Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Progressives call out DNC for allowing super PACs aligned with GOP to pour money into Dem primaries

A national progressive organization is calling on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to ban dark money from being used to fund Democratic primary elections.

The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) made the announcement just days after Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., sent a letter to DNC leaders urging them to ban super PAC money in primaries.

Analilia Mejia, Co-Executive Director at the CPD told TYT that dark money unfairly influences primary elections. She said, “[A]llowing this dark money actually harms the entire [democratic] process and all stakeholders and I don’t understand why the DNC in this moment isn’t being bolder.”

Mejia says you don’t have to look far to see how dark money tipped the scales during the 2022 midterm election, pointing to it as the main culprit that cost progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros the Texas Democratic primary against incumbent Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, a right-leaning Democrat who opposes abortion rights.

“She [Cisneros] loses by like a handful of votes. A thousand votes is nothing,” said Mejia, “And so here is this candidate who was more aligned with the Democratic Party’s stated values of protecting the right to choose, and that candidate was undone by special interests that were opaque, that were allowed to operate in a way that […] in my opinion, hurts the long-term goals and goes against the stated values of the party.

In a statement released Friday, Mejia along with CPD Co-Executive Director DaMareo Cooper said:

It’s time to ban Super PAC spending in Democratic primaries permanently. The pathway to primary wins should pass through the people’s will, not the pockets of a privileged few. That’s the other party’s brand. Today’s DNC remains out of step with its base, stated principles, and previous platforms.

Democrats can take a big step toward rebuilding public confidence by passing this resolution. As always, we will work to hold our elected officials accountable and fight for an equitable, multiracial democracy where all our communities can thrive.

In his letter sent to DNC leadership on Tuesday, Sanders wrote, in-part:

Let’s be clear: the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision is undermining American democracy. In the last election cycle, right-wing billionaires funded millions of dollars in spending against progressive candidates in competitive primaries.

Those funds were often used by super PACs to run outrageous and dishonest attack ads. Right-wing billionaires spend unlimited amounts of money to undermine our democracy, mislead voters, and maintain the status quo. When we talk about billionaires buying elections, this is exactly what we are talking about.

Here is the simple truth. The Democratic Party must not allow oligarchs and their super PACs, often aligned with Republicans, to buy Democratic Party primaries. If Democrats really believe in campaign finance reform, we must ban super PACs in primaries. As you know, this week the DNC is holding meetings where there will be a resolution introduced to ban dark money in primaries.

According to Sanders’ letter, a resolution to ban dark money was not allowed to come to a vote during the last DNC meeting.

Mejia says CPD hopes that the DNC will take their points into consideration by allowing the issue surrounding dark money to be openly discussed and not “squelch” the conversation.

“We’re calling on them to live up to their values,” she said.

CBS host corners Ted Cruz on bill to limit senators to two terms: “But you’re still running!”

CBS host Margaret Brennan asked Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, why he is not a hypocrite for sponsoring a bill to limit U.S. senators to two terms — even though he is running for a third term.

“You introduced a bill to limit terms to two six-year terms in office for senators,” Brennan told Cruz. “Why aren’t you holding yourself to that standard? You said you’re running for a third term.”

Cruz insisted he was a “passionate defender of term limits.”

“But you’re still running!” Brennan interrupted.

“If and when it passes, I will happily, happily comply,” Cruz insisted.

“Are you running for president?” the host pressed.

“I will be more than happy to comply by the same rules that apply for everyone,” Cruz stated. “But until then, I’m going to keep fighting for 30 million Texans.”

“I think you heard me ask if you’re running for president,” Brennan said.

“I’m running for re-election to the Senate,” Cruz replied. “There’s a reason I’m in Texas today. I’m not in Iowa. I’m in Texas and I’m fighting for 30 million Texans.”

Watch the CBS video below or at this link.

Trump rages on Truth Social after ex-prosecutor reveals “many bits and pieces of evidence” to indict

Mark Pomerantz, a former senior prosecutor on the Manhattan district attorney’s team investigating former President Donald Trump and his organization’s business dealings, said there are “many bits and pieces of evidence” the district attorney could use to bring criminal charges against the former president.

Pomerantz made the comments in a “60 Minutes” interview promoting a new book about his time investigating Trump, in which he compares him to John Gotti, the head of the Gambino organized crime family, also known as the “Teflon Don” who died in prison in 2002.

“If you take the exact same conduct — and make it not about Donald Trump and not about a former president of the United States, would the case have been indicted? It would have been indicted in a flat second,” Pomerantz told CBS News’ Bill Whitaker.

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a civil lawsuit against Trump, the Trump Organization and his three eldest children, alleging they engaged in a decade-long fraud scheme by using false financial statements related to the company’s business to obtain favorable loan and insurance rates and tax breaks.

The allegations come nearly a year after Pomerantz resigned from the DA’s office. The release of his new book has prompted pushback from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Bragg’s office asked to review the book before its publication to ensure it wouldn’t reveal information obtained from a grand jury, CNN reported. 

“After closely reviewing all the evidence from Mr. Pomerantz’s investigation, I came to the same conclusion as several senior prosecutors involved in the case, and also those I brought on: more work was needed,” Bragg said in a statement to CNN. “Put another way, Mr. Pomerantz’s plane wasn’t ready for takeoff.” 

In January, a New York judge fined the Trump Organization $1.6 million for running a years-long tax fraud scheme. The Trump Corp. and Trump Payroll Corp. were convicted last year of 17 felonies, including tax fraud and falsifying business records. Trump himself was never charged or convicted.

Trump responded to the release of Pomerantz’s book with a lengthy rant on Truth Social. 

“Wow, the book just put out by Crooked Hillary Clinton’s attorney, Mark Pomerantz, is turning out to be a hit on the District Attorney and the ‘weak’ case ‘with many fatal flaws,'” he posted Friday night. “Prosecutors in the D.A.’s Office actually quit in protest in that they thought it was ‘irresponsible’ and very ‘unfair’ to ‘President Trump.’ They also felt they didn’t want to rely on a SleazeBag disbarred Lawyer From Hell like Michael Cohen as a witness. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY THOUGHT THE CASE WAS TERRIBLE – A LOSER!”


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


Trump’s lawyer also sent a letter to Pomerantz threatening legal action against the former prosecutor if he releases the book. 

The lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said in a statement to CNN that Pomerantz’s “desperate attempt to sell books will cost him everything. Not to mention, it is clear that he was very much in the minority in his position that President Trump committed a crime.”

After the 60 Minutes interview aired, Trump returned to Truth Social, continuing to attack Pomerantz. 

“Pomerantz & his law firm were Clinton’s lawyers who then went to work for the D.A. to ‘get Trump,’ that Pomerantz & his antics make it impossible for me to be treated fairly, & NOBODY WAS HURT!” Trump said

Pomerantz’s book, “The People vs Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” will be published on Tuesday. It lays out the complicated investigation into Trump and those close to him who were charged with crimes, according to an advance copy obtained by The New York Times.

“Pomerantz got himself a book deal, and is obsessively spreading falsehoods about me,” Trump wrote on Sunday. “With all of this vicious disinformation being revealed by a ‘prosecutor,’ how can I ever be treated fairly in New York, or anywhere else? End the Witch Hunts!”

“Proceeded to touch my groin”: Former aide accuses George Santos of sexual harassment

Scandal-plagued Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., got hit with yet another allegation of misconduct when a former aide accused him of sexual harassment.

CNN’s Manu Raju reports on Twitter that Santos on Monday denied the latest allegations in an interview with fellow CNN reporter Kit Maher.

“It’s comical,” Santos said of the allegations. “Of course, I deny that claim.”

Late on Friday afternoon, former Santos aide Derek Myers published allegations regarding the brief time he worked in Santos’ office.

According to Myers, Santos asked him if he had a profile on dating app Grindr just two days after he started working in the office.

Then, when the two were alone in Santos’ office, the New York congressman allegedly “proceeded to take his hand and move it down my leg into my inner-thigh and proceeded to touch my groin” and asked him if he wanted to stop by his place of residence later.

Myers said he denied Santos’ advances and tried to get him to focus on answering constituents’ concerns. Five days later, his job offer at the office was rescinded.

Santos’ denial of the allegations is sure to draw skepticism given that multiple reports have shown that he fabricated every major aspect of his life, including his academic history, his work history, and his family heritage.

Parents are increasingly taking babies to the chiropractor. Is it safe?

A baby lays on a chiropractor’s table, preparing for an adjustment. First on her belly, then on her back. The chiropractor speaks to the baby softly as she traces the baby’s spine. In the caption of the video on TikTok, Momma Chiro, a chiropractic practitioner located in Huntington Beach, California, says the mom reported the baby is “less fussy” after receiving their chiropractic care. The video is one of many on the chiropractic office’s page claiming chiropractic adjustments for the baby can help with issues like tongue tie, constipation, fussiness, colic and more. 

The Momma Chiro TikTok video is part of a bigger trend on social media: babies at the chiropractor.

A search a TikTok with the hashtag #babychiropractor yields a collection of videos with 26 million views, at the date of publication. Many videos are of clinics, like Momma Chiro, promoting their work. In one, a chiropractor in California adjusts a crying two-week-old’s neck whose mom says the baby hasn’t been breastfeeding. Other videos are of momfluencers promoting the so-called benefits of chiropractic care for newborns and infants. In one TikTok, a mom shares with her followers how she took her two-month-old to a chiropractor for torticollis, which is when a baby’s neck muscles cause its head to turn and rotate to one side. The baby, according to the mom, was also really “irritated,” and wasn’t eating or sleeping well. In the video, the chiropractor proceeds to grab the baby abruptly by his feet, and hang him upside down. While the mom admits she first “flipped out” when the chiropractor grabbed her baby by the feet, she also claims “it worked.” More videos show babies having their backs popped, similar to an adult.

So as social media posts continue to flood the digital sphere, let’s examine a question more new parents are wondering: Should I take my baby to a chiropractor, too?

Dr. Lena van der List, a community pediatrician at the University of California-Davis, told Salon she “absolutely” is seeing more parents ask about chiropractors in her practice when new parents are looking for fast solutions to colic, reflux, constipation, breastfeeding or tongue tie. “Being a parent to a newborn is really hard,” van der List said. “I see why families are going to throw that Hail Mary, to see if there’s anything that they can do to help.” But even as a doctor of osteopathic medicine, someone who is self-described as “more open to complementary practices,” van der List said she is “very hesitant” to use “chiropractic or any type of manipulation on newborns or infants.”

“Newborns and infants are not just little adults, they have a completely different body architecture, their bones are soft and malleable,” she said. “And so even with gentle techniques and gentle pressure, there could be an increased risk for injuries in this age group, in addition, I don’t think there’s any compelling evidence that I’ve seen that chiropractic manipulation can really aid in resolving a lot of these problems that they are advertising that they do.” 


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


Indeed, the evidence is scant on whether or not chiropractor practice can help babies with things like colic, tongue tie or gassiness. While there are some studies that claim there are benefits, the Cochrane Collaboration said in a 2012 review that the studies “involved too few participants and were of insufficient quality to draw confident conclusions about the usefulness and safety of manipulative therapies. A separate study from 2007 found that “adverse events may be associated with pediatric spinal manipulation.” In 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a report on alternative pediatric therapies noting that “serious complications can arise with chiropractic treatment of children.” 

The report also noted “a bias against childhood vaccinations has been shown to exist in chiropractic care.”

“Children 1 through 17 years of age in the care of a chiropractic practitioner were significantly less likely to receive recommended vaccinations, leading to higher risk of vaccine-preventable disease,” the report found, adding that people often take their children for reasons other than a back treatment. 

“There is no evidence of benefit, and there is evidence of harm for doing spinal manipulation.” 

“The AAP supports interventions to increase immunization awareness and recommends that primary care providers encourage and support families in fully immunizing children,” the report said. “High-quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for nonmusculoskeletal concerns is lacking, especially in infants and children, for whom the risks of adverse events may be the highest because of immature stability of the spine.

Still, parents who take their children to chiropractors claim to see results.

According to a 2019 article published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 82 percent of the 2,000 mothers who took their infants to a chiropractic clinic reported an improvement in their child.

Dr. George Gantsoudes, a fellowship-trained pediatric orthopedic surgeon, told Salon he’s had parents of pediatric patients choose to see chiropractors only to have their children return with their conditions unchanged. “There is no evidence of benefit, and there is evidence of harm for doing spinal manipulation,”  Gantsoudes said. “There is no evidence that hip dysplasia can be fixed with chiropractic manipulations.” He added that “there are really good and ethical chiropractors out there” and that he believes they can “be a valuable part of a musculoskeletal team that work to provide care.” 

“However, there are some, like the TikTok infant manipulators, who do not follow any of available evidence and pollute the field,” Gantsoudes said.

Indeed, van der List said that is one of her biggest concerns, that a diagnosis could be delayed. 

“It’s really important that they [parents] first come and talk to their pediatrician, because there are some medical problems that may present like frequent spit up or constipation, or like an unusual headshake, that do require further evaluation and treatment from our end,” van der List said. “And that’s not something that we would want to miss or delay a diagnosis by them going to a chiropractor.”

So, what are parents to do? 

