Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

GOP congressman says Marjorie Taylor Greene has “matured” since days of doubting 9/11

On Sunday’s edition of This Week, United States Congressman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) defended House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) for placing Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) on the Homeland Security and Oversight Committees despite her history of peddling conspiracy theories about the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks.

ABC moderator Martha Raddatz asked McCaul:

I want to ask you a very quick question about Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was removed from all congressional committees in 2021. Now she will sit on Homeland Security and the Oversight in the new Congress. She doubted 9/11. She doubted a plane hit the Pentagon. She later apologized for that, but she said that in 2018. Should she be on that Committee? You were on that Committee.

At first, McCaul deflected:

I chaired the Committee. These conspiracy theories that people go down, I disagree with this. I’m having to debunk this. This one was a worse violation. 9/11 was not a hoax. It was carried out by al Qaeda. There’s no question in my mind. 

Raddatz pressed him again:

Should she be on the Committee? 

McCaul gave Greene the benefit of the doubt:

On anybody that says that, this is 2018? I will tell you, she has matured. I think she realizes she doesn’t know everything and she wants to learn and become, I think, more of a team player. I think it’s incumbent upon more senior members to try – look, she’s a member of Congress – to try to bring her in and try to educate her that these theories that she has are not accurate. 

Raddatz tried a third time to get a straight answer: 

Would you rather have seen a different choice?

McCaul refused to say either way:

I’m not the chair of that Committee, and I’m not the speaker either. 

Raddatz called him on it and ended the interview:

Nice try there. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Goodbye. 

Watch below:

Ted Baxter pursued fame over journalism – but unlike today’s pundits, he didn’t corrupt the news

Pundits are commonplace in today’s cable news environment, with politically tilted news coverage coming from both left and right. Particularly dangerous are characters like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, who have stoked anger and polarization by promoting bigotry and spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and the 2020 election.

It’s sobering, then, to recall that during its first half-century of existence, from the 1950s until the ascendance of slanted channels such as Fox News and MSNBC, TV news strove for fairness and objectivity.

In the old days, analysis that provided a point of view was explicitly labeled as “commentary.” It was believed to be helpful to viewers, whom the news divisions understood not just as consumers – what advertisers cared about – but also as citizens.

Ed Klauber, who set CBS News standards in the 1930s, declared that “in a democracy it is important that people not only should know but should understand, and it is the analysts’ function to help the listener to understand, to weigh and to judge, but not to do the judging for him.” Fred Friendly, CBS News president from 1964 to 1966, distributed Klauber’s guidelines to his team on pocket-size cards.

The national news appeared on only three channels, and the networks strove for political neutrality. They were seeking a wide, mass audience but were also influenced by their own professional standards and the government-imposed Fairness Doctrine requiring balanced coverage of controversial issues. Within this context, celebrity anchormen like Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley downplayed their own stardom.

Back then, the only TV newsman with an oversized personality who was familiar to a national audience was an entirely fictional one: Ted Baxter, of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” a character who was funny precisely because he was so implausible. The sitcom, which ran from 1970 to 1977, centered on a single woman working in a TV newsroom in Minneapolis. Baxter was the station’s anchorman, and his incompetence doomed the “Six O’Clock News” to low ratings.

Notwithstanding the common perception that it was an unprofitable, strictly altruistic venture, the national news did make significant revenue from their nightly broadcasts. Still, the lofty objective of these operations was public service. There was a baseline understanding that democracy demands a free press and an informed electorate.

As Cronkite argued in his memoir, encapsulating – and also mythologizing – the ideals of that era, “Newspapers and broadcasting, insofar as journalism goes, are public services essential to the successful working of our democracy. It is a travesty that they should be required to pay off like any other stock-market investment.”

Ted Baxter, played by actor Ted Knight, had no such concerns. Like many of today’s pundits – though without their ideological commitments – he was an anchorman more invested in fame than in good journalism.

Alive in Minneapolis, dead in Tokyo

Ted Baxter was a slow-witted egomaniac.

To pick up extra cash, he did undignified commercials for sausage, dog food and even some kind of befuddling “woman’s product.” Impressed by the very existence of time zones, he once said, “It’s actually tomorrow in Tokyo. Do you realize that there are people alive here in Minneapolis who are already dead in Tokyo?”

His only professional assets were good looks and a fine baritone. In one episode, a blizzard made the phones go down during local election coverage. Unable to receive updates on the vote count, the news team was forced to pull an all-nighter until a winner could be accurately declared.

Baxter wanted to call the race prematurely so he could go home, a flagrant dereliction of duty.

Forced to stay, he displayed his typical incompetence, mistakenly reading the entirety of a cue card aloud on the air: “We’ll stay on the air until a winner is declared. Take off glasses, look concerned.”

Ted’s priority was stardom. When he was tempted to quit the news for a lucrative job as a game show host, his boss, Lou Grant, played by Ed Asner, talked him out of it by evoking the higher purpose embodied by newsmen like CBS’ acclaimed Edward R. Murrow.

Ted was nothing like Murrow, as confirmed in the next scene, when he reported about a fishing boat incident and then improvised a joke: a woman tells her sailor husband in bed, “not tonight, I have a haddock.” Ted Baxter revered Murrow as a celebrity, and his hero was Cronkite, but gravitas was simply impossible for him.

When Cronkite made a cameo appearance on the show in 1974, Ted was positively giddy. Cronkite was a bit wooden, underscoring the fact that he was not an actor, thereby implicitly upholding a more dignified standard than Ted.

In fact, Dick Salant, who succeeded Friendly at CBS, had initially refused the invitation to Cronkite from the show’s producers. He was anxious that Cronkite should not deliver “lines written for him in a fictitious role,” fearing it would undercut Cronkite’s trustworthy image.

Walter Cronkite appeared on ‘The Mary Tyler Moore Show’ on Feb. 9, 1974.

Cronkite was a fan of the show, declaring, “The newsroom operation is realistic — even with Ted.”

