with that because this is all fairly recent in the last 50 years or so before birth control.”

“I’m sort of worried that hey, civilization, if we don’t make enough people to at least sustain our numbers, perhaps increase a little bit, then civilization’s going to crumble,” Musk warned.

Regardless of one’s partisan leanings when it comes to reproductive rights, there are plenty of scientific studies warning about the ramifications of the Earth’s current overpopulation problem. But “Tucker Carlson Tonight” viewers do not care about environmental degradation or anything related to scientific findings by experts, so Musk’s proclamation amounts to an illuminative confirmation of How The World Works.

None of them expect the host to correct his guests when they make easily disprovable statements like this. Such an expectation would imply that Carlson is a journalist interested in disseminating facts. He is not, and neither is Musk.

Carlson has been making eyes at Musk from afar since he took over Twitter. At some point, Musk was going to figure out the best time to make Carlson into the Sean Hannity to his Donald Trump.

For a few possible reasons, that time is now.

“Defund NPR”: As PBS and NPR exit Twitter, which has more value to taxpayers?

Carlson’s sit-down with Musk in a Los Angeles hotel room purported to dig into such lofty issues as the dangers posed by the rise of AI, the state of Twitter and whether aliens exist – a subject about which Musk claims the ultimate authority since he is, and this is an actual quote, “very familiar with space stuff.”

A top talking point in Monday’s broadcast revolved around his criticisms that OpenAI’s ChatGPT is being “trained to be politically correct, which is simply another way of saying untruthful things.”

At some point, Musk was going to figure out the best time to make Carlson into the Sean Hannity to his Donald Trump.

To combat this, he told Carlson, he’s going to create “TruthGPT,” which he describes as “a maximum truth-seeking AI that tries to understand the nature of the universe.

“I think that this might be the best path to safety,” Musk adds, “in the sense that an AI that cares about understanding the universe is unlikely to annihilate humans because we are an interesting part of the universe. Hopefully, they would think that.”

Uh-huh.

Musk makes a lot of grand pronouncements that few bother to check. Some of them remain dreams – remember Hyperloop? Some are alleged to have gotten people killed, like Tesla’s Autopilot feature, which he assured rapt consumers worked just fine before it was associated with a string of fatalities.

Tucker Carlson speaks during 2022 FOX Nation Patriot Awards on November 17, 2022 in Hollywood, Florida. (Jason Koerner/Getty Images)

Carlson would never question anything Musk says, making “Tucker Carlson Tonight” a vital platform for self-promotion at a key time in his ongoing degradation of Twitter, the company he bought for an overpriced sum of $44 billion in October.

Musk knows that amplifying his celebrity reputation is key to being perceived as a successful, trustworthy thought leader. Allowing Carlson to be his head cheerleader promoting him to a captive and entirely uncritical audience may have more value than his Twitter presence in the long run.

Apologies – we should say X Corp. Twitter, Inc. no longer exists, as confirmed in an April 4 court filing related to a lawsuit filed in 2022 by far-right troll Laura Loomer, whose account was banned in 2019, leading to her accusing the site and former owner Jack Dorsey, along with Facebook, of violating federal racketeering laws.

Loomer’s account was restored after Musk’s takeover as part of the flood of other white nationalist accounts, along with Holocaust deniers and QAnon adherents. Hate speech has spiked along with an array of misinformation peddling.

The X Corp. update, revealed to business users in an email sent on Tuesday and to Twitter users in an alert that appeared in their feeds, also brought to users’ attention the site’s removal of language that protects transgender users from its hateful conduct policy.

A Quartz report that investigated the change cites Internet archive records indicating that the passage once read, “We prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

The sentence specifying the prohibition of misgendering or deadnaming was removed between April 7 and 8, Quartz found.

The X Corp. redesignation is another step toward Musk’s long-stated vision to transform Twitter into an “everything app” to rival China’s WeChat, which supports social media as well as instant messaging and mobile payments.

Forbes reported that Musk revealed his ultimate ambition for the app to become the “biggest financial institution in the world” at a Morgan Stanley conference. From a business standpoint in order to pull that off effectively, whatever becomes of Twitter (which is retaining its name as its parent company’s moniker changes) would have to be viewed as trustworthy, reliable, and stable.

Musk has demonstrated none of these attributes in his leadership since he’s taken over the company or in his personality, which has been widely reported by an assortment of media outlets that Carlson painted as “so obviously filthy and dishonest” on Monday night.