 Van der List added that much of what the TikTok chiropractors claim to fix are just normal issues for babies

“We just have to reassure families that most of these are normal developmental phases, and their kids will get through it on their own,” Van der List said. “And they don’t need to spend this exorbitant amount of money out of pocket with these complementary techniques that really have no evidence that they’re going to be helpful and may even be harmful.”

Here are the 8 top-ranked Trader Joe’s products, according to customers

If you were to spend the rest of your life on a deserted island, which nine Trader Joe’s products would you take with you?

That’s what Trader Joe’s recently asked its customers in the 14th annual Trader Joe’s Customer Choice Awards, which ranks the retailer’s most popular items in nine different categories. This year, TJ’s removed five longstanding contenders that won several times in multiple categories over the last 13 years. The specific products — which include Trader Joe’s Mandarin Orange Chicken, Trader Joe’s Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Cups, Trader Joe’s Peanut Butter Filled Pretzel Nuggets, Trader Joe’s Unexpected Cheddar and Trader Joe’s Soy Chorizo — are all celebrated in its Product Hall of Fame.

As for the results of the Customer Choice Awards, TJ’s determined its nine winners based on votes from more than 18,000 customers. Here’s the complete list of all the products and their respective categories:

01
Top Overall: Chili & Lime Flavored Rolled Corn Tortilla Chips

The slightly spicy and tangy rolled chips, which are reminiscent of Takis, rightfully took home the top prize as TJ’s best available product. Made from stone ground corn masa, the chips can be enjoyed as a stand-alone snack or alongside guacamole and hummus.

 

Runner-ups include TJ’s Hashbrowns, Steamed Chicken Soup Dumplings, Everything but the Bagel Sesame Seasoning Blend and pack of 4 Chocolate Croissants. 

 

The chips also won the #1 Snack category. Trailing behind are TJ’s Organic Elote Corn Chip Dippers, Organic Corn Chip Dippers, World’s Puffiest White Cheddar Corn Puffs and Crunchy Curls.

02
Top Beverage: Sparkling Honeycrisp Apple Juice Beverage

Made from three simple ingredients — 100% Honeycrisp apple juice, water, and lots of carbonation — TJ’s Sparkling Honeycrisp Apple Juice Beverage is a crisp and refreshing drink that’s perfect as an afternoon pick-me-up.

 

Runner-ups include TJ’s seasonal Triple Ginger Brew, Sparkling Peach Black Tea with Peach Juice, seasonal Sparkling Cranberry & Ginger Beverage and Non-Dairy Brown Sugar Oat Creamer.

03
Top Cheese: Cheddar with Caramelized Onions

Inspired by a classic British ploughman’s lunch pairing of cheese and chutney (a sweet/savory condiment originating in India), TJ’s Cheddar with Caramelized Onions is best enjoyed on crackers and rustic bread or in burgers and grilled cheese.

 

Other top-ranked TJ’s cheeses include its Syrah Soaked Toscano, seasonal Baked Lemon Ricotta, Blueberry & Vanilla Chèvre and various brands of Brie.

04
Top Entree: Butter Chicken with Basmati Rice

It’s no surprise that this TJ’s staple secured the award for best entree after countless fans raved about the frozen meal on Reddit. The complete entree features fragrant Basmati rice and tender chicken chunks, coated in a satisfying curry made with crushed tomatoes, cream, onions, garlic, ginger and butter!

 

The runner-ups in the category include TJ’s Chicken Tikka Masala (another popular pick on Reddit), Kung Pao Chicken, seasonal Butternut Squash Mac & Cheese and BBQ Teriyaki Chicken.

05
Top Household: Scented Candles

Trader Joe’s seasonal scented candles are made with a paraben-free, soy-wax blend that’s infused with fragrances and hand-poured into a lidded tin. The candles come in various scents, including Peony Blossom, Cedar Balsam, Honeycrisp Apple, Vanilla Pumpkin, and more.

 

Trailing behind the scented candles are TJ’s Daily Facial Sunscreen, Ultra-Moisturizing Hand Cream, Tea Tree Tingle Shampoo & Conditioner and Shea Butter & Coconut Oil Hair Mask.

06
Top Produce: Bananas

You simply can’t go wrong with Trader Joe’s bananas! Whether your heart craves organic bananas or conventional bananas, TJ’s prized produce are both affordable (the former is 25¢ each while the latter is 19¢ each) and tasty!

 

The runner-ups in the produce category include TJ’s Teeny Tiny Avocados, Honeycrisp Apples, Brussels Sprouts and Organic Carrots of Many Colors.

07
Top Sweet/Dessert: Hold the Cone! Mini Ice Cream Cones

This Trader Joe’s handheld frozen dessert is lined with rich chocolate and filled with creamy ice cream — like Vanilla, Chocolate Chip, Coffee Bean, Chocolate and more — that’s then dipped in a chocolatey coating. A seasonal variation of the dessert is lined with chocolate, filled with Pumpkin Ginger ice cream and dipped in a white confectionary coating.

 

Runner-ups include TJ’s Danish Kringle, Sublime Ice Cream Sandwiches, Chocolate Lava Cakes and Brookie.

08
Top Vegan/Vegetarian: Kale & Cashew Pesto

TJ’s Vegan Kale, Cashew & Basil Pesto is made with kale, cashew butter, and basil that’s mixed together with olive oil, lemon juice, and water, then seasoned with garlic, salt, and pepper. The final condiment can be enjoyed as a spread, a sauce, a dip or, even, a marinade!

 

Other top contenders in the category include TJ’s Vegetable Fried Rice, Beefless Bulgogi, Palak Paneer (a fan-favorite on Reddit!) and Cauliflower Gnocchi.

Koch network to use its millions to “stop Trump from winning GOP nomination” after yearslong silence

The web of conservative activist groups and donors informally known as the “Koch network” plans to oppose former President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential primaries, reported The Washington Post on Sunday — breaking a years-long silence as the network has sat out “overt” politics for a few years.

“The move marks the most notable example to date of an overt and coordinated effort from within conservative circles to stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination for a third straight presidential election,” reported Isaac Arnsdorf. “Some Republicans have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump after disappointing midterm elections in which he drew blame for elevating flawed candidates and polarizing ideas. But absent a consolidated effort to stop Trump, many critics fear he will be able to exploit GOP divisions and chart a course to the nomination as he did in 2016.”

The Koch network’s plans were laid out in a memo released on Sunday by Emily Seidel, director of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) — the flagship group that coordinates the Koch efforts.

“The best thing for the country would be to have a president in 2025 who represents a new chapter,” said the memo. “Lots of people are frustrated. But very few people are in a position to do something about it. AFP is. Now is the time to rise to the occasion.”

The Koch brothers, Charles and David — the latter of whom died in 2019 — are billionaire business tycoons who built a network of chemical companies. For years, they were some of the most well-known right-wing megadonors and villains to liberal activists. After David Koch’s unsuccessful run for vice president in the 1980s, the two largely tried to influence politics from the sidelines, supporting the Tea Party movement in the 2010s and pushing Republican candidates who supported their libertarian philosophy of government.

The Koch brothers, despite their efforts helping to make Trump’s initial election possible in 2016, soured on Trump early in his presidency, and the feeling was mutual, with Trump publicly attacking them during his time in office.

10 best slow cooker chicken recipes for cozy nights in

Slow cookers are lifesavers in the kitchen, especially during busy weeks when (let’s face it) cooking is the last thing you want to do after a long workday. In these cases, the tiniest bit of advance planning can have a major payoff: All it takes is a few minutes of prep in the morning, and by the time you get home, you’ll have a hot meal waiting for you.

Though there’s an endless number of dishes that can be made in a slow cooker, we’re focusing on one of the most versatile proteins out there: chicken. Whether you’re a dark meat evangelist or a fan of a boneless and skinless chicken breast, slow cookers consistently yield a juicy, tender bird without any of the fuss. Here are 10 of our favorite slow cooker chicken recipes.

Our best slow cooker chicken recipes

1. Slow-Cooker Chicken Breasts with Lemon, Sage, and Milk

Cooking chicken breasts directly in whole milk may sound strange at first, but the technique actually results in an ultra-moist (and never dry) texture. Here, the milk is scented with lemon zest and sage, but feel free to use your favorite aromatics instead.

2. Slow Cooker Chicken Wings

These wings are first cooked in the slow cooker, then finished under the broiler for a golden exterior. A simple glaze consisting of hoisin sauce, soy sauce, rice vinegar, and Sriracha finishes off this sticky, sweet, and spicy dish.

3. Slow-Cooker Chicken Parmesan Soup

This dish takes the flavors of chicken parm and transforms them into a cozy soup. And, with the help of the slow cooker, it’s far easier to make than its namesake dish — no breading or frying necessary.

4. Slow-Cooker Chicken Breasts with Creamy Mustard-Leek Sauce

Taking inspiration from a classic French dish typically made with rabbit, this chicken is infused with flavor thanks to an overnight marinade prior to cooking. Paired with buttered noodles and a creamy mustard and white wine sauce, you couldn’t ask for a more comforting meal.

5. Slow-Cooker Rotisserie Chicken

While it’s not technically rotisserie, this chicken will easily rival those you pick up at the supermarket. Make it in advance and use it all week for soups, sandwiches, salads, and more.

6. Slow-Cooker Chicken Soup with Ginger and Fennel

This easy soup calls for cooked chicken — meaning it’s the perfect dish to make with leftovers (see above!). Fresh ginger, scallions, garlic, and fennel revive the already-prepared chicken, while soba or brown rice gives the soup some heft.

7. Crock-Pot Jambalaya

Chicken shares the spotlight with some other proteins — namely shrimp and andouille sausage — in this slow cooker-friendly version of jambalaya. These inclusions give the rice a ton of depth and help make the dish feel like a complete meal.

8. Slow-Cooker Bourbon BBQ Chicken Drumsticks

For sticky, sweet, and savory drumsticks, the chicken is first coated in a blend of spices, then slow cooked in a quick bourbon BBQ sauce. It’s a perfect Game Day snack, party food, or appetizer for entertaining.

9. Slow-Cooker White Wine Chicken with Orzo from Eleni Vonissakou

This chicken and orzo dish might feel fancy with the rich flavors of wine and lemon, but it comes together with the ease of a one-pot meal.

10. Slow-Cooker Mediterranean Chicken Thigh Stew

Don’t be fooled by the deceptively short ingredient list on this recipe. Each one — from the lemon to the Kalamata olives — plays a key role in elevating the humble chicken thigh and creating a balanced, deep flavor.

“I don’t enjoy it”: MTG complains that being in Congress has “made my life miserable”

United States Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., lamented her life as a lawmaker in a recent episode of a podcast.

“The nature of this job – it keeps members of congress and senators in Washington so much of the time, too much of the time to be honest with you, that we don’t get to go home and spend more time with our families, our friends, you know, all in our district, or maybe just be regular people because this job is so demanding, and it’s turned into practically year-round,” Greene said. “And for those of us in the House of Representatives, we have to run for Congress every two years. So you’re practically campaigning nearly the entire time that you’re here serving as a representative. So that’s just a couple of examples that I can give you that I believe is a recipe for disaster, and that’s how people just fall into this social club. I would call it a social club here in Washington, DC.”

Greene successfully ran for a second term in November 2022 and is reportedly yearning for the vice presidency in 2024.

“Now, for me, I have no interest in that. I really don’t. And I’ll tell you why,” she continued. “Becoming a member of Congress has made my life miserable. I made a lot more money before I got here. I’ve lost money since I’ve gotten here. I have people come up to me and say crazy things to me out of the blue in public places that they believe because they read it on the Internet or saw it on some news show about me. So it’s not a life that I think is, like, something that I enjoy because I don’t enjoy it. But I’m committed to this job because I believe in it.”

Watch below or at this link.

Harrowing videos after twin earthquakes devastate Syria and Turkey and leave over 1,600 dead

Thousands of collapsed buildings, widespread destruction, and deep anguish were reported alongside over 1,600 dead and thousands more injured after a pair of earthquakes—an initial 7.8 tremor on the Richter scale in the early morning and another that measured 7.5—devastated Syria and Turkey on Monday.

Amid dozens of aftershocks—and the quakes being also felt in Cyprus, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories—the full scale of the destruction and the ultimate death toll remains unknown, though early estimates of the dead and wounded were rising by the hour.

According to Turkey’s Hurriyet Daily, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan described the quakes as the most severe in the nation since 1939.

The first quake occurred just after 4:00 am local time in Kahramanmaras province, north of Gaziantep, near the Syrian border, while the second took place in the southeastern Turkey.

One television crew was reporting on the first quake in the city of Malatya, when the second one hit:

According to Al-Jazeera:

Rescuers were digging through the rubble of levelled buildings in the city of Kahramanmaras and neighbouring Gaziantep. Crumbled buildings were also reported in Adiyaman, Malatya and Diyarbakir.

The death toll in government-held areas of Syria climbed to 339, according to Syrian state media, with deaths reported in the cities of Aleppo, Hama, Latakia and Tartous.

Around the globe, human rights champions and political leaders offered sympathy to those impacted by the disaster and vowed emergency assistance to both Turkey and Syria.

Agnes Callamard, head of Amnesty International, said her organization was “in deep sorrow” following news of the disaster.

“We extend our deepest condolences to all those who have lost loved ones, and call for the Governments and international community to provide speedy search and relief,” Callamard said.