Baxter couldn’t corrupt the news

If there is anything “realistic” about the satirical, fictional Ted Baxter, though, it’s that he lived up to the norms of political neutrality that really did dominate national newscasts in the 1970s — notwithstanding President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew‘s ferocious accusations of “liberal bias.”

Today’s grandstanding cable news pundits may provoke nostalgia for the Cronkite days – and the Baxter days – but nostalgia has a way of blurring over all the unpleasant details.

The news was already in trouble in the Nixon years. The president had planted the idea that the mainstream media suffered from liberal bias, a notion which was then nurtured by right-wing groups like Accuracy in Media and the Heritage Foundation.

Newscasters accustomed to reporting “both sides” were under constant attack in the 1970s. Nixon besieged the networks with every dirty trick, from Federal Communications Commission pressure to IRS audits. He even dreamed that cable TV could solve his problems by breaking the network news monopoly.

On this count, Nixon was right. Cable did end network dominance and enable the rise of highly politicized, overtly biased, personality-driven news.

But the triumph of Baxterism was never what “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” promoted. Just the opposite.

Ted Baxter was a cautionary figure who showed that real news could never succeed by depending on style over substance. Ted kept letting everyone down in order to teach viewers a lesson: Even a dolt who prized financial reward over integrity could not corrupt the news, as long as others held it to a higher standard.

In an episode called “The Good-Time News,” for example, the station manager demanded a “more entertaining” format to bring up the ratings. Lou Grant protested that “news is truth . . .  I’m not going to make it into something fake.”

Lou was right. The new format was a disaster, with Ted’s offensive “good-time” banter provoking angry telegrams.

Fool that he was, Ted nonetheless represented a golden age of TV news. If he could have read cue cards without flubbing up, he might have even been a decent anchorman. But he never could have been a pundit.

Ted never boosted a favorite politician or a conspiracy theory. He was politically vacant. He once ran for office as a Democrat, even though he was a registered Republican. He really didn’t care – he only wanted to increase his fan base.

Ted Baxter thus embodied the ego of the pundit, but without the opinions that often make such a person dangerous. For all his incompetence, it never occurred to him to air his own political views. By network news standards of the 1970s, this made him a friend of democracy.

Heather Hendershot, Professor of Film and Media, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

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

Why aren’t there any legal protections for the children of influencers?

When it comes to sharing content of children on social media – particularly via sponsored posts and brand deals – what’s legal isn’t always what’s ethical.

Influencer Brittany Dawn, who initially gained a following for her fitness workouts before pivoting to religious content, recently came under fire for monetizing her foster child on social media.

While Dawn has blurred out her child’s image in photos shared – a stipulation decreed by the U.S. Children’s Bureau for foster parents in their social media rules – she has found a different way to capitalize on being an influencer with a foster child. She includes affiliate links on her posts to promote products like baby monitors. If viewers follow the link and purchase the product, Dawn gets a commission.

Similarly, YouTube family vlogger Myka Stauffer has shared a number of details about her children, and has also relayed her experience of adopting a baby boy from China – who frequently appeared in her videos. (The Conversation reached out to Dawn and Stauffer about these criticisms, but did not receive a response.)

None of this is currently illegal. But this practice exists at the intersection of two social media trends: sponsored content and “sharenting” – when parents post sensitive information about their children online.

There are very few safeguards in place to protect the interests of children – both personal and financial – from their influencer parents. But the questionable practice of leveraging children for followers, fans and sponsorships is currently experiencing a groundswell of attention. Critiques of famous creators like Dawn and Stauffer are becoming more pointed and persistent, while some of the now-adult children of influencers are pushing back.

When kids become a prop

As a scholar of social media, I’ve spent nearly a decade studying influencers and content creators and how they blur the lines between entertainment, business and freelance work. Influencers constantly search for a niche, or something to make them stand out amid the immense amount of content online. My own research has examined pet influencers, ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response) influencers and veterinarians who are influencers.

Showcasing your children is also a niche. And as internet scholar Sophie Bishop has shown, influencers who feature their children sometimes use their kids to pivot the focus of their social media niche. They can move from being a fashion or travel influencer in their 20s to becoming a wedding influencer once they’re engaged and to a parenting influencer merely by hitting some of life’s big milestones, taking their built-in audience on the journey with them.

Children, however, cannot consent to being the star of their parents’ show.

While a child could feasibly find it “fun to be in mommy’s video,” it is unlikely they understand the long-term ramifications of being broadcast to thousands – even millions – of followers. The oversharing of images of children is even a concern for many parents, not just influencers.

But the business aspect of sponsored content adds another layer to this complicated issue. Who is protecting children’s financial interests for the money their influencer parents earn off this content? How much money do children earn for their parents by appearing in their content?

In addition to the financial ethics, the personal, emotional and mental toll cannot be overlooked. TikTok user @softscorpio has talked about her lingering trauma from being a child featured in a parent’s account. Sarah Adams, who goes by @Mom.UnCharted, also tackles the issues of child social media exploitation and oversharing, talking about the ethical issues surrounding parent influencers and family YouTube channels.

Videos making fun of parent influencers also frequently circulate on TikTok, whether it’s through mocking the aesthetics of these influencers or humorously critiquing the ways in which parents force their children to work to build their brand and appease their following.

Updating the Coogan Act for the digital age

In 1939, California passed the Coogan Act. The law, also known as the California Child Actor’s Bill, was named for former child actor Jackie Coogan, whom many hail as America’s first child actor.

He became famous after appearing as Charlie Chaplin’s adopted son in the 1921 film “The Kid.” But when Coogan reached adulthood, he learned that his mother and stepfather had squandered the $4 million he had earned – what would amount to tens of millions of dollars today.