But this interview, along with the lazy tendency to soft-sell Musk as an eccentric visionary as opposed to a terrible businessman and danger to democracy, obscures that his so-called efforts to end censorship have led to decreased user safety and more restricted speech.

Among the first times Musk makes Carlson laugh hysterically is when he brags about the company shedding 80% of its workforce through his firing workers or mass resignations.

“I mean, if you’re not trying to run some sort of glorified activist organization with, and you don’t care that much about censorship, then you can really let go of a lot of people, it turns out,” Musk said, eliciting appreciative guffaws from Carlson.

Some of those “activists” to which Musk refers comprised Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council, which disbanded in December. In the months since, the BBC reported that current and former employees told them that the company is no longer capable of protecting users from trolling, state-coordinated disinformation campaigns and child sexual exploitation. Thanks to Musk’s transformation of the blue checkmark from Twitter’s official verification of a user’s identity into a feature that can be bought with a subscription to Twitter Blue, there are now blue-checked accounts belonging to Taliban officials and supporters.

Musk is hoping that one day soon you’ll trust him with your money and financial information.

The BBC also reports that since the team that battled social media disinformation campaigns conducted by trolls farms in Russia, China and Iran was also laid off, it has discovered hundreds of Russian and Chinese state propaganda accounts operating on the platform. That report was published last week, right around the time Twitter slapped a “government-funded media” label on the BBC which it was obliged to correct, identifying it as “publicly-funded media.”

Doing the same with National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service – and, this week, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation – led to those three broadcasters suspending activity on their accounts. The CBC characterized this as an effort by Twitter to undermine its credibility . . . which, unlike those “government-funded” tags, is accurate. The current label on its Twitter account reads “69% Government-funded Media” which, the CBC characterized to Reuters as not “serious.”

All of this is happening while Carlson promoted Musk’s assortment of unsubstantiated assertions ranging from the ludicrous to the outright alarmist. Foremost among them was Musk’s claim that before his arrival that government intelligence agencies had “full access” to Twitter’s back end, including users’ private direct messages. (Such allegations were at the heart of the “Twitter Files” hype.) The Fox host led into this by characterizing Twitter, when it was run by Jack Dorsey, as a global intelligence agency “honey trap.”

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

Anyway, with these circumstances in play, Musk is hoping that one day soon you’ll trust him with your money and financial information. Many people will, especially the ones who believe the billionaire’s claim that restoring “truth” and “free speech” to Twitter has always been his goal without noticing the random suspensions of journalists’ accounts and his flirtation with QAnon diehards.

This aligns with the average Fox News viewer’s impression that any news and information that doesn’t fit with their worldview is lying to them.

Fox News viewers want to be lied to. Look at a recent poll published in Variety, conducted by Maru Group: a full 45% of Fox viewers claim to still trust Fox after Dominion Voting Systems released damning testimony from Rupert Murdoch, along with private texts and emails from Fox News hosts, especially Carlson, proving they knew the Trump’s voter fraud claims were lies.

Since the falsehoods were lucrative, Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and others kept pushing them.

A mobile billboard deployed by Media Matters circles Fox News Corp headquarters on April 17, 2023 in New York City. (Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images for Media Matters)

Fox News viewers watching on Monday and Tuesday would not have known that the network’s lies concerning Dominion and voter fraud, untruths Carlson was instrumental in perpetuating, cost $787.5 million to settle since its media reporter Howard Kurtz didn’t state it on the air. That may be because it’s the largest media-related settlement in history, by far.

But then, as Carlson touted Musk’s genius and business acumen he conveniently left out that he holds the Guinness World Record for having lost more of his personal fortune than anyone in history – somewhere between $182 billion and $200 billion, thanks to Tesla’s stock price plunge.

That adds another level of comedy to Musk’s admission to Carlson that he overpaid for Twitter before snorting at its current valuation at around half of its purchase price.

“But some things are priceless,” he added in a tone affecting nobility. “So whether I’m losing money or not, that is a secondary issue compared to ensuring the strength of democracy.”

And as Musk reminded us in this conversation he’s content to pass the cost along to the people trying to live safely in those democracies.

about this topic

Prison food: what we learned from organizing food-themed art workshops for women prisoners

There are two common misconceptions about food in British prisons: that it is either not fit for human consumption or too luxurious to be enjoyed by those in prison. The artworks produced by the women prisoners in our project broke down both these myths.

For imprisoned people, creating artworks can be a critical step in overcoming the barriers to discussing sensitive issues such as drug use, mental health or suicide.

As part of Doing Porridge, a two-year project examining the role of food in women’s prisons, we organized workshops for women prisoners in the south-east and north of England.