Filippo Grandi, High Commissioner for Refugees at the United Nations, said, “We at UNHCR stand in solidarity with the people of Türkiye and Syria affected by today’s devastating earthquake and are ready to help provide urgent relief to the survivors through our field teams wherever possible.”

Trump seethes on Truth Social after Pentagon says Chinese spy balloons flew over US on his watch

Former President Donald Trump on Sunday claimed that China never sent alleged spy balloons over the U.S. during his administration — but officials say Chinese surveillance balloons traveled over the U.S. at least three times on his watch.

The U.S. military shot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon on Saturday off the coast of North Carolina, which the Pentagon alleged was used to collect information on military sites. President Joe Biden reportedly authorized the military to shoot down the balloon on Wednesday but military officials determine that shooting down over land was too risky and waited until it was over the ocean as Republicans criticized the administration for not downing it sooner.

“SHOOT DOWN THE BALLOON!” Trump demanded on Truth Social on Friday.

“The Chinese would never have floated the Blimp (‘Balloon’) over the United States if I were President!!!” he wrote in another post on Sunday.

Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said in a statement last week that the balloon did not pose a “military or physical threat to people on the ground” and revealed that similar activity had been “observed previously over the past several years.”

A senior Pentagon official on Saturday told reporters that suspected Chinese government surveillance balloons “transited the continental United States briefly at least three times during the prior administration and once that we know of at the beginning of this administration, but never for this duration of time.”

Trump denied the Pentagon’s statement on his social media network.

“Now they are putting out that a Balloon was put up by China during the Trump Administration, in order to take the ‘heat’ off the slow moving Biden fools,” he wrote. “China had too much respect for ‘TRUMP’ for this to have happened, and it NEVER did. JUST FAKE DISINFORMATION!”

Trump also told Fox News Digital that it “never happened with us under the Trump administration and if it did, we would have shot it down immediately.”


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


Multiple former administration officials also denied the statement.

Former national security adviser John Bolton told Fox that he was 100% certain there were not any balloon flights during his tenure. John Ratcliffe, Trump’s former director of national intelligence, told Fox News the statement was “not true.” Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CNN he was “surprised” by the Pentagon’s statement.

“I don’t ever recall somebody coming into my office or reading anything that the Chinese had a surveillance balloon above the United States,” Esper said. “I would remember that for sure.”

A senior Biden administration official told Fox News that “U.S. intelligence, not the Biden administration, but U.S. intel assesses PRC government surveillance balloons transited the continental U.S. briefly at least three times during the prior administration and once that we know of at the beginning of this administration, but never for this duration of time.”

The unnamed official added that “two things can be true at once: this happened, and it wasn’t detected.”

Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said that the office of the Secretary of Defense informed him that “several Chinese balloon incidents have happened in the past few years — including over Florida.”

“Why weren’t they shot down?” Waltz questioned.

“And according to several Trump Admin national security officials – they were never informed of these intrusions by the Pentagon,” he wrote on Twitter.

The Biden administration offered to brief Trump and senior members of his administration on the intelligence about the earlier flights, according to Politico.

“This information was discovered after the prior administration left,” a senior defense official told the outlet. “The intelligence community is prepared to offer key officials from the Trump administration briefings on [China’s] surveillance program.”

Republicans have continued to criticize Biden’s handling of the situation while ignoring the reports about the Trump administration. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on Sunday told ABC News that he agreed that debris from shooting down the balloon over land could have “hurt, harmed or killed people” but argued that Biden should have gone on national television to explain “what we’re dealing with.”

“None of that happened. And I don’t know why. I don’t know why they waited so long to tell people about this,” Rubio said.

“This happened three times under the previous president,” replied host Jon Karl. “Obviously, there were no public notifications there.”

Jim Jordan sends Republicans on a wild goose chase with “weaponization” probe

If you need proof that the Republican Party is fully in the hands of far-right extremists, look no further than the case of Congressman Jim Jordan.

The Ohio Republican,  first elected in 2006, is the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Jordan has been a right-wing bomb thrower and ruthless partisan street fighter from the start. An early endorser of the Tea Party and a founder of the hardcore austerity crusaders the Freedom Caucus, Jordan was always at the center of the obstructionist tactics during the Obama years. He then ran interference for Donald Trump during his many scandals. From Tea Party to Freedom Caucus to MAGA, for the last 16 years, Jim Jordan has been the quintessential far-right Republican, in whatever permutation that is at a given time. 

Jordan was involved in the efforts to oust former GOP Speaker John Boehner as a member of the Freedom Caucus, causing Boehner to dub him a “legislative terrorist” which is a very accurate description of his tactics. And he led unsuccessful efforts to do the same to his successor Paul Ryan. Jordan was part of the plots in both 2011 and 2013 to shut down the government and hold the debt ceiling hostage in order to force spending cuts and repeal Obamacare. But his specialty has always been his vicious questioning of Democrats as a member of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

Back in 2015, for instance, he angrily harangued Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards about a formal apology she made on behalf of the organization insisting that it wasn’t good enough. And who can forget his grilling of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the famous 11-hour marathon interrogation about the Benghazi attacks in 2015? He accused her of lying, suggesting that she personally tried to cover up the attacks because the Libya mission was supposed to look like a big success. In both of those cases, the women he attacked more than held their own but Jordan was hailed as a hero on the right for doing it.

During the Trump years, he was out front as a full-blown Trump accomplice in everything he tried to do from pushing for the impeachment of the acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein over the Mueller Investigation to leading the congressional defense against Trump’s two impeachments. He was so close to Trump that he spoke with him personally for 10 minutes on the morning of January 6th and then refused to honor a subpoena from the J6 Committee seeking to question him about what they said. (His close ally Kevin McCarthy actually had the nerve to try to place him on that committee prompting then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to veto the choice, for obvious reasons.)

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Jordan will be leading a potential impeachment of the Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas simply because they just have to impeach some people and he seems to be the first in line. Jordan already issued subpoenas to Joe Biden’s administration demanding documents for an investigation into the government’s alleged treatment of parents as “terrorists” (which is completely nonsense) when it issued directives to look into people who were threatening school officials with violence over mask mandates and imaginary Critical Race Theory curriculum. (Republicans apparently believe such behavior falls under the rubric of “parental rights.”)

That is the first salvo in what Jordan has promised will be his mission. He plans to take on the Department of Justice, which the Republicans believe is a hotbed of woke liberal activists out to use the long arm of the law to silence conservatives wherever they are found. To that end, they have formed the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government which Jordan will personally oversee. They’ve already begun their investigations by interviewing a former FBI agent who was fingered by an unnamed whistleblower to have been at the center of a liberal cabal that’s out to get Republicans. According to CNN, Matt Gaetz was involved in the questioning which indicates how credible this investigation is already since he has personally been the subject of a serious DOJ investigation for which he asked former president Trump for a pardon.

Considering the Republican proclivity for projection, it’s almost certain that they will do exactly what they are accusing the Department of Justice of doing.

This subcommittee will “be authorized to receive information available to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,” giving it access to the most closely held secrets of the U.S. government, which is slightly terrifying. Considering the Republican proclivity for projection, it’s almost certain that they will do exactly what they are accusing the Department of Justice of doing.

Despite the crude partisanship and conspiracy-mongering that already defined the judiciary committee under Jordan, he is reportedly attempting to present himself as some sort of fair-minded moderate who is deeply committed to maintaining the committee’s credibility. CNN reported on the first meeting of the so-called “weaponization” committee:

Rather than issuing a series of partisan attack lines about the so-called “Deep State,” Jordan took a low-key approach – handing out binders of reading materials and cautioning members to be meticulous about who they haul in for interviews, a source familiar with the meeting told CNN. “We’re going to try to get all the facts on the table for the American people, because that’s always the first step,” Jordan told CNN after the Jan. 27 meeting.

Jordan can try to project the image of a serious investigation but it’s not going to work.


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


Consider what has just been revealed about the vaunted “investigation of the investigation” by Special Counsel John Durham. He and former Attorney General Bill Barr also set up the pretense of running a sober inquiry when it’s now clear they were on a snipe hunt to prove that poor Donald Trump was the victim of a Deep State conspiracy. Jordan and his henchmen are taking up the same mission — and it’s likely to fail in exactly the same way.

Before the election, Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., spoke to Politico about what to expect from Jim Jordan in the new Congress. He said:

“Jim sort of had several roles: You know, point man for spreading right wing poison. You know, cheap underminer of prominent Democrats, character assassin. Those are his skill sets that he would bring to whatever the status of the Republicans is in the new Congress. But legislating, working across the aisle, are not among those skills.”

Being a serious, thoughtful leader of a credible bipartisan investigation are not among his skills either. The idea that he is suddenly transformed into a statesman along the lines of Frank Church, who led the investigations into the Intelligence agencies back in the 1970s, is simply ludicrous. But I suppose by today’s standards he’s probably the best they can hope for. Jim Jordan is now what passes as a respected member of the GOP establishment.

Got gastro? Here’s why eating bananas helps but drinking flat lemonade might not

Doctors are reportedly concerned about a spike in the number of kids with gastroenteritis — when tummy infections can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, abdominal pain, headache and muscle aches.

Rotavirus is a common cause of gastroenteritis in children, and the reported rotavirus rate in New South Wales, Australia, so far this year is five times what it usually is.

While there’s a lot of gastroenteritis occurring, the good news is the vast majority of cases kids will have an uneventful recovery.

Still, parents and carers get a lot of conflicting advice about the food and drinks kids should consume during recovery from the illness. Let’s look at the evidence.

Old advice: the BRAT diet

One widely known dietary recommendation when recovering from gastroenteritis is the BRAT diet. This stands for bananas, rice, applesauce and toast. These bland foods are meant to be gentle on the gut, which is important when a person is recovering from gastroenteritis.

Applesauce is a distinctly American food product, and indeed, the first mention of this diet was in an American report in 1926 on the treatment of “intestinal intoxication” in children.

The BRAT diet was historically recommended, but it has fallen out of favor over the past couple of decades. There are no clinical trials on the diet itself, but evidence to support it came from studies that demonstrated how each food in the BRAT diet could help with gastro recovery.

Bananas and apples are rich in a starch called pectin that can form a gel, which helps to treat diarrhea. Green banana pulp and flour in particular were found to reduce diarrhea in children. Bananas are also a rich source of potassium, which can help to replace potassium lost with diarrhea.

Rice-based oral rehydration solutions (a drink made from a mixture of water, rice, glucose, sodium and potassium salts) used to treat gastroenteritis reduce the volume of stools and duration of diarrhea in patients. A study from Bangladesh on infants with persistent diarrhea found a rice-based diet containing green banana or pectin improved stool consistency and reduced the duration more than a diet of rice alone.

Magic apples

The use of apples to treat diarrhea is thought to have started in Germany, where a nurse called Sister Frieda Klimsch used the fruit to treat dysentery (a severe form of gastroenteritis) in a hospital.

Another origin story tells of how a doctor in a German prison camp noticed prisoners with dysentery who ate apples from a nearby orchard had shorter and milder illness. The doctor started encouraging them to eat apples to treat diarrhea.

Eating apple peel was observed to lead to vomiting in infants in the 1930s and so the peel was removed. Grated apple was used to treat diarrhea in children around the same period and was helpful in some cases.

Later, applesauce became the recommended form of apple for gastroenteritis recovery in the U.S., and features in the BRAT diet. Interestingly, giving diluted apple juice to children with mild dehydration from gastroenteritis is both safe and effective.

Why gastro diet advice has changed

Over the past 20 years or so, most health professionals have come to the conclusion the restricted BRAT diet is unhealthy in gastroenteritis recovery because it is low in protein, fat and energy. All these nutrients are necessary for healing.

Studies have shown, in general, normal eating does not worsen the course of gastroenteritis. So, it’s not necessary to restrict your child’s diet. Fasting when recovering from gastroenteritis is not recommended, but it’s important to consider the child and ease into the reintroduction of foods.

It turns out fat, lactose and sucrose absorption during diarrhea is limited — so it’s sensible to avoid fatty foods and foods high in simple sugars (including juices and soft drinks) for moderate to severe diarrhea as these could worsen symptoms.

Flat soft drinks?

Flat soft drinks such as colas and lemonade warrant a special mention. Some view these drinks as an option to replenish fluids and glucose lost by vomiting and diarrhea, but research has shown that this may not be a good idea.

One British study searched the medical literature going back to the 1950s for evidence to support the use of soft drinks in gastroenteritis. They found none.

Then the researchers compared the contents of colas and other sodas with commercially available oral-rehydration solutions containing electrolytes and small amounts of sugar. They found the soft drinks not only contained very low amounts of potassium, sodium and other electrolytes, but in some cases as much as seven times the glucose recommended by the World Health Organization for rehydration.

Carbonated drinks, flat or otherwise, are therefore not considered to provide adequate fluid or electrolytes and are not recommended.

So what should you eat and drink during gastroenteritis recovery?

Appropriate foods include fruits, vegetables, lean meats and yogurts, as well as complex carbohydrates, such as wheat, rice, bread, potatoes and cereals.

Parents of young children with mild gastroenteritis should keep them hydrated by encouraging fluid intake through water and milk and discourage fruit juices and carbonated drinks.