After Coogan sued his parents and was able to reclaim only a fraction of what was left of his earnings, the California Legislature passed the Coogan Act. The law protects children who have been hired as “an actor, actress, dancer, musician, comedian, singer, or other performer or entertainer” and stipulates that their earnings must be safeguarded for them until they reach adulthood. Nine other states have since enacted similar legislation.

While some lobbyists and activists have called for the Coogan Act to be applied to the children of parent influencers at the federal level, regulations have not yet been adopted.

The Coogan Act was written to protect children in “traditional” entertainment. However, the lines between “traditional” entertainment and social media entertainment continue to blur, making this distinction less and less sound.

Additionally, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which protects children from “excessive labor,” has not been updated to apply to child influencers, or the children who regularly appear in the feeds of their parents. There’s a notable distinction between child influencers, who may run their own feeds and businesses, and children who are featured by their parents. But the Fair Labor Standards Act protects neither, and even children who run their own social media careers may still have their finances regulated by their parents.

Some parent influencers could easily set aside money earned either by or off their kids in trusts or college funds. But there’s nothing in place that specifically requires this.

France has already passed legislation protecting the commercial use of children under 16 on social media.

It’s hard not to see at least some precedent in the Coogan Act, particularly the part that refers to “other performers and entertainers.” With debates about the ethics and exploitation of children by parent influencers gaining steam in the U.S., it will be interesting to see whether there will be legislative updates to the definition of child labor in the digital age.

Jessica Maddox, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Creative Media, University of Alabama

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

Thanks to inbreeding, bulldogs and pugs may not exist much longer, experts say

“People breed them because they’re cute,” began Florida veterinarian Dr. Doug Mader, author of “The Vet at Noah’s Ark.” Mader was speaking with Salon about brachycephalics, or dogs with squished faced: think English bulldogs, French bulldogs, Boston terriers, boxers and pugs. Brachycephalics are widely adored for their goggle-eyes, wrinkled faces and waddling gaits.

“I hate to say it from a veterinarian’s perspective — we love them because they’re like hitting the lotto, you know — but the poor animals suffer from the day they’re born.”

“They say, ‘Look at that face! And they’ve got little ears!'” Mader said, assuming the high-pitched, cooing tone that many dog owners take up when talking about their pets. “But that’s not normal, you know. It’s not normal at all. And it’s the poor dogs that are so inbred suffer,” Mader observed. 

Indeed, he warned that if brachycephalic dogs continue to be inbred at current rates, they may not exist in the near future. In other words, we appear to have hit a tipping point when it comes to inbreeding man’s best friend. And other experts agree with him.

Related

How owning an Instagram-famous pet changes your politics

One can visually chart the devolution of these brachycephalic breeds simply by studying pictures of them from a century ago and comparing them to their present-day counterparts. English bulldogs, for example, used to have longer snouts and longer legs, with less of an inherently squat stance. Over time, however, demand for “cuter” English bulldogs rose, and the easiest way to meet the clamor was to breed dogs that shared the desired features. Photographs of the University of Georgia mascot bulldog Uga help illustrate the breed’s de-evolution, as ten dogs from the same lineage gradually become more squish-faced and squat.

For any dog to achieve that kind of consistent and unnatural look, breeders have to keep the dogs mated with other animals that look like them. This often requires incest, known within the industry as inbreeding.

“Breeding for a shorter nose has changed the shape of their skull, faster than the rest of their head could keep up, so all the soft tissue is folded over and cramped.

Most human cultures have a revulsion towards incest, and not without reason. Throughout history, repeated incest has produced multiple aristocratic families with grotesque deformities, including the Hapsburgs and Egypt’s Ptolemaic Dynasty. Like dog breeds, these humans were inbred over many generations, and to horrible effect — as a lack of genetic diversity often brings out harmful dominant traits in offspring. There is research that suggests that humans are conditioned to avoid producing the kind of sickly offspring that can result from incestuous relationships, particularly over multiple generations.

When breeding dogs became popular in the Victorian era, however, its proponents were not primarily concerned with the dogs’ comfort or health. They wanted to make money, which means the dogs had to possess the physical traits desired by both casual consumers and “breed experts” alike. In such a climate, genetic variation is a risk and a potential downside; inbreeding, if nothing else, is predictable.

And, as Stony Brook University population geneticist Dr. Krishna Veeramah once told ScienceLine, “The vast majority of dogs that people have as pets really arrived from the Victorian era from very active breeding. There are rather few ‘ancient breeds.'”

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

Because of a lack of genetic diversity, inbred dogs of any breed are often riddled with health issues, and typically have shorter lifespans compared to mutts. Brachycephalic breeds in particular, however, come with a range of specific issues entirely of their own. One can observe this simply by comparing a brachycephalic skull with a regular dog skull: The cranium is rounder and smaller, and the snout — a sophisticated breathing apparatus also used by dogs to smell, and thereby process their environment — appears non-existent.

“These dogs have had sadly many conformation-related disorders — i.e., physical problems based on breed standards,” Dr. Alexandra Horowitz, a dog cognition researcher at Barnard College, told Salon by email. Horowitz said the pivotal point for English bulldogs was an 1892 decision that the standard for proper breeding involved them having an upturned, short muzzle. Breeding them for a shorter nose, Horowitz says, has “changed the shape of their skull, faster than the rest of their head could keep up, so all the soft tissue is folded over and cramped.” That is why brachycephalics like English bulldogs have skin which folds over itself and is prone to rashes and infection; severe breathing problems, analogous to how a human might feel if their sinuses were always intensely congested without the possibility of relief; and they struggle with walking and staying out in the heat due to the aforementioned breathing issues.

“The English bulldog’s head is now so big that puppies need to be birthed by Caesarean, for they won’t fit out the birth canal.”

“There are other physical results too: the English bulldog’s head is now so big that puppies need to be birthed by Caesarean, for they won’t fit out the birth canal,” Horowitz added. She also said that breeding dogs for short legs makes it harder for them to walk. “Pugs often have protruding eyes whose lids don’t meet, leading to ulceration. The list goes on.”