The classes were facilitated by an art teacher who had expertise in running art programs with people in prison. The aim was to create a space for open discussion of prison food. The final works were displayed at an exhibition entitled On My Plate in Bracknell, Berkshire, in partnership with the prisons charity, Koestler Arts.

The women we worked with saw prison food as another form of social control. Many said they felt a loss of identity due to not cooking for themselves.

However, we also found some women had taken back small pockets of control by being creative with the resources they had in their cells or communal areas to concoct meals. One woman even spoke about baking a cheesecake using the microwave.

What the artworks told us

The diverse artworks from our workshops exemplified the tensions and challenges associated with the provision and consumption of prison food. They also highlighted the issues of body image, lack of choice, escape and problems at home that are experienced by many women prisoners.

Body image is a contentious issue for incarcerated women. Many of the artworks centered on the high-carb food and lack of opportunities to exercise. These images often represented the change in the naked body and symbolized the anxieties the women experienced about their weight in prison.

Prisons are “designed by men for men“. For many women, being confined in a space that takes away freedom limits the ability to celebrate their personal identity. Analyzing these artworks can develop our understanding of how they feel about their womanhood.

Another theme that emerged was the women’s experience of the monotonous, unchanging menus of the prison kitchen.

One of the images illustrated a tin of beans with the word “AGAIN” in capitals. This highlighted the distress of eating the same types of food for a long period of time and the long-awaited but unsatiated need for nutritious and culturally diverse food.

The importance of choice in prison appeared in much of the artwork produced, from the desire for healthier food to frustrations about not having the choice to make informed decisions about what and how they eat.

This can be seen in motifs like bananas with human features, symbolizing the desire for fruit and vegetables which are not always accessible, available or nutritious in prison.

In one poetic illustration entitled I Am the Artist, a prisoner wrote: “I am what I eat.” This was followed by a commentary on the foods she ate on the outside, that she saw as contributing to her identity: “I am feta: I am beetroot: I am peanut butter.”

Food’s connection to home

Home life was another prevalent theme, reflecting the need of many to escape the realities of prison life. Creating these artworks also provided comfort for some of the women, as they shared testimonies of the food they ate growing up and what food they desired the most while in prison.

Motifs included beaches, eating with loved ones and tasty desserts, which were seen as an unobtainable fantasy — this type of food is a privilege not afforded in prison.

Often, art with the theme of home life represented the women’s desire to feel “normal”, something they associated with the memories and emotions around food in the home.

Understanding these food-themed artworks produced by imprisoned women allows a better understanding of the social inequalities they are experiencing while incarcerated.

Exploring their relationships with food brought invaluable understanding of their often complex and traumatic experiences, as well as the intersection of inequalities they face, from racism to sexism and poverty.

Maria Adams, Senior lecturer, University of Surrey; Erin Power, Research Fellow, Department of Sociology, Liverpool John Moores University, and Jon Garland, Professor of Criminology, University of Surrey

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

“Dominion set the baseline”: Experts say Fox News may have to pay a lot more in next defamation suit

Fox News reached a settlement with Dominion Voting Systems on Tuesday, averting a trial that would have exposed how the right-wing network promoted false claims about the 2020 presidential election.

Dominion says Fox has agreed to pay $787.5 million in the largest publicly known defamation settlement in US history involving a media company.

The trial was delayed for nearly two and a half hours on Tuesday as attorneys for both parties engaged in last-minute negotiations. Finally, the deal was announced after the jury had been sworn in at the Delaware Superior Court.

“The case has been resolved and it’s been resolved because of you,” Judge Eric Davis told the jury before dismissing them.

Dominion had sued Fox for $1.6 billion for damaging its reputation by airing baseless conspiracy theories that claimed its equipment switched votes from former President Donald Trump to Joe Biden.

Legal experts: “Damning evidence” in Dominion case threatens Fox as court greenlights second lawsuit

The judge even established in an earlier ruling that it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations about Dominion aired on Fox by Trump allies were true.

But Fox continued to defend itself, saying they were reporting on notable allegations protected by the First Amendment.

“I think Fox settled the case to avoid additional adverse publicity at trial, and the possibility of an even greater payout in the form of punitive damages that could have been awarded by [the] jury,” said former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and an MSNBC contributor. “Settlements often come late in hopes that the other side will blink.”

Fox settled to avoid “the embarrassment” that resulted from “the mountain of evidence” that Fox and its hosts knew they were promoting lies or recklessly ignored the truth, said John Kaley, former assistant US attorney from the Southern District of New York.