For moderate or severe cases, the appropriate fluid for oral rehydration is commercially available oral rehydration solution (such a Gastrolyte or Hydralyte).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 174 studies concluded the use of a probiotic (Saccharomyces boulardii) and zinc supplementation can help during recovery from gastroenteritis, reducing the duration of diarrhea as well as stool volume.

If symptoms or dehydration are severe, then you should take your child to see a GP or go to the closest hospital emergency department.

Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and clinical academic gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

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

George Santos is the superstar MAGA deserves

The political media fascination with Rep. George Santos, the New York Republican who appears to have faked approximately 95% of his life, is such that it was inevitable that it would draw a “savvy” backlash piece scolding the press about their priorities. The wannabe party pooper finally emerged last week at the Washington Post in an opinion column headlined, “Real people don’t care about George Santos.” In it, self-assigned buzzkill David Byler argued  “America doesn’t seem to care” about Santos, which he can tell based on Google search traffic. 

Our nation was founded by puritans, so as soon as people had a laugh over Santos, inevitably someone would shake their finger disapprovingly. But there were some flaws in Byler’s argument, starting with his assumption that Santos’ own embarrassed constituents are not “real” people. There’s also the fact that Google Trends isn’t a very exacting measure of interest in a subject, as it only measures if people are searching out information. It doesn’t capture people who read articles they saw on social media or directly on a news website. Traffic to stories about Santos is plenty healthy on that front. 

But perhaps most importantly, this narrow-minded focus on search traffic ignores what a lot of the sneered-at political observers saw coming a mile away: The imminent George Santos makeover into MAGA’s Next Top Superstar.

Santos may not matter to “average” Americans, but his story is being leveraged directly into the right-wing propaganda machine that currently controls the Republican Party. On Thursday night, for instance, Santos was sanctified into the echelon of MAGA saints by the Pope of neo-fascism himself, Tucker Carlson. In a typically dishonest segment on his wildly popular Fox News show, Carlson painted Santos as a hapless victim of the bigoted news media by pretending that the only thing Santos lied about was his volleyball career. (Which is one of the more minor fake careers and hobbies Santos has claimed on his resume.) Media Matters has a sample of the extremely silly diatribe:

It was a tissue of lies constructed to deceive the American people. There was no volleyball scholarship. There was not a single dollar of volleyball scholarship. George Santos made it all up out of whole cloth, out of thin air. George Santos is an ersatz volleyball player. A fraud, a ghoul. People voted for this man believing he had played collegiate volleyball on a scholarship and he hadn’t. 

And yet tonight ladies and gentlemen, this thief of volleyball glory strides the halls of the United States Congress unimpeded by law enforcement. It’s like another insurrection.


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


Carlson doesn’t really have arguments or evidence, but he does do a bang-up impression of someone sarcastically brushing aside nonsense. Except what he’s brushing away is usually pretty serious stuff, such as fascist attacks on democracy, attempts to save lives during a pandemic, or, in this case, unbelievable amounts of fraud that look potentially criminal in many cases. With Santos, the number of lies Carlson is ignoring is truly staggering. Santos lied about his resume, his religion, his marriage, his family history, and claimed connections he doesn’t have to the Holocaust, 9/11, the Pulse nightclub shooting, and an assassination attempt that appears fictional. It is really no exaggeration to say it’s easier to list the things he hasn’t lied about (his age and his birthplace in Queens). 

For the Trumpist right, aggressive trolling is what politics is all about.

But just as Catholic saints get their status through martyrdom, the saints of MAGAdom must get theirs through falsified tales of victimhood at the hands of “woke mobs” or the “fake news media.”

People right-wingers hate are alarmed at Santos and his staggering trail of fraud. So if the “libs” have a negative reaction to Santos, in the troll-based logic that drives the modern GOP, that must mean he’s their newest champion. And let’s just state for the record that, while Byler may not see left-leaning news consumers as “real people,” he probably wouldn’t say the same about the millions of Trump voters whose entire worldview is shaped by the crap that Fox News pours into their heads every day. 

Carlson didn’t reach the conclusion that Santos is the latest MAGA idol all on his own. Practically from the moment that Santos’s deceit was exposed by the New York Times, Steve Bannon, the Joseph Goebbels-wannabe who frequently sets the GOP agenda with his popular “War Room” podcast, was championing the pathological liar. Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia have also rallied to Santos’ side, claiming he’s only a target because he’s a “fighter.” It’s unclear who he has ever “fought” for besides himself, but then again, the same could be said of most MAGA figures, from Donald Trump on down.

It’s not a mystery why these leaders think the right-wing audience is ready to accept Santos as the next MAGA savior. All that matters to the modern right is “owning the liberals,” and who better to do that than someone who lies constantly for no apparent reason other than the sheer thrill of it?


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


Certainly, Santos seems to grasp that the move that will take him from a low-level con man to the ranks of the richest MAGA grifters is to lean into trolling. So he’s been rolling out the standard issue liberal-owning stunts for weeks now: Flashing the white supremacist-aligned “OK” hand signal during a House vote. (He even knew how to do it so it was clear enough to photograph but so quick he could pretend later it wasn’t intentional.) Wearing an assault rifle pin while playing dumb about why it offends people to celebrate the preferred weapons of mass shooters. Feeding the press donuts and acting like they had somehow become complicit in the evil by eating them. Getting into Twitter fights with drag queens, who are the favorite punching bag of the authoritarian right. (Santos seems to have a past as a drag queen, as well, but this is just part of a favorite right-wing trolling tactic, to recruit members of a hated minority to speak out against their own.) Dunking on former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., for criticizing him by tweeting “cry about it.” 

Reports suggest Santos is delighted by all the negative attention he’s getting in the press. An exceptionally short-lived aide recorded a conversation in which Santos was dressing him down, and right in the middle of it, Santos suddenly exclaims, “Don Lemon just texted me — I’m sorry, I’m listening to you — Don Lemon just texted me!” Getting his name on CNN, even during a story on how he is the worst, was just that thrilling to Santos. 

Santos is living the fascist dream of a man whose entire existence seems unmoored from the power of facts.

Santos even hired former Steve Bannon employee and professional troll, Vish Burra, as a top aide. Burra’s defense of Santos is cynical and self-congratulatory: The lying is a form of “shitposting,” which is internet speak for saying outlandish things to draw outrage and attention. For the Trumpist right, aggressive trolling is what politics is all about.

Imagining that they’re outraging the left is what the GOP audience gets out of this. (No one tell them that the left’s reaction to Santos is more amusement than genuine fury.) But there’s an even darker reason that Carlson, Bannon, Taylor Greene, etc. have decided to rally round Santos: He’s very useful as a weapon in their larger war on truth. 

As with Trump, it’s overly simplistic to look at these people, with their non-stop disinformation, as mere liars. Liars are people who are sincerely trying to deceive people. In many cases, it’s not at all evident that right-wing audiences actually believe the asinine B.S. that is rolled out by the likes of Carlson and Bannon. For instance, the “outrage” over M&M spokescandy shoe choices is less sincere anger than it is a collective bit of performance art. Both Carlson and his audience merely pretend to be mad as a way to keep ironic distance from their own weird sexual hang-ups. Similarly, conspiracy theories like Trump’s Big Lie are often less about true belief and more about displaying fealty to their tribe. 

There’s a point to right-wingers constantly saying and “believing” things they know not to be true. It’s about devaluing empirical reality. Fascists want “truth” to flow from what the right-wing authority figures say is “true,” not from lived experience or verifiable facts. They are trying to construct a world where facts don’t matter, and only power does. The first step is getting their tribal community to agree collectively to stop distinguishing between true and false and to only claim to believe what is convenient for their leaders or their cause.

For that goal, Santos is useful. He is living the fascist dream of a man whose entire existence seems unmoored from the power of facts. If the MAGA leaders can turn him into a hero, he’d be a living exemplar of their post-truth yearnings: “Truth” can be whatever you want it to be. After all, right-wingers already hate the way facts — Trump lost the election, COVID-19 is real, LGBTQ people exist — get in the way of their desires. They just need permission to let go of that last tendril of reality and start living purely in their authoritarian fantasy world. Santos shows the way. It’s unlikely he will be going away any time soon. 

DeSantis’ alternative African-American history is doomed: Black conservatives can’t replace CRT

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently declared that it was a crime to teach the Advanced Placement (AP) African American studies course to Florida’s high school students. The Republican claimed that African-American studies has no “educational value” and basically is some type of trojan horse and “mind virus” to indoctrinate young (white) people in woke ideology. DeSantis and his agents specifically targeted the AP African American studies course because it included gay and queer authors, the Black Lives Matter Movement, references to critical race theory, intersectionality and reparations.

However packaged and massaged, DeSantis and his agents are communicating their belief that Black people don’t have any “real” history that merits being taught at an advanced level in public schools, or anywhere else. This, however, is obviously not true.

It is also the very definition of white supremacy and racism. 

DeSantis’ latest attempt to purge Black history is insulting and dehumanizing to Black people. Such acts of erasure and othering are also a prelude to and encouragement for actual physical violence against Black people as well. [More African Americans were lynched in Florida on a per capita basis than in any other state in the country.] These efforts also assume that white people (and others invested in Whiteness) are dimwits too controlled by white racial fragility to be exposed to complex truths and facts about American society. 

What DeSantis and the other Republican fascists want is a country where white people are never made to feel uncomfortable.

Moreover, these attacks are part of a national political project by Republicans. The strategy and tactics are being tested at the state level before being expanded across the country. Florida (along with Texas) is one of the main laboratories for this evil experiment. And predictably, the College Board, which administers the AP courses and exams surrendered to DeSantis’ hostage-taking. Meanwhile, more than 24 states have tried to limit or ban critical race theory from the classroom, according to a tracking project by UCLA.

There are large sums of money involved in selling the AP curriculum to America’s schools. As Judd Legum of Popular Info notes, “right-wing criticism of the AP African American Studies course presents a financial threat. It needs more students than ever to enroll in AP courses” after many colleges and universities shifted to a test-optional admissions process during the pandemic. As such, the College Board surrendered — because profits matter more than principles.


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


In an interview at Time Magazine, Harvard University historian Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, who helped to design the AP African-American Studies pilot course, offered this rebuttal to DeSantis’ thought crime attacks:

The governor also says AP African American Studies would “indoctrinate” students.

One of our goals is to have students look at topics from a variety of angles. This is the farthest thing from indoctrination. How you look at a subject from different angles is best done through interdisciplinary work. And this is an interdisciplinary course.

[…]

One of the major points that comes out of this course is that Black people are not a monolith. The people of African descent are themselves of different ethnicities, of different ideologies and political persuasions. They are different as far as income, as far as education. And we’re trying to capture that complexity. There’s certain things that will be similar. But the richness of it is the complexity within a narrative that allows for students to disagree. And we want students to disagree. We want respectful and civil debate.

So in an effort to appease DeSantis and his thought crime enforcers, the College Board has included a project in its revised AP African-American studies course where students can focus on “black conservatives.”

But what would this actually look like in practice?

As I explained in an earlier essay here at Salon there is a long and rich history of authentic Black conservative thought that confronts white supremacy and is born of a real sense of love and linked fate to the Black community. Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey are examples of authentic Black conservatism (both in the form of Black Nationalism) that is rooted in the Black community. An accurate consideration of their political thought and contributions would almost certainly not be included in DeSantis’ preferred teaching.

But for today’s Republican Party, “black conservative” is a type of performance and character, a political race minstrel show, where Black people are used as human puppets to validate, pander to, legitimate, and perform white supremacy and other anti-Black beliefs under the guise of “conservative values.” A “black conservative” curriculum would likely include the following inaccuracies, outright lies and white supremacist storytelling as the following:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican and racism would no longer be a problem if we just followed his dream and stopped talking about it. Black America’s problems would be cured if Black people just followed King’s vision and stopped “hating” white people and voting for Democrats.

“Black Confederates” were some of America’s original conservatives. They were great patriots and should be studied as proof that the Civil War was not over slavery but instead “states’ rights” and “individual freedom.” 

Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, and Herman Cain are the greatest black Americans to ever live.

Right-wing libertarianism, objectivism, and “free markets” are the best path to real freedom for Black America. Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Ronald Reagan are the closest things to God.

“The Democrat Party” destroyed the Black family.

Abortion is a form of “genocide” to destroy “the black race”.

There is a vast parallel set of public and private institutions including think tanks, schools, mass media, public relations firms, donors, political entrepreneurs, and other individuals and organizations that are dedicated to developing, financing, and circulating right-wing disinformation and propaganda. As seen with today’s “black conservatives” it is very lucrative to feed at this trough. DeSantis’ assault on public education and his thought crime agenda reflects a larger dynamic where today’s Republicans and “conservatives” believe that dogma and self-serving myths are the same as empirical reality and facts. In that alternate universe, partisanship, right-wing orthodoxy and political correctness replace the facts, reality, and the truth.

What DeSantis and the other Republican fascists want is a country where white people are never made to feel uncomfortable. In essence, white people should never be made to feel challenged in “their own country” by Black or brown people who dare to speak the truth. The ability to choose how, where, when and in what ways that one will be made to feel uncomfortable (or not) is one of the basic tenets of white privilege – and other forms of privilege as well. DeSantis and his allies in Florida and across the country are abusing African-American history (and education more broadly) to fit that expectation. At the Washington Post, Karen Attiah summarizes this upside down nightmare dreamworld of white fantasies and paranoia as: “Instead, by singling out AP African American studies, Florida is showing us what the end game was always about: making institutional anti-Blackness lawful again”.