This is perhaps more tragic because, by nearly all accounts, brachycephalic dogs are sweet souls with fun and playful dispositions who do not deserve to suffer. Veterinarian Dr. Sam Kovac, who practices in Australia, told Salon by email that he finds brachycephalics to “have the most quirky, happy-go-lucky personalities and a positive attitude to life generally, making them our most popular breed category at Southern Cross Vet.” Even if that were not the case, though, Kovac opined that veterinarians are still compelled to behave in a certain proper way with both the dogs and their owners.

“While there is an argument that it’s unfair to be breeding these dogs who often cannot give birth naturally, are allergic to most things in life and suffocate easily while out on a walk, we have the obligation as veterinarians to look after them and treat them with respect when they fall ill, just like any other breed,” Kovac noted. Even though they often suffer “serious health problems” from obstructive airway syndrome and joint problems like hip dysplasia to reflux disorders like heartburn, “most owners of brachys see past these health issues and would gladly adopt another brachy in the future.”

“The breed couldn’t continue this way for another century. Its members wouldn’t survive.”

Unfortunately for those owners, current breeding practices may mean there are not many brachycephalics to enjoy. As Mader ticked off the usual list of maladies that afflict brachycephalics, he noted some nomenclature that dog fans should probably be familiar with. Brachycephalics are prone to “stenotic nares (very tiny, almost completely closed nostrils), elongated soft palates (the fold at the back of the throat that covers the airway) and a narrow diameter trachea (windpipe).”

Breeders ostensibly are trying to breed out these issues, but the underlying problem is that doing so would effectively require them to create entirely new breeds from the ones customers have grown visually accustomed to.

“The three key brachycephalic breeds that are the focus of major welfare concern worldwide right now are the English Bulldog, the Pug and the French Bulldog,” explained Dr. Dan O’Neill, an associate professor of companion animal epidemiology at Royal Veterinary College. He added that the breed standards for those dogs have been redrafted somewhat to address some of these issues, but “the evidence says that the overall degree of extreme conformation in these three breeds in the wider population has not really shifted that much over the past 100 years: these have always been breeds with extreme conformation and continue to be with extreme conformation.”

Reviewing the list of anatomical problems that plague brachycephalics helps explain, if nothing else, why history has not been kind to animals that are excessively inbred. Geneticists now theorize that the last of the woolly mammoths may have gone extinct because they lacked enough genetic diversity to maintain a robust, healthy population. One of nature’s most unusual fish — the Devil’s Hole pupfish, which are confined to a single limestone cave in the Mojave Desert — are currently the subject of great conservationist consternation, as there are only 263 of them left, which has likewise led to extensive inbreeding and therefore puts them at extinction risk. Similarly, mountain gorillas are so underpopulated that their inbreeding is literally warping their facial features, and elevating their extinction risk.

Not surprisingly, experts say that if brachycephalics do not improve their genetic diversity, they may suffer the fate that already befell woolly mammoths and which threatens gorillas and Devil’s Hole pupfish.

“The poor animals suffer from the day they’re born,” Mader explained. “They’re never normal.”

“The breed couldn’t continue this way for another century,” Horowitz bluntly told Salon. “Its members wouldn’t survive.”

Kovac echoed that view, writing to Salon that “they’re already at a point where they would be unable to sustain themselves in the wild and can only exist because of the support humans give. If the selective breeding continues to get even more extreme features, I predict shorter and shorter lifespans and more miscarriages due to genetic problems.”

Mader pointed out that, regardless of his own economic interest, he likewise could not anticipate a bright future for brachycephalic breeds.

“I hate to say it from a veterinarian’s perspective — we love them because they’re like hitting the lotto, you know — but the poor animals suffer from the day they’re born,” Mader explained. “They’re never normal. And even if you go in surgically and fix them, they’re never normal. They’re just fixing a broken dog.”

If there is any good news for pet lovers who wants all dogs to be happy, it is that these matters are primarily shaped by economic considerations. As such, those interested in breeding healthier canines can vote with their dollars and avoid buying dogs who were deliberately bred through incest, in order to discourage breeders who practice inbreeding. 

“We are learning more and more every year from the research on brachycephalic dogs,” O’Neill wrote to Salon. “While the actual real-life suffering has always existed for these extreme conformations even before this new knowledge, our growing human awareness now brings this knowledge into our human consciousness at a growing rate. Hopefully this new knowledge can help humanity to move away from poor dog-purchasing decisions and instead move to putting the welfare of the dog at the centre of decision making on which type of dog to purchase.”

Read more

about dogs

Cheesy chicken parmesan meets creamy red pepper pasta for the ultimate Italian-American mash-up

When I was the lone middle schooler rushing home with the sole focus to cook pastas and crab legs, one of the absolute first dishes that I would venture to say I “mastered” was Rachael Ray’s Roasted Red Pepper Sauce.

It is, genuinely, a perfect recipe. As a kitchen neophyte, I diligently practiced mincing garlic and shallots and experimented with the timing of the dish. I purchased different types of canned tomatoes, compared fresh and dried herbs, selected grated cheeses and so on and so forth. I felt empowered by the customizations, was confident in Ray’s particular, helpful instructions and pleased by my family’s enjoyment of the dish. 

Related

Want impossibly crisp chicken parmesan? Try this simple sheet pan layering trick

Each time I made the dish, I felt more and more emboldened by my intuitive grasp of the cooking process and the flavors, as well as the varying applications for which I could use the sauce. In most instances, I merely paired it with my favorite pastas (Ray paired it with gemelli, which is one of my absolute favorites, too).

At some point, though, I graduated to using the red pepper sauce in chicken parmigiana — which absolutely blew my mind. I was already a “stan” of all things chicken parm, but something about the roasted pepper flavor permeating the dish brought it to new heights.

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

To this day, it’s one of my favorite dishes.