“The picture of Rupert Murdoch and program hosts being cross-examined and confronted with what they said on air juxtaposed by what they said in texts and emails among themselves would have been devastating to Fox, to the hosts and to the Fox brand,” Kaley said. “It would have been a cross examiner’s delight.”

The last-minute agreement between the two parties means that Fox News personalities like Maria Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Sean Hannity won’t have to be potential witnesses in the most high-profile media trial of the decade.

“This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards,” Fox said in a statement Tuesday. “We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.”

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

Fox News and Fox Corporation maintain they never defamed Dominion, and say the case was a meritless assault on First Amendment press freedoms.

Though the case won’t be proceeding to trial, Fox has incurred reputational damage for airing falsehoods about voter fraud in their 2020 election coverage.

“The information disclosed during discovery regarding Fox’s decisions to air false claims to help ratings should affect their reputation for credibility, but the statement Fox issued with the settlement does not indicate any remorse, so it may be that Fox is simply calculating that this settlement is a cost of doing business, and it will continue conducting itself just the same way it did before undeterred,” McQuade said.

Fox is facing another defamation case from voting technology company Smartmatic seeking $2.7 billion over the network’s coverage of TrumpWorld’s false claims about the 2020 election.

Smartmatic said in its complaint that Fox aired “over 100 false statements and implications” about the company. A day after the suit was filed, Fox canceled the show of Lou Dobbs, who was named as a defendant in the suit.

While that case is still in the discovery process, Smartmatic will have to prove how Fox’s coverage of the voting company damaged its reputation.

“But the amount paid to Dominion sets a baseline that will allow Smartmatic to demand a commensurate amount to settle the case,” McQuade said.

Kaley added that Fox’s settlement with Dominion signals that they “may not have the stomach for the fight” and is instead willing to pay “a king’s ransom to avoid more public humiliation.”

about Fox News

“The Big Door Prize’s” Chris O’Dowd: “Being Irish has been nothing but an absolute gift”

“Potential” is a tricky word. It carries all the hope and foreboding of expectation, all the beautiful dread of what could happen, what you could do, but with no promises or guarantees. It’s an admonishment, a blessing, a curse. And in the twisty new Chris O’Dowd Apple TV+ series “The Big Door Prize,” (based on the novel by by M.O. Walsh), it’s a premonition delivered by a mysterious machine, one that upends a small American town by making its residents see the surprising possibilities of what just they might be.

In the heart of all the new chaos is Dusty, a seemingly satisfied schoolteacher who’d been whistling his way through midlife until the Morpho machine made him question everything he knows about his place in the world. Played with equal measures lightness and unease by “The IT Crowd” and “Bridesmaids” star O’Dowd, Dusty is a down-to-earth everyman tossed into the midst of an existential earthquake.

“It’s right to draw the distinction between destiny and potential,” O’Dowd told me on “Salon Talks,” “because somehow destiny is so depressing. Always has been.” Potential, on the other hand, has a duality that suits O’Dowd’s Irish temperament. “You realize when you come from Ireland that comedy and humor is almost a currency,” he said. “We use it often as a way to get out of tragedy, or even to f**king ridicule tragedy. I think there’s something very noble about that.” And as Dusty, O’Dowd gets to explore both the comedy and tragedy of discovering one’s potential.

Watch the lively —and unsurprisingly very funny — conversation with Chris O’Dowd here to hear more about what drew him to his mind-bending new series, the secret to learning to whistle and the personal reasons why he avoids doing American accents whenever possible.

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

What do you tell people “Big Door Prize” is about and who your character Dusty is?

I play a high school history teacher who’s married and thinks he’s happy. He’s got a teenage daughter. He is a very proud member of a small community. We meet him on the morning of his 40th birthday. He’s got some midlife stuff going on, but everything seems to be great. Then this machine turns up with the promise to tell everybody in the town what their life potential is, and it upends his life, the community and his perception of whether he was or not happy in the end.

You went to university initially for politics and now here you are playing a history teacher who is — at least in the beginning — skeptical of this thing that’s going to tell other people what their lives are. How did your own philosophy draw you to this story?

“It was literally the character description in the first three jobs I got . . .”He was a big, slow guy.”

I think you’re right in that my own philosophy on the world did drive me to the story. One of the things about the book that really interested me was that initial concept — the idea that there is an oracle that if you wish to give weight to it, will dictate your future for you and then you don’t really have to do anything for yourself.