In the end for Desantis, Trump, and those many tens of millions of other Americans who worship at the throne of Whiteness, America is a White man’s country and Black and brown people are just guests.

GOP mocked Al Gore as “Ozone Man”: But he was right the whole time — and they knew it

Before there was climate denial, there was “Ozone Man.”

The Republican Party’s long, messy divorce from reality began in October 1992, when President George H.W. Bush derided Al Gore, then the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, as “Ozone Man,” someone who would put us “up to our necks in owls — and outta work for every American.” 

Bush was referring to Gore’s early warning about the public health threat posed by growing concentrations of CFCs, the chemical refrigerants used In air conditioners,  which were rapidly degrading the ozone layer that screens the earth from dangerous UV solar radiation.

Ironically enough, as vice president himself five years earlier Bush had submitted for Senate ratification the UN’s Montreal Protocol, which aimed to phase out CFC production in response to Gore’s concerns. In fact, only a few months before Bush’s dig at Gore, the Bush administration had agreed to strengthen that very Montreal Protocol, concluding  that this would “constitute a major step forward in protecting public health and the environment from …. stratospheric ozone depletion.” 

But the political press allowed Bush license to mock Gore for sounding an alarm that had been fully conceded  — and even acted upon — by his own administration. That was a leading indicator of the steady deterioration in media accountability around the accuracy of political debate on environmental science. 

Thirty years later, just last month, we got some remarkable good news. The World Meteorological Organization issued a forecast that the ozone hole is not only shrinking, but will be fully healed in most of the world by 2040. While the net effect of historic CFC degradation of the ozone layer will still mean an increase in cancer cases — likely several hundred thousand additional cases by the year 2100 — researchers estimate that without the Montreal treaty an additional 400 million people could have suffered from skin cancer. 

Overall, this is a astonishing demonstration both of the damage that reckless technology can wrea, and the human ability to respond and dramatically limit the actual costs of these risks. 

Republicans have long since stopped celebrating such progress. Bush’s “Ozone Man” jibe was the beginning of a steady Republican retreat from the two key lessons of the ozone layer threat: First, that 21st-century technology is powerful enough, when misused, to disrupt the stability of climate and other global systems on which civilization depends; and second, that collective human cooperation, combined with innovative technology and functioning markets, can limit and even repair such damage.

The lessons of the recovery of the ozone layer can be summed up in eight simple words: “We caused these problems; we can solve them.”  


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


One of the places to benefit most from healing the ozone layer isAmerica’s Sunshine State, Florida. Even as Bush was chiding Gore as “Ozone Man,” Florida’s TV weather forecasters were debating how best to tell the state’s residents to stay out of the Sun without scaring off the tourists. (Unlike Republican politicians, the meteorologists didn’t think they could just make snide jokes.) 

In a world without the Montreal phase-out of CFCs, Florida’s biggest asset — sunshine — would have become a lethal liability. Outdoor sunbathing would have become far too dangerous for many tourists, and outdoor recreation in general would have been significantly hampered. Instead, thanks to a UN treaty and industry development of ozone-safe refrigerants, Florida managed to dodge most of the UV cancer crisis. 

In a different Republican Party — one still connected to reality — Ron DeSantis might be a conservative focused on pragmatic climate solutions. But that party does not exist.

Florida, of course, is also ground zero for risk from climate change today. Indeed, the early coastal indicators of climate destruction — sea level rise, hurricane intensity, algae blooms, tidal flooding — already threaten the state’s quality of life. Public concern reached levels that led Gov. Ron DeSantis far ahead of most Republican governors in campaigning, and governing, on the need to increase community climate resilience — even if DeSantis hardly ever says the word “climate.” He just says Florida is “flood prone.” The reason for the hedge is obvious: Naming the cause might cause voters to wonder whether Florida should try to minimize catastrophic flooding, not just prepare for it. Wouldn’t it be better to deal with the climate crisis as we dealt with the ozone layer — by attacking the problem at its source?

Don’t expect DeSantis to risk becoming a new Al Gore — potentially mocked by his Republican colleagues — for suggesting that the Sunshine State could lead the U.S. toward a prevention policy on climate chaos. The political media certainly wouldn’t reward him for that, even though the issue isn’t very complicated: Florida should simply harvest the state’s ample sunshine to make up for the energy the oil industry seeks off its beaches. Interestingly, almost all Florida Republican politicians, DeSantis included, oppose offshore oil drilling. He has also stood out by opposing Florida utilities’ “only outlaws install solar panels” campaign, vetoing a utility-backed bill that would have limited the state’s rooftop solar households. 

In a different Republican Party, one in which candidates said things about critical environmental and climate problems that were measured for their connection to reality, DeSantis might have a viable option of saying, “I’m helping to find sensible, conservative solutions to the climate problem — and I don’t need to be a left-winger to do so.” 

But that would also require the political media to start reporting on “Ozone Man”-style mockery not for its gotcha value, but as serious environmental policy with serious consequences. Serious environmental policy is exactly what George H.W. Bush ran away from in the fall of 1992. What he empowered, of course, was the fake news that still plagues us today.

Mike Pence calls for privatizing Social Security: They “keep saying the quiet part out loud”

Former Vice President Mike Pence, a possible 2024 presidential candidate, has voiced support for a Social Security privatization scheme that the George W. Bush administration unsuccessfully pushed nearly two decades ago.

In a closed-door event Thursday hosted by the National Association of Wholesale-Distributors, a corporate trade group, Pence said he believes that “the day could come when we can replace the New Deal with a better deal, literally give younger Americans the ability to take a portion of their Social Security withholdings and put that into a private savings account that the government would oversee.”

“I mean, a very simple fund that could generate 2% would give the average American twice what they’re going to get back on their Social Security today. And it could save the government money doing it,” Pence said, according to video footage obtained by the Democratic-aligned group American Bridge 21st Century.

Watch:

Experts have forcefully rejected the notion that private savings accounts of the kind Pence endorsed — which would allow workers to divert a portion of their payroll tax contributions into private investment accounts — would be more beneficial than Social Security’s guaranteed benefits, as the former vice president suggested.

“The popular argument that Social Security privatization would provide higher returns for all current and future workers is misleading, because it ignores transition costs and differences across programs in the allocation of aggregate and household risk,” Olivia Mitchell, John Geanakopolos, and Stephen Zeldes — economists sympathetic to the idea of privatization — wrote in a 2000 paper.

Experts have also said private accounts would not, as Pence put it, “save the government money.”

In 2005, analysts with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimated that a privatization plan put forth by former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., and former Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would “create $85.8 trillion in additional debt (equal to 93.7% of GDP) by 2050” while not boosting Social Security’s long-term solvency — something Republicans claim they want to do.


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


“Creation of a system of private accounts would not change the amount of revenue coming into the federal government, but it would increase government spending, because the federal government would be making regular payments into the private accounts,” the CBPP analysts explained. “These payments would represent new government spending. This increase in spending, unaccompanied by an increase in revenues, would widen annual deficits.”

Despite the myriad drawbacks of private accounts as a partial or full-scale alternative to Social Security, Republicans have continued to promote them.

Last year, the Republican Study Committee — a panel that Pence chaired during the Bush administration — released a budget proposal that urged lawmakers to “consider legislative options that allow employers and employees to reduce their payroll tax liability and use those savings to invest in private retirement options.”

Pence’s remarks Thursday came as the White House and House Republicans are locked in a high-stakes standoff over the debt ceiling, which the GOP does not want to raise without also inflicting steep cuts to federal spending.

As part of their sweeping austerity push, House Republicans have suggested raising the retirement age, which would cut Social Security benefits across the board.

“Republicans keeping saying the quiet part out loud: They want to cut and privatize Social Security and take away our young people’s futures,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, tweeted late Saturday. “Democrats will never let this happen.”

Behold, the new Republican culture war — because they have nothing else

Republicans are resorting to their age-old tactic of manufactured moral outrage to distract from the fact that they have no economic agenda other than to enrich the already wealthy. It would be laughable if their culture wars didn’t have a deadly impact on people’s lives. From attacks on the right to an abortion, to the right to be transgender, to the right to study accurate history, conservative attacks on vulnerable populations have reached a fever pitch. And it’s destroying the nation.

As if overturning Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court in 2022 wasn’t enough, 20 GOP state attorneys general are now targeting pharmacy chains Walgreens and CVS for fulfilling mail orders of the abortion drug mifepristone. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a federal agency, in January expanded availability of the drug across the country. The abortion pill was relatively unknown some years ago but is now used in more than half of all abortions nationwide, likely in response to the rapidly disappearing access to surgical abortions. Now, as they go after mail-order abortion pills, Republicans are showing just how hell-bent they are on ensuring that the bodies of women (and transgender men) remain glorified baby incubators.

Republicans claim that in addition to protecting the life of a collection of fetal cells that they are determined to personify, they are working in the interests of women’s health. Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey explained his opposition to the abortion pill in a written statement, saying he was merely “protecting the health of women and their unborn children.”

However, not only are abortion pills safer than penicillin or Viagra, but going through pregnancy and childbirth is far more dangerous to women’s health than aborting a fetus. According to a New York Times report on one study of the effects of abortion restrictions on women, “Women who were denied an abortion and gave birth reported more chronic headaches or migraines, joint pain and gestational hypertension compared with those who had an abortion.” Furthermore, “They also reported more life-threatening complications like eclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage, and burdens that included higher exposure to domestic violence and increased poverty.” (It is a wonder that some of us choose to have children at all.)

The GOP’s war on transgender people has also gained steam. Just as Republicans are determined to control the bodies of people who want to terminate pregnancies, they are battling the right of transgender people to transition via surgeries, hormone supplements, or other gender-affirming medical treatments. It’s a shocking attack on people’s right to be who they want and need to be—one that targets young people in particular.

Again, the right wing uses concerns over health as cover for its attacks on human rights. For example, GOP lawmakers in Texas have introduced 35 anti-LGBTQ bills, three of which would view medical care as child abuse. But, even though the vast majority of the anti-LGBTQ bills that are introduced fail to become law, according to the Trevor Project, the debate itself is deeply traumatizing for young people. The organization found that “86% of transgender and nonbinary youth say recent debates around anti-trans bills have negatively impacted their mental health.” It has further encouraged bullying, and the risk of suicide.


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


Writing in the Nation, Amy Littlefield and Heron Greenesmith point out how “The right is deploying tactics against trans rights that are eerily similar to those mounted against abortion rights over the past five decades.” It’s the same Republican playbook over and over: claim that attacks on vulnerable people are in their own best interests to distract from the fact that the party has no actual plan to make people’s lives truly better.

Like the attacks on abortion and transgender rights, Republicans are also so worried about the supposed harm to students of American history that their third major battlefront is educational courses that question white supremacy and its impact. Claiming they are fighting a college-level academic approach to history called critical race theory, GOP leaders such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are busy banning books and classes at all levels of education. DeSantis’ latest assault is a ban on a new AP-level high school African American studies course that the College Board spent years devising and is set to pilot in 60 schools across the country.

The pushback by DeSantis and his allies has already yielded results. The College Board seemingly capitulated and sanitized the AP course, paring back mentions of Black feminism, queer theory and the Black Lives Matter movement and replacing them with a new section on Black conservatism.

The move came at the same time that congressional Republicans took aim at Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., unceremoniously stripping her of membership in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy justified his ousting of Omar from the committee over her alleged antisemitism because she has criticized the state of Israel. Never mind that criticism of Israel is not equivalent to racist attacks on Jews; two of the GOP’s own representatives, Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., whose antisemitism is well documented, are now poised to regain their committee seats.

In a speech on the House floor, Omar rightly pointed out that the Republican attack was about “who gets to be an American.” She called out the GOP for its earlier culture war aimed at the nation’s first Black president, Barack Obama, and for spreading rumors that he was a secret Muslim and not a natural born U.S. citizen.

The message that emerges from the conservative party is that those who are not either straight, white, cisgender men or in service of white supremacist patriarchy had better fall in line or face prohibition and the threats of violence.

Meanwhile, congressional Republicans are busy readying their pitchforks over the federal government’s debt, hoping to extract austerity measures in exchange for their support to raise the debt ceiling. According to the Washington Post, “the party has focused its attention on slimming down federal health care, education, science and labor programs, perhaps by billions of dollars.” And, some have “pitched a deeper examination of entitlements,” which is a euphemistic way of saying they want cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Aggressively bombarding women, transgender people, Black people, immigrants, and people of color over their bodily autonomy and their gender and racial identity is a tactic that Republicans hope will keep conservative voters loyal to the GOP and lets them off the hook on regressive economic policies. It’s a classic bait and switch — one that we ought not to fall for.

ABC anchor schools Marco Rubio: Chinese balloons entered U.S. airspace three times under Trump

ABC host Jonathan Karl reminded Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., that former President Donald Trump had failed to notify Americans on at least three occasions when Chinese balloons entered the country’s airspace.

During an interview on ABC, Karl asked Rubio if President Joe Biden should have gone against the advice of the U.S. military and instead shot the balloon down over populated land.