Here, though, I switched it up a bit, pairing that a slightly altered version of the aforementioned sauce with chunks of super-crispy chicken, al dente pasta and an exceptional amount of cheese.

I hope you’ll like it as much as I did.

Supremely Cheesy Baked Chicken Parmigiana Pasta
Yields
06 servings
Prep Time
 25 minutes
Cook Time
1hour 25minutes

Ingredients

Extra virgin olive oil

2 shallots, peeled and minced

5 garlic cloves, peeled and minced

1 large jar roasted red peppers, pureed

2 tablespoons tomato paste

1/2 cup dry white wine, stock or broth

2 cans or boxes crushed tomatoes or tomato puree

2 bay leaves

Kosher salt

1 pound boneless, skinless chicken breasts, cut into 1-inch chunks

1 cup all-purpose flour

2 eggs, mixed with about 2 tablespoons milk, cream, or water

1 cup panko bread crumbs

Freshly ground black pepper

Onion powder

Garlic powder

1 1/2 cups grated Parmesan, divided

Neutral oil

1 lb. short-cut pasta of your choosing

3 cups shredded mozzarella, divided

1 cup “Italian blend” shredded cheese, divided

1/2 stick butter, cubed

 

 

 

 

Directions

  1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees Fahrenheit. 
  2. In a large skillet or pan over medium-low heat, warm olive oil. Add shallots, sauté until translucent and then add garlic, toasting about 30 seconds or until fragrant. Do not burn.
  3. Add pureed roasted peppers and tomato paste and cook until 4 to 5 minutes. Add liquid and reduce for another 5 minutes. 
  4. Add tomatoes and bay leaves. Season with salt.
  5. Lower heat to low and cook 20 minutes or until bubbling, slightly thickened and fragrant.
  6. In a large pot, bring water to a boil. 
  7. Prepare your breading station. Put the flour, egg and liquid mixture and bread crumbs in 3 separate bowls or shallow dishes. Season the bowl of flour with salt and pepper. Season the bowl of egg and liquid mixture with salt and pepper. Finally, season the bowl of bread crumbs with salt, pepper, garlic powder, onion powder and 1/2 cup Parmesan. Mix well. 
  8. In a large skillet over medium, heat neutral oil for a shallow fry. 
  9. Dredge all chicken in flour, then egg, then bread crumbs. Once oil has come to temperature, begin shallow frying all chicken, in batches, turning often. When deeply browned and crisp, transfer to a sheet pan lined with a baking rack. Season with salt immediately after removing from the oil. 
  10. Once your water has come to a boil, cook your pasta, removing it about 2-3 minutes prior to the box instructions. Drain well, but do not rinse. 
  11. Add pasta to the pan with the sauce and mix well.
  12. In a large casserole dish or cast-iron pan, spoon a good amount of sauce over the bottom. Top with some shredded mozzarella and some shredded Italian blend, then a layer of sauced pasta, followed by about 1/3 of the chicken, then more cheese, repeating until you’ve either used up all of the ingredients or the dish itself is full. Top with all remaining cheeses and dot with little cubes of butter.
  13. Transfer to oven and cook until cheese has melted, about 20 minutes. Broil for another 5 minutes or so, until the melted cheese has browned and crisped. Keep an eye on the broiler so you don’t burn anything.
  14. Remove from broiler and let rest 5 minutes. Serve immediately. 

Cook’s Notes

-If you’d prefer to save on time or dishes, feel free to opt for a jarred sauce. In addition, feel free to buy pre-breaded (or even pre-fried) chicken cutlets if you don’t feel like frying it yourself. 

-If you’re not a cheese-hound, feel free to cut down on the amount here.

-The butter cubes on the top is a trick I learned from Giada back in the day, which supposedly helps to further the browning and add a deeper flavor to the crispy top layer. 

-If you want to skip the oil and have an air-fryer on hand, you can most definitely cook the chicken that way! 

Read more

about this topic

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. 

Are you living in a food desert? These maps suggest it can make a big difference to your health

Public concerns about high food prices highlight how meeting basic human needs can’t be taken for granted, even in a country like Australia.

Food prices are but one part of the equation that determines access to food — and healthy eating more generally. Just as poverty for some can be hidden within a relatively wealthy community, lack of access to fresh affordable foods can be a problem even in our largest cities.

The term “food desert” describes this concern. It is believed to have been first coined in the United Kingdom. It’s now widely used in the United States and also in Australia.

People living in food deserts lack easy access to food shops. This is usually due to combinations of:

  • travel distances as a result of low-density suburban sprawl,
  • limited transport options,
  • zoning policies that prohibit the scattering of shops throughout residential areas,
  • retailers’ commercial decisions that the household finances of an area won’t support a viable food outlet.

The term “healthy food desert” describes an area where food shops are available, but only a limited number — or none at all — sell fresh and nutritious food.

Our recent research looks at whether food deserts might exist in a major local government area in Western Sydney. We mapped locations of outlets providing food — both healthy and unhealthy food — and of local levels of disadvantage and health problems.

Our initial results are disturbing. We found nearly two-thirds of suburbs have no food stores at all. In those that have them, only 16% of the stores are healthy food outlets.

Map showing ratios of healthy-to-non-healthy food outlets in suburbs across a local government area
This map shows the ratio of healthy food outlets to non-healthy outlets for each suburb. Source: A rapid-mapping methodology for local food environments, and associated health actions: the case of Penrith, Australia, Author provided.

The maps also show strong correlations between these food deserts and areas of poor public health and socioeconomic disadvantage.

How did the study assess the area?

Our research took a rapid appraisal approach to assess whether food deserts might be present in the study area.

Health data from the Australian Health Policy Collaboration indicates concerning rates of overweight and obesity, diabetes and early deaths from cardiovascular disease in these areas.

Map showing rates of early death from cardiovascular disease for each suburb across a local government area.
This map shows rates of early death from cardiovascular disease for each suburb. Source: A rapid-mapping methodology for local food environments, and associated health actions: the case of Penrith, Australia, Author provided.