I know there is something about the show where it feels they’re being set free on this new journey. Actually, you’ve just got a machine telling you one thing. It may feel freeing, but I think if you’ve been experiencing the world for the last 20 years and the last 150 years, you could probably see that people can be very easily taken in by one big idea, and can do some wonderful things and some f**king awful things depending on how much weight they put on that idea. I think that Deerfield is somewhat of a microcosm for the rest of society. It’s kind of diverse, with an immigrant in the middle of it. It’s interesting to throw in a concept where if people follow it, everybody would change their lives, because that seems to happen all the time.

You’ve said when you were starting out, you used to get sent out on the roles for, and I’m quoting you here, Chris, “the big slow guy.”

It’s a running joke with my agent. I got her just some gifts recently because it was our 20 years together. One of the things I got her was this embossed key ring with the letters “BSG” on it because of the first few roles. I was probably a good 40 pounds heavier than I am now, so it was with good reason that I was going up for these roles. But it was literally the character description in the first three jobs I got. Somewhere in there it was like, “He was a big, slow guy. He’s kind of slow, he’s quite big.” I don’t mind that so much. I feel I got to do so many different types of things over the years that it’s never really worried me, really.

You walk that line of comedy and sadness in a lot of the things you do, which maybe to me as an Irish-American also feels very Irish first.

I think you’re probably right. We can f**king wallow in tragedy with the best of them.

But then laugh about it as well.

Yes. That’s exactly right.

Growing up, who were the people you were looking to as your inspirations? Were there people who you said, “I want to do what that person does”?

I don’t know if it was ever as literal as that, but there were loads of people that I was really enjoying. When I was growing up, to be honest, I used to love sketch show writers. I used to be obsessed with Mortimer, Whitehouse and Harry Enfield, French and Saunders and “Father Ted,” a lot of comedy writers. Then when I was a teenager, I started getting really into shows, “Roseanne.”

“Being Irish has been nothing but an absolute gift. They say that the greatest revenge is the laughter of your children. Well, I’m f**king laughing.”

I’m not from a bunch of money, and you felt it was nice to see a working-class family on screen so upfront. I was into a lot of that, and then people like Dave Allen and Spike Milligan and a lot of great literary comics that you kind of find in Ireland, like Dylan Moore and people who really are very smart. You realize when you come from Ireland that comedy and humor is almost a currency. We kind of use it often as a way to get out of tragedy or even to f**king ridicule tragedy or whatnot. I think there’s something very noble about that.

It’s a form of taking back a narrative in a tragic situation, whether it’s mass tragedy, whether it’s politics, history. You play a history teacher. The history of Ireland is, it’s a sad one, Chris.

Totally but it’s interesting because it must be a generational thing, because I haven’t had any hassle. It’s been f**king easy as pie for me. Being Irish has been nothing but an absolute gift. They say that the greatest revenge is the laughter of your children. Well, I’m f**king laughing.

Hey, Irish Americans: Your “Celtic” tattoo isn’t Celtic — because that whole idea was made up

I want to ask you about the show and this idea of potential, which is such an unusual word. If you were to get a card, Chris, what do you think would be on yours? What would be your potential word?

I don’t know. Seaman.

Wait, how’s it spelled?

“Destiny is so depressing. Always has been.”

I’m going to put the A in there. For sure. Yeah, boatman, a handsome boatman, like it says in the song, “A handsome boatman to carry me to my true love to die.” That’s one of those weird songs where it feels everything is going great, and I wish that I would cross the deepest ocean and over the greatest river if you would just bring me to my true love, and then the final two words are, “to die.” It’s like Christ, I thought you were going to shag.

This is why we’re all like this.

This is it, isn’t it? Maybe it’s an Irish thing. I think. It’s, I’ve got this beautiful romantic song, but obviously, she’s got to die at the end of the song. You can’t have joy. Are you crazy?

There are touches of that in the show where people are reexamining their lives because even if they feel they’re happy, maybe it ends up almost having a placebo effect. It’s right to draw the distinction between destiny and potential because somehow destiny is so depressing. Always has been. The idea of being related to any idea with predestination, “So what’s the f**king point then?” Whereas I think potential is, even if it’s wishy-washy as a concept, as Dusty thinks it is, it’s not restrictive, really. It’s telling you that you could do this if you fulfill your potential.

You’re a dad, you have young kids. You know how scary that word can also be. It’s a very loaded word.

The last two days I’ve been doing our parent-teacher conferences. Potential comes up. They have the potential to be fantastic or an absolute pain in the a**, it seems, like the rest of us.