Rubio agreed that the debris could have “hurt, harmed or killed people.”

“If that was the case, then I think it really would have been helpful for the president of the United States to get on national television and explain to the American people, this is what we’re dealing with, this is what I’m going to do about it, and this is why I haven’t done it yet. None of that happened. And I don’t know why. I don’t know why they waited so long to tell people about this.”


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


But Karl pointed out that Trump had failed to disclose similar incidents at least three times.

“This happened three times under the previous president,” the host said. “Obviously, there were no public notifications there.”

Watch the ABC video below or at this link.

We’re still way too afraid of “stranger danger”

It is the narrative of the darkest fairy tales — the child who vanishes, snatched at the hands of a stranger. When a new Pew study on American parenting released in January, no one could have been surprised that the results revealed a whole lot of anxiety about kids struggling with depression or being bullied. But also right up there on the list of parental concerns — above struggles with drugs and alcohol, above pregnancy, above getting shot — was “being kidnapped or abducted.” 

For those of us who grew up looking at the faces of missing children on our breakfast table milk cartons or Soul Asylum videos, it’s a nightmare indelibly imprinted on our imaginations. But now, in the age of security cameras and helicopter parenting, “stranger danger” is all but extinct. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that between 2016 and 2020, a mere 366 of their case intakes “involved children who were abducted by someone who was not a family member.” That’s fewer than 1% of all children reported missing. Even among children who are abducted by strangers, Reuters notes that 57% of them are returned home safe. Why, then, are we still so afraid?

In the Pew study, a stunning 28% of parents of children under 18 reported they were “extremely/very” worried about kidnapping and abduction, and 25% were “extremely/very” worried about “getting beaten up or attacked.” The survey seems imprecise at best — a pool of parents with children defined simply as “under 18” is going to grapple with a wide range of challenges. But the prominence of those abduction and attack fears so high on the list makes it clear how powerful our dread of the faceless bogeyman remains. 

A stunning 28% of parents reported they were extremely worried about kidnapping and abduction.

It’s a story that didn’t always exist. “The first major case of kidnapping that everyone knew was Charley Ross, followed by a series of others, most emphatically the Lindbergh case,” said historian Paula Fass, author of 1997’s groundbreaking “Kidnapped: Child Abduction in America.” And, she added, “those were all ransom abductions.”

“What happens in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” she continued, “is that they become sexual abductions, with the image of the pedophile standing out there and waiting to take your child and do terrible things and ultimately murder your child. That looming sense begins with Etan Patz, with Adam Walsh, Kevin Collins, Jacob Wetterling. That came in a context that had two major issues — the sexual revolution of the 1970s, and of mothers going to work. Those things together created real panic, a tremendous sense of anxiety, if you take the long-term sense that mothers have the responsibility to keep their children sheltered and alive to protect them. Then these massive stories were exploited by journalists and popular culture.”


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


Paul Renfro, an associate professor of history at Florida State University and the author of “Stranger Danger: Family Values, Childhood, and the American Carceral State,” concurred. “These anxieties go way, way back,” he said. “If we’re just looking at the North American context, you can see them animating Indian captivity narratives. They became even more pronounced in the latter parts of the 20th century, with anxiety about the stability of the American family, feminism and gay rights.” 

This is where, as so often is the case, the cloaking narrative of “protecting the children” becomes conveniently weaponized in moments of social progress. “You see this most vividly with women entering the workforce, with dropping their children off at daycare,” said Renfro.

“Women are making money, they are independent, in more ways than one, and at the same time, for a lot of critics, they are kind of abdicating their presumed role as caretakers. A lot of the onus is placed on women in these most high-profile cases. ‘Why weren’t you looking after your child?’ That become a driving force behind the panic that really took off in the ’80s and ’90s with these really high profile cases.”

And, he said, “I would argue that panic never really dissipated.” 

I suspect that panic continues to thrive in part because the very cell phones that can keep our kids in safe contact can easily be turned against us. Any child unattended, even more than a moment, is an opportunity to go viral with a hefty dose of shock and scolding. Our outsized concern “allows us to feel like the most compassionate people in the world, and it allows us to be outraged,” said Lenore Skenazy, advocate and author of “Free-Range Kids.” The fact that the Pew study showed that mothers were far more likely than fathers to say “they feel judged” by other parents and twice as likely than fathers to worry about abduction can hardly be unrelated. 

Stranger abduction, while horrendous, has always been unusual. In 1981, the kidnapping and murder of Adam Walsh became one of the most galvanizing crimes in modern American history. Today, his brother Callahan Walsh, child advocate at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, said that the organization his parents helped found has “really come a long way.” For example, Walsh pointed out that thanks to increased awareness and improvements in technology, infant abductions from hospitals are almost entirely obliterated.

“Children are the most crime victimized segment of the population.”

It’s not that children don’t remain vulnerable. “Children are the most crime victimized segment of the population,” said David Finkelhor, a sociologist at the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. “For parents [to] be worried about crimes against kids is real. But they do have to have a better sense of what the relative frequencies of different kinds of crimes are.” 

It’s difficult to pinpoint what the loaded words “kidnapping” and “attack” from that Pew study conjure in the minds of the respondents, but to many of us they communicate an outsiderness that words like “abuse” don’t.

“Most sexual assaults and sex crimes against children happen at the hands of their acquaintances, their peers, family members,” said Finkelhor. “Some of those are the result of violence and abduction, but most of them are using manipulation, trickery and isolation of children to accomplish that.”

As terrifying as it is to imagine some shadowy predator hurting your child, it’s more unfathomable to picture that harm coming from someone you trust. Even after decades of survivors breaking the silence that once protected abusers and their institutions, “don’t talk to strangers” still seems like a protective incantation. 

As a neurotic mom who has to reel in her intake of true crime podcasts and gruesome YouTube documentaries, I am as vulnerable to amygdala-stoking intrusive thoughts as the next person. And I know that real-world statistics on the infinitesimal risks of stranger danger can only do so much against the nightly prime-time deluge of narratives about INNOCENCE SHATTERED disguised as entertainment. What works better is instead to remember that parents and kids alike can build the muscles of competence and trust. 

To truly keep our children as safe as possible — while raising them to be capable, independent adults — we need to change the script. Callahan Walsh said the Center currently focuses on empowering parents and children alike “to make safe and smart decisions, whether that’s in the real world or online.”

Walsh observes that the pandemic “gave some parents a false sense of security, seeing their child there on the couch, and thinking, ‘Well, my child’s safe.'”

“We know a lot of the exploitation and the predation on children is shifting to the online realm,” he said. “We have to be talking to them about who they’re talking to, what kind of activities they’re getting up to online, and making sure that they’re able to identify risky situations in the digital world. It’s about having ongoing conversations.” 

Paul Renfro also noted some limitations of the data. 

“This Pew Research Study reflects very little discussion of material concerns that might kind of come from economic instability,” he said. “There’s no discussion of hunger or poverty or educational inequality. Yes, children are super vulnerable, and they are abused and sexually assaulted. But unless we think more structurally and more critically about the kinds of institutions that are seemingly exempt from criticism — like the family — then we’re not going to get anywhere.”

Most of all, we all just have to practice the difficult, painful discipline of letting go. Among her other efforts, Skenazy is currently president and co-founder of the Let Go Project, an initiative that understands autonomy needs to be a group effort. “Every kid in the class or the school or the district gets the homework assignment to go home and do something new on your own without your parents,” she said. “I sometimes add, preferably outside.” 

“When children think that strangers are these monstrous-looking people, that’s just not the reality.”

Rather than instilling fear in ourselves and our children, we need to consider Mr. Roger’s advice to look for the helpers.

“When children think that strangers are these monstrous-looking people, that’s just not the reality,” said Walsh. “We know at the National Center, that the vast majority of people who are going to abduct a child is somebody that that child already knows. If that’s the case, and they’re at a gas station or a convenience store and they’re looking for help, it’s likely a stranger that’s going to come to that child to aid in that situation.”

Today, instead of the outmoded concept of “stranger danger,” Walsh said that “child safety is much more nuanced than a rhyming phrase.” 

“Just yesterday someone told me, ‘It’s not that I don’t trust my kid. I don’t trust the other people out there,'” said Skenazy. “Well, that’s what trusting is. Your kid is not living on Mars. There are other people out there. There are cars. There are store owners. There are people on the subway. You have to trust each other. You have to trust your kid in the world now, not just in a theoretical vacuum. The only thing that gets you to right-size the fear is sending your kid out into the world where there are people, and having them come back and doing it again. And the thing that makes it easy is the joy that you feel upon seeing your child blossom and grow.”

Chef Toya Boudy’s “Cooking for the Culture” is a celebration of Blackness through place and plates

Cooking for the Culture: Recipes and Stories from the Streets of New Orleans to the Table” is not your average cookbook. A big part of my life is reading cookbooks, for both work and pleasure, and very rarely do they leave me feeling like that I’ve read a memoir packed with vibrant, revealing prose — all in addition to learning to how to make smothered okra and shrimp and the perfect cinnamon-tinged cup of coffee

That’s because the book’s author, Toya Boudy, is so gloriously present in “Cooking for the Culture” and makes a point to show readers the way in which her lived experiences are intertwined with the meals she makes, like Christmas chicken, red beans and “expensive ass deviled eggs.”

Boudy’s Black New Orleans home cooking isn’t for the tourists. It’s for “the people who want to see the realness, the heart of why we are and why people come here and why celebrities or why people leave cities like New York and LA and come stay here. Why? What is it? It’s the warmth that I talk about with my parents that runs through the city.” 

Boudy spoke with me on “Salon Talks” about growing up in the city, the right way to make grits and what she hopes for future generations of young Black female chefs. Watch the episode here, or read our conversation below. 

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

First, the cover of “Cooking for the Culture” is beautiful. It is such a striking image. What is the inspiration behind that photo and why did you want this to be the first thing that people see when they pick up your cookbook?

During quarantine I got hired to teach these cooking classes. It was basically Black history through food for young adults, teens and some adults. And in the process of that, at the end of the class, I had this thing that I would do and I created a little jingle and it was, “Fun fact, bet you didn’t know this is African. Yeah.” It was the corniest thing you could ever imagine. And I literally sung it just like that too. “Yeah.” 

I would pick things that would surprise children and strike up conversations at the dinner table about African history through food. I stumbled upon watermelon. And I remember my mother was in the hospital at the time and I was working on the curriculum while I was sitting with her and she asked me what I was doing and I was talking about it and I said, “The fun fact is watermelon.” And she was like, “What?” For us as Black people, when you see watermelon, it’s like at a party, you don’t think about watermelon. You’re like, “I don’t want to be the first person to eat that.” Sometimes we don’t realize why we’re like that and it’s basically a little bit of programming of being ridiculed in those caricatures. 

“It’s not just the kitchen, it’s life. I can take care of myself.”

I was like, “Ma, watermelon is a majestic fruit. It grows up into 95% sand. That red clay-like sand in Africa produces this big juicy fruit that has all these nutritional values and a whole bunch of things.” And I said, “People would even gift it to travelers and explorers because you can eat it, you can be hydrated all at the same time.” And she said, “Man, that makes me even want watermelon right now.” That moment happened and then it gave me a newfound sense of pride and since that was the beginning of the episodes that I was creating for that class, I said, “Okay, so I’m going to find something each time,” and I just held onto that. But when it came time to doing the book, that image and idea and conversation popped back up because I fought the process of the book so much in the beginning, the whole idea of getting a book and doing another one, the work, and when I agreed to sign and start working with the agent, it was like an instant download. Boom. I saw the cover, I saw the inside, I saw my nails, I saw every single thing. 

They were like, “Well wait, the first response for a woman, or especially a woman that they deem to look a certain way, we need to put your image on the front.” No, I don’t want them to be distracted. Just how I’m gripping the watermelon, I set the intention that it would do like this to people and maybe would say, “Whoa, what is this?” So that was definitely the message, it was basically like taking everything back. Everything that seemed negative, even down to my hair. The shots in the book, you’re like, what the hell is the cookbook? Why is she wearing these wigs? And it’s our culture, it’s our vibrance, so what they deem to be ghetto or this or that. I said, “I’m going to take it back and you going to love it.”

You talk in the book about how you received criticism for elements of how you present yourself. What’s your hope for Black female cooks coming up after you, in terms of appearance and how that registers within the world of food?

I wanted to take my chance and be so unapologetic, and then execute in such a brilliant way, that’s why you noticed there’s grit in the photos and then the pictures are pristine, even down to the font. All of that was intentionally thought about. I wanted people to look at it and think, “Well, who am I, unapologetically? What does that look like?” 

It’s not just Black women, it’s all women of color. I had an interview that happened with another chef that was a Mexican woman, and even her, trying to hide stuff. No, no. I wanted them to see it and think, “Maybe I could, maybe I should. I will.” And I also did everything the way I did in the book and presenting it because I wanted people who had the power to write contracts. I want them to say, “Well, looks like we need an unapologetic Black woman. We need an unapologetic Spanish woman. We need to find a Jewish one. How about Arabic?”

I agree. That leads into your recipes. A lot of people associate New Orleans with food, but in “Cooking for the Culture,” you are specifically turning your focus on Black New Orleans home cooking. How is that different from what a typical tourist may expect?