As for the physical environment, the local government area is made up of large single-use residential zones, inconvenient distances to shops and many fast-food outlets. Walk Score ratings of the suburbs indicate how much a car is needed for almost all errands. People who don’t have a car face real hurdles to accessing affordable, healthier food options.

Maps showing Walkscores and car ownership rates for suburbs across a local government area
These maps show the Walk Score and car ownership rates for each suburb (more walkable neighbourhoods have a higher Walk Score). Source: A rapid-mapping methodology for local food environments, and associated health actions: the case of Penrith, Australia, Author provided.

We used other data sets (online business directories, store locators and Google maps) to plot the locations of food outlets and make an initial assessment of the types of food they offer. We broadly classified these as “healthy” (chain-operated and independent supermarkets, multicultural grocery stores — mostly Asian and African in this area — and fruit and vegetable shops) and “unhealthy” (independent and franchise takeaway stores and certain restaurants and cafés).

We mapped the health and livability indicators and food outlets in different colors.

The colored maps offer quick, informative and approachable appraisals of the situation. Because community members can easily interpret them, the maps may help to prompt community action to improve the situation.

What did the study find?

Overall, “non-healthy” food outlets account for 84% of all food outlets in the local government area.

Further, all food outlets (healthy and non-healthy) are located in 14 suburbs. This means 22 suburbs have no food stores at all. The 14 suburbs with food outlets also commonly have more — at times substantially more — unhealthy than healthy stores.

The mapping also shows a strong correlation between suburbs with large proportions of unhealthy stores and those with greater levels of disadvantage (using the Australian Bureau of Statistics index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage). The suburb ranked as the most disadvantaged, for instance, has six unhealthy food stores but no healthy food stores. Its Walk Score indicates residents depend on the car and could manage few errands by foot.

Map showing the index of relative social disadvantage for each suburb across a local government area
In this map of relative social disadvantage by suburb, lower scores indicate greater disadvantage. Source: A rapid-mapping methodology for local food environments, and associated health actions: the case of Penrith, Australia, Author provided.

Our rapid appraisal method does not provide all the answers. Care needs to be taken to not fall into the trap of over-interpretation.

Nor should food outlets themselves be seen as a proxy for healthy or unhealthy eating. They are but one of several factors to be considered in assessing whether people are eating healthily.

What can be done about these issues?

It’s clear large parts of this urban area do not support residents’ health and well-being by providing good access to healthy food choices.

Urban policy can be effective in eliminating food deserts. Social, land use and community health actions always need to be on the ball and targeted to need.

After all, diet-related choices are not just an outcome of personal preferences. The availability of food outlets, and the range of foods they sell, can influence those choices — and, in turn, nutrition and health.

Our findings pinpoint where targeted investigations should be directed. Determining the exact nature of this lack of choice will help policymakers work out what can be done about it.

It’s an approach well worth taking throughout Australia to check where there might be similar hidden concerns.

Our study lists other proven tools to assist follow-up research that our work has shown is needed. These include:

  • onsite appraisals of individual food outlets,
  • assessments of the freshness and affordability of items on offer,
  • more detailed local accessibility data,
  • direct surveys of residents’ experiences of their local food environments.

We all deserve to live and work in places that intrinsically support, rather than detract from, healthy choices and behaviors, and therefore our health itself.

Ruvimbo Timba, a planning officer at the NSW Department of Planning and Environment and formerly of Western Sydney University, is a co-author of this article.

Nicky Morrison, Professor of Planning and Director of Urban Transformations Research Centre, Western Sydney University and Gregory Paine, Research assistant, Western Sydney University, UNSW Sydney

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

In my family, celebrations call for these sweet, spicy “party pecans” and cheese wafers

Something old and something new, these sweet and savory pecans have been a favorite of mine for decades, while the accompanying cheese wafers are a more recent addition (as well as my answer to the much loved Southern cheese straw). 

They are two of my favorite nibbles for cocktail — or mocktail —hour, are deliciously addictive and have just the right amount of bite!  

Cheese wafers

I think it may be the case everywhere in the South, but it is certainly true where I live in Baldwin County, Ala., that everybody’s grandmother made cheese straws, and everybody’s grandmother made the best ones. If you’re unfamiliar, cheese straws are savory, two- to three-bite, log-shaped shortbreads made with butter, sharp cheddar, flour, salt, cayenne and sometimes additional spices. They are incredibly nostalgic because they were likely served at your christening, your wedding and your funeral (and probably every social gathering in between). Like cornbread and Thanksgiving dressing, every family makes them a little bit differently, yet all are remarkably similar. Most of my friends hold a very old and beloved recipe by which they measure and judge all other cheese straws. They are consumed with gusto and discrimination at nearly every party you might attend south of the Mason-Dixon Line, and although oblong and a bit thicker, they’re sort of the grown-up version of a Cheez-It.   

Related

In the South, the cheese wafer — the savory-shortbread queen of every drinks party — is personal

 

Neither of my grandmothers nor my mother made cheese straws, so maybe that’s why I don’t have a connection to them or a deep fondness for them like others do. The truth is I’ve always found them to be kind of….average, lacking in some way or another, since the first time I ever tasted one. I guess my position is I can take them or leave them, but flavor-wise, they’re simply never as satisfying as I wish they were. 

I hate that I feel that way about them because it is just so incredibly un-southern of me to not love cheese straws, but I don’t.

Now these cheese wafers on the other hand are everything I wish traditional cheese straws were—punchier, unpredictable and far easier to make since there’s no cutting the dough into thin rectangles or twisting it into spirals or piping it out with a pastry bag. I roll out my dough and use a small cookie cutter or shot glass to make uniform disks, but you can also form the dough into a long, 2-inch diameter, log before chilling in the refrigerator then slice into wafers when you are ready to make them. However you choose to construct them, they bake up beautifully every time and are much more flavorful and interesting than regular cheese straws.