You’ve talked about how after “Bridesmaids,” you were offered a lot of things that you described as “very easy to turn down.” Looking at your past and moments where you felt there was potential, were there some moments that you think, “Wow, that really was the game changer for me”?

I suppose I rolled the dice a couple of times, emigrated twice, which is a big change to make. Managed to do that twice for more than a decade, and that opened up a lot of opportunities. I don’t know if I made all of the right choices or whatnot. A lot of them I’ve made a very different way than I made decisions early on, where you just want to be working and you just want to get yourself in front of audiences. If you’re a creative, entertainment person, you just want to entertain people and then later in life you kind of go, “This is too much.” I’ve got a lot of famous friends and they f**king hate their lives, so there is a limit to how much you could be in front of an audience before you ruin it for everybody.

We’ve talked a lot about your Irish background. I’ve watched so many of your performances and almost always you are Irish in the character. I can think of one role I’ve seen you do an American accent and I’ve heard you say that you prefer not to. What is that, you’re Irish in almost every character that you do?

“I’ve got a lot of famous friends and they f*****g hate their lives, so there is a limit to how much you could be in front of an audience before you ruin it for everybody.”

It’s a couple of things. It’s always been a representative issue for me. I’ve been in America for 12, 13 years and I meet people who aren’t born in America all the time, every single day. I don’t see them on screen that often, which I find surprising. I’ve discovered Irish people all over the world; we’re the most traveled people that have ever lived. So being a part of representing a diaspora as well as a nation has always been interesting to me. And also, it’s one less thing to worry about.

I improvise a lot and come from a big improv background. So when I do accents, it involves doing accent work. In the last film, I did a movie for Netflix and I had to be a brother of an American character. So then you obviously have to do it, and that was fine but it does make you just think about the words that you’re saying very specifically rather than, what I find more useful is how your character is feeling in that moment, becomes more of a technical enterprise.

Your character in “The Big Door Prize” is a whistler among other things. I heard that you’re a good whistler, but that you also had to be dubbed.

We wanted, because he gets it on his card, it’s a very specific part of his personality. I’m actually not a bad whistler, but we did want to step it up a bit and give him real runs and turns that might give us a reason to think that the whistler word belonged on the card, if that makes sense.

There’s a lot of scenes where I’m like, “I want this to have whistling in it, but I think it needs somebody better than me. So I’m just going to be walking around in the background with my lips pursed, and if you can, add it in in post. Otherwise, I’m going to look like an absolute idiot just walking around, going with no sound coming out. I’m sucking a straw.”

I’m a terrible whistler. What’s the secret?

Just try and exercise your tongue as much as you can. I find that helpful. I’ve been trying to teach the kids to whistle, and it is an odd thing because it’s just the shape of your mouth, isn’t it?

The Morpho sounds a bit like that. There are parts of this Morpho thing and the iconography of the show, and I suppose the central character, that does remind me a little bit of “Close Encounters” with Richard Dreyfuss. I was watching this really cool clip where Steven Spielberg is being interviewed. Have you ever seen this by James Lipton, who used to do the actor studio?

He has this realization in front of everybody where James Lipton says to him, and I’m paraphrasing, “So your father worked in the sciences and your mother was a music teacher. You’ve said previously that they struggled to connect. When the aliens come down, how do they connect with everybody?” And Steve Spielberg goes, “Well, I realize now that this movie is about my childhood.” It’s that incredible thing that I’m sure is John Williams, where it’s like, “OK, how do we communicate? We have to communicate on a musical level if we don’t understand the verbosity of another species.”

“Big Door Prize” releases new episodes on Wednesdays on Apple TV+.

Watch more

“Salon Talks” with actors

Electricity beats time when it comes to healing wounds, research finds

When the first residential electrical grids came to life, the world saw it as a utopian project. The miracle of science had brought an invisible force through a wire to their homes — one that could light rooms and make un-living objects move. Much as “AI” has become a buzzword to advertise consumer software nowadays, consumer products of that era advertised that they were superior because they were produced through electricity; Triscuit crackers, for instance, whose name was a portmanteau of “electricity biscuits” and which were produced in electric ovens, were so-named to heighten their appeal. Meanwhile, movies of the early electrification era reflected the fear and the promise of electricity — including the 1931 film adaptation of “Frankenstein,” in which Frankenstein’s monster is brought to life through electricity.

Now that electrification is quotidian, we don’t associate it with magical properties or the ability to restore life through a few choice zaps of the stuff. That makes a new study into electricity’s healing properties all the more surprising for its “Frankenstein”-esque conclusion.