It’s real. It has real body. It just doesn’t carry the ambiance. The tourist experience is filled with ambiance. That’s why you see a lot of people, and you see, I said recently, I said, “You don’t hear anyone saying laissez les bons temps rouler, unless they’re a tour guide that’s from another state, giving a tour and talking about our history.” I’ve never heard someone, and both my parents from the heart of uptown, I mean hardcore, real uptown living, and they’ve never said laissez les bons temps rouler. They’ve never, “Let the good times roll,” like that, it’s ambiance. And I get it. 

Not everybody wants to go to the depths of a place. Some people just want to go to Hawaii, that part that’s fun, they don’t want to see the other part. That’s always tough when you travel to other countries and you see the beautiful area that’s touristy, and then you’re like, you get into the city and you’re like, “Whoa. This is how people live? God, I wonder, are we adding to it by coming or taking away? Or are we…” I’m telling you. It’s a wowing. We just went to Mexico. And when you go outside of that and you see the way they live, and you’re like, “God, what is the government doing for them? Are they only caring about this part?” That’s a lot to accept.

So I feel like with my book, the people who want to see the realness, the heart of why we are and why people come here and why celebrities or why people leave cities like New York and LA and come stay here. Why? What is it? It’s the warmth that I talk about with my parents that runs through the city. That’s what it is.

A real undercurrent in the book is the importance of family and family meals. That’s a beautiful thing for people who have a good relationship with their families and people who also don’t—it’s like there’s someone there. What’s one of your favorite meals from the book to cook for your family and friends?

Gumbo. For sure. And it’s not the clichéd reason, it’s also, it’s a rags-to-riches meal, for real. Started on the tables of the poor, made its way to the tables of the wealthy. But my husband loves gumbo, all of my babies love gumbo. 

“That’s the missing component in every single recipe: fear.”

That’s the one compliment now… No, my mama’s, my red beans compliment — my mama ate my red beans one day when she was over here and she sat back and she said, “That’s damn good” — and I knew that, but for an elder who knows the kitchen to tell you that, “Bring me a container gumbo.” That’s a lot. That’s a lot. And my favorite meal to cook for them is that, just because they eat it until the pot’s empty. 

They’re so used to seeing food, it’s ridiculous. It’s so ridiculous. They’ll pass up five star for a Little Caesars pizza, you don’t understand. But when it comes down to gumbo, they do empty the pot down to the bottom. You know what I’m saying? It’s just that and eggs and rice. Now the fried eggs and rice is simple, butter, seasoning, maybe garlic if you want to get fancy, fried egg and rice, it’s honestly what you would call a typical hood meal. If I make a big thing of that, girl, it’s going to be gone by the end of the night. For real. And it’s just simple.

Let’s say that you’re talking to somebody who has no experience in the kitchen, where would you point them in your book as a good starting point?

As a teacher, and whenever, and I’ll say this saying that my first child student, because I learned how to cook at nine, and the family I was working with, they pour into their kids creatively. So they got me to come and do cooking lessons and he was 9, 10. You know what I started him out on? Making a roux.

Really?

Hell, yeah. You know why? Because if I show you how simple that is and you do it, you think, “Oh, you think I can do it.”

Well, that opens up the whole world. 

That’s all you need. You just need to win. That’s why when you read, man, when I tell you, I will say this, I probably don’t give myself compliments enough on stuff, but I will say I wrote the hell out of this book and also the roux, girl, when you read that roux, I’m telling you, everyone who read that was like, “I’ve never seen it that approachable.”

Neither have I.

I broke down all the stuff because you know what it is, girl? It’s fear. That’s the missing component in every single recipe: fear.

You brought up rags-to-riches and something that this book, in addition to nixing the fear, it’s also big on the idea of cooking with what’s available to you. You write about the luxury of having access to commodity ingredients in the context of a recipe for peanut butter cookies. What’s the connection there?

Every time I’m asked about that recipe and about the commodity thing, it gets me to tears every time, because we grew up poor. Somebody had to give us commodity government — give — we couldn’t even get it ourselves. They gave it to us. That’s why you got to look back at your life affectionately to see how you were really blessed deep down. And not in the moment, the pain, but the result of the pain. That’s the blessing. 

With the commodity peanut butter, I’ll never forget it. I was just going through the boxes, going through the box, looking at that big can with the peanut on it and you open it up and I looked the back of it. And when I spent it around the back, I looked at the recipe, and I thought, I looked in the cabinet, because my son, he just turned 10, and he said he’s amazed at how I did stuff so young. And I told him, I said, “You know what it is?” I said, “Emmanuel, what it really is that I just knew how to read.” Well, I did have a cooking gift, obviously, but still, I just read. I read, I followed instructions, and I did it. Just the victory of that thing happening. I made cookies from scratch as a child with no assistance. That thing of just taking what you have, that’s the power. 

“With the grits, I always think of how I could make it feel like a hug. Ironically, I’m not a hugger.”

Even with my husband before when we first got married, he used to always say, “We don’t have this,” or, “We don’t have that,” and I’m like, “What’s in a cabinet?” And that idea, do you know the power? Because people think that, “Oh, why I can’t boil water?” Whatever. And I said, “”You know how to cook. You just don’t know what’s your lane and also, someone has probably injected subconscious fear,” because we need fight or flight to live in this lane. You probably never wanted to have a fight really a day in your life, and you would know how to fight somebody off if somebody came and attacked you in that room. It’s fight or flight. You need food to live, so you know how that means. You got to know how to cook some way, you just never had it uncovered. And my thing is, if you take away all of the pride that people wrap into food and stuff like that and you bring it down to human basic like, let’s get this done, anybody can cook something. And if I can get you to believe that you can provide for yourself and give yourself food, that’s giving you confidence in all kinds of ways. It’s not just the kitchen, it’s life. I can take care of myself.

I lived in the South for over a decade and there are certain foods that ignite immediate controversy about the right way to make them, and grits are definitely one of those foods. What’s your recipe?

I do a dinner grit. That’s what I call a dinner grit. I don’t even know if that’s supposed to be said like that, but I made it up in my mind and I just always say it. What I did was, when I decided to make shrimp and grit, it’s one of the things that I do every Christmas morning, I bring breakfast to my parents’ house because we all have, we open gifts together, whatever. One of the things, which my sister corrected me this last Christmas before it started, she was like, “Hey, are you doing something different this Christmas or are you doing shrimp and grits? Because last year you brought something else.” I brought pancakes. No one cared. I did pancakes, French toast sticks, all kinds of stuff. And they was just like, “So the grits?.” And I was like, “Man, y’all are a trip.” That’s like my daddy coming to my house and he ate and he said, “You don’t have pie or something here?” 

So with the grits, I always think of how I could make it feel like a hug. Ironically, I’m not a hugger, and I like to make food feel like a touch. I want you to take your shoes off and rub your feet together. I want you to feel like, “Let me take my earrings off to eat this.” I decided to do half and half. I said, I tried it with all milk once. And I said, that’s too thick, that’s too rich. And I said, how about half water, half this? And then I add cream cheese, or then I add heavy cream or whatever like that, just to make it this rich feel that it is breakfast, but it’s not breakfast. So that’s kind of like, that’s why I came up with my grits recipe like that, even though I still love traditional grits. I do. I do love them. But if I’m going to have something that’s a brunch idea or either dinner, it’s got to be a rich, hearty kind of feel. I just really wanted my grits to feel like love, basically.

And shrimp and grits, which you’ve cooked a couple times on TV. Is that right? Can you talk about that?

I got my behind handed to me over some grits. I was on “Food Network Star,” and we was picking a meal and I submitted, you know you submit recipes and they pick which one they want you to do. I submitted some and they picked the shrimp and grits and I was like, “Okay, well I know I could do that with my eyes closed.” So got to the time, well, we were judging and that’s not, I mean you see a clip on a video that’s this big, but it’s like 14 hours. I got eliminated with the shrimp and grits. And when I went home, I was just like, whatever. 

Then so much time happened and then I ended up having an interesting situation. I actually almost died before Hallmark. I caught meningitis and I had it for weeks. And I went to the hospital, they said it’s tension headaches, went home. And that was before we all knew that they treat Black women a certain way and they were sending me home the second time. And I went to the hospital and I just stopped and I said, “Can you ask my doctor for a CAT scan?” And somehow in the machine, my fever spiked and they did a spinal tap. The last thing I remember the nurse saying, “Your blood pressure is very low.” And then by the time I woke up again, I saw my sister, and then I woke up again, I saw my husband, and then I saw white suits and tape because the CDC had to come in because they didn’t know what was going on.

“I think when you’re in a lower income setting and you have a lot of life happening around you, it’s hard to pour into this art, you’re just kind of surviving.”

And one of the times I woke up, my husband said, “Good news. Hallmark just reached out to you about…” I guess he was just trying to tell me something to wake me up. That’s marriage, okay? And none of it makes sense. It never does. So I finally heal from that and he says, “Hallmark wants to fly you out.” But I don’t even remember having interviews with them so that’s how much I didn’t have recollection or whatever. I just remember the day before going in there, finding out I was pregnant with my youngest daughter. I came out of being sick and all of this stuff, I came back to this world where I was like, I don’t even remember how my hair got the way it got on the show, that’s how much I don’t remember. And this all led up to the grits. 

So I got to Hallmark and stuff like that. I did day one, day two, whatever. And then it came down to the last day and I wanted to cook something completely different and I did not even remember. I can’t even remember what it was, but she said, “We think you should do shrimp and grits.” Not me just going getting sent home a month ago over grits, and now you want me to make shrimp and grits. And it advanced me to the next thing and that’s how I got through. And I was like, “Damn,” but I felt like it was a aha from God. What you think may be ashes, what you think may be trash, may be golden treasure. You just don’t know. You just have to wait. It’s like, girl, that’s so crazy. When I told my husband, I said, “I don’t even remember my nails getting done, my hair.” When I saw the pictures, I was like, “When did I even get my hair done? I can’t remember,” because I was still healing. I was in the hospital for a while.

And then freshly pregnant too.

I actually told Debbie, and she’ll never forget this, because we were talking and she said, “How do you feel?” And I looked at her, I just found out I was pregnant, and she said, “What?” And we literally was like, so the running joke was every time I came back to Hallmark, she was like, “You’re not pregnant again, are you?” I said, “Girl, no. Girl, that train is left. That train snuck to the station. Okay?” So I literally don’t even remember none of that. It was just such a crazy ride in the fact that shrimp and grits, that damn recipe.

Speaking of wild rides, you talk about how as a kid it was apparent really quickly that you would march to the beat of your own drum as an adult. If you could go back and talk to young Toya as she’s figuring out what she wants to do, is there anything that you would tell her?

Keep failing, girl. Go ahead. Keep failing. You don’t need to know. I would also say that. You don’t need to know, and they don’t need to know either. Nobody needs to know. My mama didn’t know. No one knew. No one knew I had gifts until I was like 25. No one. People knew that I was crafty. I was always able to do stuff with my hands and I could cook. I was always able to build things or whatever, even refinished tables. 

I think when you’re in a lower income setting and you have a lot of life happening around you, I think it’s hard to pour into this art, you’re just kind of surviving. You know what? I wouldn’t say nothing. Because I didn’t need to know. And I mentioned this in the book, and I say, if I would’ve known anything, I would’ve abused it just how I abused the hall pass. So I wouldn’t say anything. I would just watch. I wouldn’t let her see me. I would just probably just watch from a distance and I would probably just look back at it affectionately and just think. But I wouldn’t say anything to my younger self because I like where I am. I like who I am. I like where I went and I mean, there’s nothing that I don’t regret. I have no regret at all and I’ve been through some… I been through some places, we don’t have a bottle of wine for that, but I’ve been through some… I’ve been some streets, some places, some abuse, some trauma, like heavy trauma. And I’m telling you every bit of it, I love it.

Tired of avocado toast? Here’s your cheesy, garlicky wintertime replacement

Did you know that there are more than 14,000 identified species of mushrooms? While I’ve yet to sample the entire gamut, I’m a fan of every single one I’ve tried so far, from maitake, hedgehog and enoki to chanterelle and even plain ol’ white button.

Back in high school, during my first bout as a vegetarian, a mushroom quesadilla from a nearby Mexican restaurant was truly my bread and butter. In the years since, ‘shrooms have been a mainstay of my diet. I especially love them in soupssandwiches, pastas and omelets, as well as on top of pizzas or stuffed in every which way.

Mushrooms possess such a simple, inherent elegance, especially when bolstered with the reliable flavor additions of butter, fresh herbs and wine. Once you get the hang of preparing and cooking them well, a whole world of mushroom-centric dishes will open up right before your eyes. The famous, yet somewhat polarizing fungi’s meaty flavor (especially when it comes to the portobello, porcini or cremini) also makes it a stellar vegetarian or vegan go-to.

In case you missed it, fungus is having a moment thanks to the popular HBO series “The Last of Us,” which features a post-apocalyptic landscape devastated by a zombie-like fungal outbreak. If a watch party is in your plans, a mushroom-focused appetizer would no doubt add an extra layer of fun to the night.


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


If you haven’t hopped aboard that train yet, there will be several opportunities to feed a crowd later this month, including the Super Bowl and Valentine’s Day. However, these roasted garlic and Gruyère mushroom toasts are so good that you may wind up finishing them off before your pals even show up.