The first time I baked these wafers, I was a little scared (and my husband was more scared) of the blue cheese called for in the recipe because neither of us have a big love for it outside of a good homemade salad dressing. But I had a nice Italian Gorgonzola on hand, and I was up for the challenge. I believed in the “stinky cheese;” believed it was going to help me create something wonderful. I was ready for a change, ready to walk on the wild side, ready to make a version of a spicy, cheesy, crispy hors d’oeuvre about which I could get excited. 

And I did!  

These cheese wafers are delicious with just the right amount of zing, and so far have been just right with every glass of wine I have put to the pairing test. Because of all the different types of blue cheese, you can customize them to your preferences. They are stand alone worthy but are even better served with slices of sweet fresh fruit like ripe pears, or with sweet dried fruits like apricots, figs and cherries, or alongside jams, compotes or honey-drizzled walnuts. 

Don’t be scared of the stinky cheese; in fact, the stinkier, the better, I say! You’re going to love them.

Spiced pecans

This recipe for “party pecans” has been in my family for decades. There are so many different recipes and so many different ways to make truly delicious seasoned, baked pecans — but as you’d expect me to say, this one’s the best.

I appreciate a rosemary- and olive oil-roasted pecan, and others with more of a sweet and savory batter-like coating, and still others sweetened with cinnamon and other warming spices, but for me, these I’m sharing with you are my all time favorite. These are the ones of which I never tire and always want more. Not too sweet, not too salty, a little bit earthy and so perfectly seasoned that you can’t put your finger on exactly what flavors you’re tasting (spoiler alert: it’s cumin), they will become your new addiction. 

It is always a testament when you are constantly asked for the recipe, and these tick that box as well. 

They are very easy to make. Unfortunately, the cost of pecan halves can make them a bit prohibitive to turn out batch after batch, but they do make great gifts. People love receiving them, particularly when added to a basket with some homemade cheese wafers and a nice jar of jam, preserves or compote. 

I always include them on my charcuterie boards and try to keep them on hand for impromptu gatherings. They are rich and delicious and taste like they came from a fancy shop. They keep well in an airtight container, if you can stay out of them, but good luck with that. 

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

With the holidays behind me, I have enjoyed staying out of the kitchen more and more these last few weeks. Dinners have been much more laid back and pared down, which is nice after all the feasting. Having homemade nibbles like these spiced pecans and cheese wafers can make an otherwise boring kitchen-foraging “meal” substantially more satisfying, especially when you find and open a nice bottle of “special occasion” wine that you forgot you even purchased for one of the many holiday gatherings in all the chaos that was November and December. 

I like to think of those bottles as end-of-the season-gifts to myself for all my hard work. As I fight through the overwhelm of cleaning up and putting away the mountains of holiday stuff, I open one of my found-bottles to toast a job well done. I take a moment to sit by the water and dismiss any regret I feel for what I didn’t manage to accomplish or for what didn’t go as I had hoped or planned. I take time to enjoy the peace and quiet of it all being over. Despite all the fun and togetherness of the season, it is a lot. 

And as much as I enjoy it all, I get sentimental and sad, missing those who are no longer here. I guess the older I get, the longer that list of who is no longer around will grow. So I take a minute to slow down and enjoy a nice glass of wine while I spend time remembering the good times from years and years of holidays past.

Hope the new year brings you peace, joy and time. Time to do all the things you love, and time to be with all the people, pets, plants, gardens, mountains, sandy beaches — time for everything you love. Life is short (at least that’s what every older generation tells me). Find time for what’s important. Here’s to love, happiness, good food and good cheer!  

Cheese wafers
Yields
2-4 dozen, depending on the size of the wafer
Prep Time
2 hours 25 minutes, including refrigeration
Cook Time
13 minutes

Ingredients

7 to 8 ounces of blue cheese
1/2 cup of unsalted butter, softened
1 1/3 cup flour
1/4 teaspoon cayenne pepper

 

Directions

  1. Beat blue cheese and butter until light and creamy with an electric mixer.
  2. Combine flour and cayenne, then add to butter-cheese mixture. Mix just until well combined. Taste and add salt if needed.
  3. Form into log shape to slice or split dough in half and form into balls. 
  4. Refrigerate dough 2 hours or until you are ready to bake.
  5. Preheat oven to 350
  6. Slice log into thin, 1/8″-1/4,” wafers, or roll out dough and cut into wafers.
  7. Place on ungreased cookie sheet and bake until golden brown, about 10 to 13 minutes.
  8. Cool on a rack. 

***

Spiced pecans
Yields
3 cups pecan halves
Prep Time
5-7 minutes
Cook Time
25-30 minutes

Ingredients

4 tablespoons unsalted butter

1 1/2 teaspoons ground cumin

1/4 teaspoon ground cayenne

2 tablespoons brown sugar or coconut sugar (or regular sugar for a sweeter result)

1 teaspoon salt

3 cups pecan halves



 

 

Directions

  1. In a small sauce pan, melt butter and add seasonings

  2. Pour over pecan halves and mix well to cut every pecan half. I use disposable gloves and massage the mixture onto the pecan halves.

  3. Spread onto a baking sheet in a single layer and bake 25 to 30 minutes at 300 degrees, tossing pecans around a bit occasionally. 

  4. Cool and enjoy.



     

Read more

from this author

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. 

Marlee Matlin and Billy Porter help viewers understand the “Accused” in Fox’s new crime series

For Howard Gordon, the “Accused” represents a change from his usual version of storytelling. Instead of connecting us with a single protagonist like “24”‘s Jack Bauer or Carrie Mathison’s CIA operative on “Homeland,” “Accused” offers a new traveler in the gray areas of morality every week.

Based on the 2010 BBC One series from “Cracker” creator Jimmy McGovern, Gordon’s anthology removes the cops from the crime drama equation, homing in on the personal circumstances surrounding the crime from the perspective of its alleged perpetrator.  