“After stimulating one of those wounds with an electric current, they saw that it healed three times faster than a separate wound…”

The study in question, published by scientists from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, found that applying electricity — the same invisible stuff that flows through the device on which you’re reading this — to chronic wounds promoted healing.

If it is commercialized, this relatively simple application could be promising for those who frequently suffer chronic wounds. That would especially help people with diabetes, which includes more than 37 million Americans or roughly one out of every ten people. Along with elderly individuals, people with diabetes are the most prone to developing chronic wounds, or wounds that fail to heal in a timely manner and often stall in the inflammation phase. In addition to be prone to infection and re-injury, chronic wounds are notoriously painful, with patients often reporting this pain as overwhelming the rest of their life. Fast healing of chronic wounds is the only effective permanent treatment. Could electricity therapy could help with that?

I feel the music in my bones: A new study shows how sound can rebuild bones

The idea, of zapping one’s skin with electricity, might seem bizarre from a biology perspective. Our bodies aren’t circuits, and electrical shocks can hurt, even kill us; so why would electricity promote healing? And what would make such an idea even occur to researchers in the first place?

It turns out that scientists got the idea because skin cells are electrotactic, meaning they move in the direction of an electric field. In other words, if skin cells are floating around randomly in a petri dish, and an electric field appears in the dish, the cells begin moving in the same direction. Roughly speaking, an electric field works on the cells similarly to how a shepherd dog works to control the motion of a once-randomly-moving group of sheep.

Knowing this property of skin cells, the researchers surmised that they could apply electricity to chronic wounds and direct cells in ways that helped them heal more quickly. To test this, the researchers first developed skin cells in a biochip where they inflicted tiny wounds. After stimulating one of those wounds with an electric current, they saw that it healed three times faster than a separate wound which had not received stimulation from electricity.

Similarly, the scientists performed separate tests with skin cells that were altered to mimic the conditions of diabetic patients; a diabetic patient’s wound-healing difficulties, after all, do not necessarily stem from the same origins as the difficulties as those of a non-diabetic patient. Once again, though, applying electricity to the wounded diabetic skin helped it heal three times faster than for the wound where electricity was not applied.

Notably, the electric field was low for all of these experiments, around 200 millivolts per millimeter. (A millivolt is one-thousandth of a volt; in contrast, a tiny AAA battery has a potential of about 1.5 volts, 7.5 times higher). The low voltage meant that the electricity did not damage the cells in any way as a lightning bolt might.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

Of course, the scientists readily admit that these experiments are mere first steps. They did not occur on real human patients, and for any medical procedure like this to be used by qualified doctors, it must first go through a series of phases that ultimately culminate in well-regulated human trials. The Chalmers researchers recently received a large grant to continue their scientific studies with electricity and wounds, with the ultimate goal of developing a product that can be sold to consumers.

“We are now looking at how different skin cells interact during stimulation, to take a step closer to a realistic wound,” explained Maria Asplund, Associate Professor of Bioelectronics at Chalmers University of Technology and head of research on the project, in a statement. “We want to develop a concept to be able to ‘scan’ wounds and adapt the stimulation based on the individual wound. We are convinced that this is the key to effectively helping individuals with slow-healing wounds in the future.”

As diabetes rates continue to rise in America, there’s an increasing need for wound-healing technologies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed in January that, if the trends regarding diabetes observed within the period from 2002 to 2017 continue, the number of young people diagnosed with diabetes will increase from 213,000 in 2017 to 239,000 in 2060, including a 3 percent increase for type 1 diabetes and a 69 percent increase for type 2 diabetes.

“In both scenarios, substantial widening of racial and ethnic disparities in type 2 diabetes prevalence are expected, with the highest prevalence among non-Hispanic Black youth,” the authors of the study added.

about diabetes

Cranberry juice can prevent recurrent UTIs, but only for some people

Many of us know cranberries as a tasty condiment to have with our Christmas turkey or the juice that accompanies vodka in a cosmopolitan cocktail. You might have also heard cranberries prevent urinary tract infections (UTIs).

While this often dismissed as a myth, our new review of the evidence shows consuming cranberry juice or supplements reduces the chance of repeat UTIs for women, children and those who are more susceptible to them due to medical procedures.

But this wasn’t the case for elderly people, pregnant women or for people with bladder-emptying problems.

The review didn’t look at the use of cranberry for the treatment of UTI — and cranberry juice cannot cure a UTI on its own. So, if you do get a UTI make sure you seek medical care from your GP or other health provider.