Roasted Garlic and Gruyère Mushroom Toasts
Yields
servings
Prep Time
 15 minutes
Cook Time
hour 30 minutes

Ingredients

  • 1 head garlic
  • Extra virgin olive oil
  • Kosher salt, to taste
  • 3 to 4 lemons, juiced and zested, divided
  • 1 1/3 cups rich, creamy spread (See Cook’s Notes)
  • 2 tablespoons white miso
  • 4 ounces Gruyère, finely shredded, divided
  • 1 bunch chives, minced, divided
  • Freshly ground black pepper
  • 1 stick unsalted butter
  • 2 shallots, peeled and finely diced
  • 1 1/2 pounds mixed mushrooms, cleaned with a damp paper towel, stems removed and quartered or diced
  • 1/2 cup dry white wine (or stock or broth)
  • 1/4 cup heavy cream
  • 1 loaf country bread, sourdough or other crusty bread option, sliced (See Cook’s Notes)
  • 4 eggs, poached or fried, optional

 

 

 

 

 

Directions

  1. Preheat the oven to 400 degrees.
  2. On a sheet of foil, place the head of garlic, plus a drizzle of olive oil and some salt. Wrap up and place in the oven for about 1 hour. Let cool fully. Keep the oven on (or turn on the broiler).
  3. Squeeze the roasted garlic into a large bowl. (It should easily come right out.) Be sure to pick out any errant garlic peels and discard them. 
  4. To the bowl with the roasted garlic, add half the lemon juice and zest, creamy spread of choice, miso, 3/4 of the Gruyère and a handful of minced chives. Season well with salt and pepper. Mix very well. 
  5. In a very large, heavy skillet, melt the butter over medium heat. Add the shallots and cook until translucent, no more than 3 to 4 minutes. 
  6. Add the mushrooms to the pan. Don’t over-crowd; you may have to cook in batches. Don’t season. Cook for at least 5 to 7 minutes, until deeply browned and all liquid has evaporated.
  7. Add the white wine, reduce completely, then repeat with the heavy cream. Cook another 3 to 4 minutes, or until the mushrooms are crisp and caramelized. Add the remaining lemon zest and juice, plus another handful of the minced chives. Season well with salt.
  8. Brush the sliced bread with the olive oil. Transfer to the oven and toast or broil until just slightly browned. (Keep an eye out; it may burn quickly.)
  9. Remove the toasts from the oven and let them cool slightly.
  10. With an offset spatula, spread the roasted garlic-creamy base onto the toasts. Using a slotted spoon, follow with a spoonful of the mushrooms. Repeat until all ingredients have been used.
  11. Finish with any remaining chives and Gruyère and serve immediately. Conversely, finish with an egg with a runny-yolk and some flaky salt.

Cook’s Notes

– For the mushrooms, reach for button, cremini, oyster, shiitake and so on and so forth.

– For the spread, think ricotta (blended in a food processor or blender until smooth), labneh, fromage blanc, crème fraîche, fall fat Greek or plain yogurt or cream cheese.

– You can try this recipe with practically any bread. While 1-inch slices are great, feel free to slice to whatever width you prefer.

– I generally like quartering the mushrooms for this type of application, as you don’t want unmanageably large pieces on a slice of toast. If you’d rather go in the other direction and enter a duxelle-like realm of super finely chopped mushrooms (almost like a mushroom pâté, if you will), feel free. It would change the texture and consistency, but it would also make the dish feel a little bit more elegant.

– While these toasts will earn an A+ on their own, feel free to pair them with a rich, creamy soup for an extra special meal.

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. While our editorial team independently selected these products, Salon has affiliate partnerships, so making a purchase through our links may earn us a commission.

Not to be outdone, the EU commits $270 billion to its own Green New Deal

The European Union will put more than $270 billion toward its own “green deal” in hopes of keeping competitive with the United States and China.

Many observers saw the move as a direct reaction to the Biden administration’s generous round of green subsidies, part of the Inflation Reduction Act. 

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen made the announcement Wednesday, calling the series of proposals The Green Deal Industrial Plan.

“We know that in the next years, the shape of the economy, the net-zero economy, and where it is located will be decided,” said von der Leyen in a news conference in Brussels. “And we want to be an important part of this net-zero industry that we need globally.”

The Green Deal Industrial Plan would, according to the European Commission, focus on simplifying regulation to help get proposed green projects running quicker, speeding up access to investment and funding, developing programs to train skilled workers in specific industries, and enhancing trade agreements in order to secure raw earth materials needed for the net-zero transition. 

The plan would also help the EU reach its 2050 goal of carbon neutrality. That includes a progress check where member states would collectively cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent by 2030.

The Green Deal Industrial Plan was pushed quickly due to concerns by several EU leaders that the U.S. and China were putting protective measures in their own deals — in the form of tax breaks for domestic companies — that would disadvantage European car manufacturers and companies developing green technologies. The Biden Administration tax breaks, for example, support American companies that locally manufacture certain components of green technology.  

EU critics also expressed concern that European companies might be tempted to take their operations over to the U.S. in order to take advantage of the tax breaks, thereby undermining the EU’s own status as a clean energy leader.

But some experts in Europe think those concerns are overblown. 

“There’s nothing that Joe Biden and the US government, in my opinion, has done that’s going to see European jobs shifted to the United States,” Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Brussels, told the German news organization DW. “We want the United States to embrace also the green transition. And we should be less concerned, quite frankly, that our own green transition is put at risk,” he added.  

The Green Deal Industrial Plan, which has not yet been formalized, will nonetheless be debated by EU leaders at a meeting of EU heads of states and governments in Brussels next week.

The EU consists of 27 member states, ranging from highly populated and wealthy countries like Germany and France to less developed and resourced countries like Bulgaria and Romania. State aid rules have made it easier for EU governments to help support private companies financially in their countries. A key tenet of the Green Deal Industrial Plan would be to extend that support to companies that are involved in renewable technologies.

But wealthy countries like Germany and France are better positioned than other smaller and poorer member states to invest in their companies, which has led to controversy around the Green Deal Industrial Plan. Without some kind of measure to provide funding for states like Bulgaria, for example, to support companies operating within their borders, such member states may reject the EU’s plan during next week’s talks. In order for the proposed Green Deal Industrial Plan to move forward, all 27 national governments must give it their approval. 

James Cameron gives stand-ins hypothermia to try and settle that “Titanic” Jack and Rose door debate

James Cameron knows better than you do.

He knew nobody asked for a sequel to “Avatar,” but he also knew we were bored enough to make it rain on “The Way of Water.” Now it’s close to raking in $3 billion worldwide. Suckers.  

While a few Earth’s billionaires raced to space in their custom-built phalluses – so basic! – Cameron constructed a submersible dong that took him to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, getting all up in those guts long enough to discover three new species of sea creatures.

And you want to question him about whether Jack could have fit on that raft with Rose at the end of “Titanic”? You doubt this guy? A goddamn National Geographic Explorer-In-Residence?

How. Dare. You.

Don’t let the “Avatar” director’s level genial demeanor in “Titanic: 25 Years Later with James Cameron” fool you, because that is the tense vibe pulsing right under the surface of this hourlong expedition.

James Cameron at The University of Otago, School of Physical Education, Sport & Exercise Science.James Cameron at The University of Otago, School of Physical Education, Sport & Exercise Science. (National Geographic/Spencer Stoner)

On the surface it’s a cheerful gathering of nerds dedicated to obtaining scientifically sound answers to two questions that bothered the director for 20 years: Did he portray the ship’s sinking correctly? And, can he answer the question of whether more lives would have been saved if the ship had additional lifeboats? Spoiler alert: Of course he can. His team builds a lifeboat and rigging to scale to accomplish that.

But he knows the real draw is that musty Jack-and-Rose-on-a-door B.S. y’all have been up on.

For those who aren’t up on this debate, for the last decade and a half at least, “Titanic” stans have posited that Jack, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, could have avoided his romantically tragic death by joining Kate Winslet’s Rose on what looks like a wooden door. Amateurs have posted their theories and re-enacted scenarios that show Jack fitting on the door with Rose, safely awaiting rescue. A 2012 episode of “MythBusters” devotes itself to proving how Jack could have survived, if Rose had simply given up her life-vest to add to the wood’s buoyancy. Celebrities like Roxane Gay and Keke Palmer have weighed in on the debate in favor of Jack’s survival.

Anyway “Titanic: 25 Years Later” exists because the filmmaker is tired of you fools debating this. He is a man who is thinking seriously about colonizing Mars and founded a vegan school. He has created cutting-edge technology for conservationists to use in tracking wildlife. Do you get it? He does not have time for this.

And yet, he’s so determined to deliver the final word that he hired two young adults of approximately the same height, age, and weight as Jack and Rose, and exposes them to potential hypothermia, filming their suffering all the while.

He knows the real draw is that musty Jack-and-Rose-on-a-door B.S. y’all have been up on.

It’s scintillating viewing, if you don’t think too much about the fact that you’re watching two humans who took thermometers up their tooters subject themselves to possible organ failure, mainly because James Cameron would like the Internet to shut the hell up.

That’s not why he’s done this, he claims. But in introducing the segment his voice takes on a genuinely bothered sing-song cadence as he explains, “Fans of the movie have been going on endlessly about the fact that Jack could have lived if he could have gotten on that door. So let’s test it.”

Smiling like an anglerfish-like he adds, “Let’s do some science!”

Josh Bird and Kristine Zipfel stand in for Jack and Rose as part of a hypothermia experiment.Josh Bird and Kristine Zipfel stand in for Jack and Rose as part of a hypothermia experiment. (National Geographic/Spencer Stoner)“Titanic 25 Years Later” is billed as the prelude to the remastered version of Cameron’s Oscar winner returning to theaters, but anybody who’s ever seen a rich man lose his shiz with the plebes recognizes a grudge project when they see it.

You could tell that much when he came before journalists at a Television Critics Association press conference in January to promote the special and curtly explained, “It’s, technically, not a door. It’s a piece of wood paneling from the first-class cabin.”

Weh-HELL.

This isn’t to say there isn’t real joy in this special. Cameron opens the hour with his reunion with Dr. Robert Ballard, the naval officer who discovered the wreck of the Titanic in 1985, and it’s plain to see the love these men share. Ballard appreciates Cameron for bringing the ship alive again. Cameron loves trading war stories with Ballard as they compare their separate undersea approaches to the wreck.

The folks who worked on the 1997 movie with him also seem to kick out of Cameron’s exacting experiments requiring them to “rule in” his depiction of how the ship sank, although a few moments are decidedly tense. At one point he loses his temper.

“You’re not following what I’m saying,” he tells his assistants, crankily stalking off. All that drama is over an experiment to prove he got the angle right in the movie.

He applies the same passion to timing every step of readying the rescue boats, informing the men dealing with the ropes that it’s OK to boss him and the other crewmembers around as if they were passengers that need to get out of the way. “Politely, of course,” he cheekily adds, “because we’re also, you know, rich passengers in the first class area of the Titanic.”

James Cameron discusses the impact of hypothermia on the human body with Dr. Jim Cotter at The University of Otago, School of Physical Education, Sport & Exercise Science. James Cameron discusses the impact of hypothermia on the human body with Dr. Jim Cotter at The University of Otago, School of Physical Education, Sport & Exercise Science. (National Geographic/Spencer Stoner)

Several times Cameron reminds us that it’s impossible to prove what actually happened. He can only prove what might have happened, and unlike those sloppy “MythBusters” goons, he has plenty of money to throw at his curiosity.

Hence, the hour’s pièce de résistance: Cameron, with an expert’s guidance, subjects two Jack and Rose stand-ins named Josh Bird and Kristine Zipfel to conditions that induce the start of hypothermia.

This is all part of a controlled experiment inside a lab at New Zealand’s the University of Otago where Bird and Zipfel, wearing Jack and Rose’s costumes, are placed in 50-degree water along with a precisely recreated replica of the debris Rose floated upon.


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


Their core temperature is monitored by three internal thermometers as they re-enact what happened to Jack in the film, then explored alternate outcomes to figure out if it were at all possible for Jack to have survived.

Cameron also admits, “There’s a genuine element of danger to these experiments,” but his dispassionate observation of Bird shivering uncontrollably somehow brings to mind a Bond villain.  (“Yeees . . . shiver, Jack. Shiver that Rose may live! Your heart will go on, but your blood flow is slowing. For science!”)

Maybe that’s not fair, since Bird and Zipfel must have been compensated for their troubles. Nowhere nearly as much as Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, who were probably much warmer and are noticeably unbothered by this lunacy, but the point stands.

Jack and Rose never existed. Cameron reminds the audience that 1,500 real people died in that wreckage. “You get so into the forensics of how the wreck happened that you forget the people,” he said.

It’s true. But the 25th anniversary of “Titanic” hitting theaters is as good of a time to permanently sink silly irritants, especially over details that don’t matter.

In the end, Cameron says he learned something important from Bird and Zipfel’s sacrifice of comfort: “I would have made the raft smaller so there’s no doubt.”

“Titanic: 25 Years Later with James Cameron” airs at 9 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 5 on the National Geographic Channel, streaming the next day on Hulu.