Remind me, what is a UTI?

UTIs are unpleasant and very common. About one-third of women will have one at some point in their life. They’re also common among elderly people and those with bladder issues caused by spinal cord injury or other conditions.

Typically, a UTI feels like peeing razor blades and the urine can be smelly, cloudy and sometimes has blood in it. Other symptoms include the frequent urge to pass urine, a stinging or burning sensation when passing urine and pain in the lower abdomen or pelvis.

UTIs are caused by bacteria. Normally bacteria do not live in the urinary tract, but when they do, they stick to the bladder wall, multiply and can cause a UTI.

When a UTI persists untreated, the infection can move to the kidneys and cause complications, such as severe pain or sepsis (a blood infection) in the worst cases.

Most UTIs are effectively and easily treated with antibiotics. Sometimes just one dose of antibiotics can resolve the infection. Unfortunately, for some people, UTIs keep coming back.

What medicinal properties do cranberries have?

The First Peoples of North America have long known the benefits of eating cranberries, including their benefits for bladder problems.

More recently, in the 1980s and 1990s, laboratory scientists started to explore several plausible explanations for these benefits.

The most widely accepted explanation is their high concentration of the antioxidant proanthocyanidin. Cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon) — a native fruit of North America — have a high concentration of proanthocyanidin, which protects the cranberry plant against microbes.

Researchers think the compound also prevents the most common UTI-causing bacteria — Escherichia coli (E.coli) — from sticking to the bladder wall.

It was this apparent ability that researchers concluded was responsible for the cranberry’s medicinal properties.

However, without strong evidence of how or if cranberry worked, health-care providers were left without clear guidance on who might benefit from cranberry. As a result, the ongoing debate in the academic literature has persisted for more than 30 years.

The evolution of the evidence

Researchers periodically review the evidence to support tests, treatments and interventions for all sorts of health conditions.

Proving efficacy became a focus with randomized trials starting to being published from 1994. The first Cochrane compilation of four clinical trials on this topic — published in 1998 — concluded the evidence was too poor to determine efficacy.

A Cochrane Review involves identifying of all the available peer-reviewed academic evidence on a health care or health policy topic. The evidence is reviewed independently and in an unbiased way by members of the Cochrane Network, a network of independent researchers, professionals, patients and carers interested in answering health questions.

Updates in 2004 and 2008 suggested cranberry products reduced the risk of repeat UTI in women, but most of the studies were not considered high quality evidence and so the findings were not conclusive.

By 2012, the volume of evidence had increased to 24 clinical trials, but the data was imprecise and the conclusions were that cranberry juice was of no benefit.

As one of Cochrane’s most popular reviews and the ever increasing volume of evidence, updating the review was important.

Over time, research has improved in the consistency of how cranberry is consumed — as juice or tablets — as well as improved in the measurement of the effective dosage and estimates of how much active ingredient (proanthocyanidin) in the different products.

What’s new?

Our Cochrane Review, update, published this week, now includes 50 clinical trials of cranberry products.

More than 8,800 people have participated in the clinical trials which randomly assigned people to take either cranberry products or a dummy treatment — either a placebo (a substance that has no therapeutic effect) or “usual care” (where people might receive another preventive product, such as probiotics).

The recent increased volume of high-quality evidence has shown cranberry products work for people who experience recurrent UTI or are susceptible to UTI. Recurrent UTIs are defined as two or more UTIs within six months or three or more UTIs within a year.

Cranberry products reduce the risk of repeat symptomatic, culture-verified (tested in a laboratory ) UTIs in women (by about 26%), children (by about 54%) and people susceptible to UTI following medical interventions (by about 53%).

The findings don’t relate to people who don’t get UTIs very often but want to avoid them.

What is still unclear is the formulation and dosage of cranberry products. The evidence was not able to clarify whether cranberry tablets or liquids are more effective, what dosage of cranberry works best or how long people need to take cranberry products to get the full benefits. The clinical trials varied in the duration of cranberry consumption, from four weeks to 12 months.

Among the many complicating issues addressed in this update was who funded each trial. Each clinical trial was classified as either being supported by funds from commercial organizations (such as juice manufacturer) or conducted by not-for-profit organizations (such as universities or hospitals) who paid for their own cranberry product.

However, we found no difference in the results for clinical trials supported by juice companies compared to those conducted by academic institutions.

Jacqueline Stephens, Epidemiologist & Senior Lecturer in Public Health, Flinders University and Gabrielle Williams, Epidemiologist, University of Sydney

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