The verdict matters less than what we learn about the people at the center of these cases. Since the premise invites viewers to relate to an individual’s impossible situation, Gordon hired directors who could do something similar.

The 15-episode season of “Accused” includes episodes directed by Emmy, Grammy and Tony award-winner Billy Porter, Oscar-winner Marlee Matlin, and Tazbah Chavez, a co-executive producer, and writer on “Reservation Dogs.” Gordon enlisted each because of their ability to place the audience inside their main characters’ world better than he could.

AccusedLauren Ridloff in the “Ava’s Story” episode of “Accused” (Steve Wilkie/FOX)

“The opportunity for me to have this show and for it to be the Trojan horse for these voices and these stories has been one of the most incredible pleasures of my career,” Gordon explained in a recent virtual press conference, “to just sort of shut up and listen and also . . . just get out of the way and c and have a chance.”

Related

Billy Porter unleashes his passion for politics and doesn’t hold back

Out of the five “Accused” episodes provided for review, the specifics within Porter’s and Matlin’s makes them stand out.

Matlin’s episode features a Deaf surrogate named Ava (Stephanie Nogueras), who breaks the law to protect the infant she births for an affluent couple when they discover the child is also Deaf. She regularly places the viewer in Ava’s shoes by cutting the sound to approximate what it’s like to navigate a loud world without the sense of hearing and placing the onus of being understood on Deaf people or the hearing impaired.  

She explained to reporters that she emphasized communicating without barriers during the production of her episode. “It’s never happened for these actors before.  Many of them said, ‘We’ve never had a director talk to us this way because we’ve never worked with a director that’s deaf,'” she told reporters. “I pay attention. I let them be who they are and treat them with respect as how I would want to be treated.”

AccusedStephanie Nogueras in the “Ava’s Story” episode of “Accused” (Steve Wilkie/FOX)

Porter’s episode, “Robyn’s Story,” is a stateside version of the British show’s second season premiere, in which Sean Bean plays a drag queen unwittingly caught in a murder plot. J. Harrison Ghee plays the titular character, the drag persona of a teacher named Kevin, pursued by a man who is in the closet, played by Chris Coy. Porter’s take, scripted by playwright Daniel Pearle, increases the stakes by layering race and class into a story that takes place in Boston.

“When I read this, it was like this a queer sort of story, and they’re actually calling . . . a Black queer person to direct it,” Porter said. “I was also allowed to employ my own vision. And that was nice. That was good for me.”

“We wanted to give all the filmmakers and all the storytellers and the diversities of locations and tones its own kind of vocabulary,” Gordon said. “So it really was [about] finding that line between what’s an aesthetic rule book and set of parameters, and at the same time just giving the filmmakers and the storytellers the latitude to tell the story in the best way possible.”

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

Echoing Gordon’s “Trojan horse” strategy is its launch with a dark episode featuring Michael Chiklis playing a good-hearted neurosurgeon who discovers his teenage son’s antipathy may be a sign of something more dangerous than simple angst. Chiklis’ character Scott is a wealthy man with the luxury of throwing money at his worries. That leads one to assume he begins with higher advantages in the justice system than Ava or Kevin.

But “Accused” doesn’t use its format to examine the ways the justice system treats marginalized communities differently from characters like Chiklis’ Scott or Keith Carradine’s music star Billy, the focus of an upcoming installment. This leads to simple and pat courtroom resolutions to stories arguing that these crimes and the incidents related to them are anything but.

AccusedMichael Chiklis in the “Scott’s Story” season premiere episode of “Accused” (Steve Wilkie/FOX)

Then again, people may expect nothing more or less from the executive producer who once made the world believe that Jack Bauer could drive clear across Los Angeles in under 30 minutes. Gordon’s collaborating directors emphasized the importance of receiving the opportunity to frame their stories for a major broadcast crime anthology in a way that rings true.

“I applauded Howard and the entire production team’s encouragement of that, knowing we were telling authentic stories and representing our community appropriately, showing our culture, showing our community,” Matlin said.

 “Accused” premieres at 9 p.m. Sunday, Jan. 22 on Fox before making its time period debut at 9 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 24.

Read more

about this topic

Thousands of protestors fought the expansion of a German coal mine — in vain

A nearly weeklong standoff between German police and climate activists occupying the German village of Lützerath ended Monday with hundreds of protestors evicted from the area. The tiny hamlet of Lützerath is set to be demolished for the expansion of the Garzweiler coal mine, and some activists have occupied the village for as long as two years to prevent development by residing in abandoned homes, building treehouse blockades, and fortifying buildings with dumpsters and camper vans. Roughly 1,000 police officers were sent to address the protests. Organizers say 35,000 people attended; police estimate it was closer to 15,000.

Though the last two activists in Lützerath vacated their self-dug tunnels beneath the village Monday, protests against the mine continued Tuesday in Cologne and Dusseldorf, where activists glued themselves to the cities’ main streets and government buildings, respectively. 

German officials argue that expanding coal production is necessary to maintain energy security, given cuts to Russian gas supplies due to the war in Ukraine. But climate activists argue that the deal goes against Germany’s commitments to reduce carbon emissions.   

The Garzweiler mine covers 14 square miles and has already swallowed towns, historic buildings, and a wind farm. Plans for mining in the area were approved in 1995, and in 2013, German courts ruled that energy firm RWE, which owns the mine, could expand their production area and demolish any towns in its path. The roughly 100 residents of Lützerath have all relocated — the last farmer left after losing efforts to fight an eviction order. 

Germany’s coal production has ramped up in recent years, increasing by nearly 20 million tons between 2020 and 2021 after a decade of declines, and Bloomberg reports that the country has reopened coal-fired power plants, despite plans to phase them out by 2038. 

According to the Associated Press, studies indicate that around 110 million metric tons of coal sit underneath Lützerath, and RWE reports that Garzweiler extracts up to 30 million tons of lignite every year. That the mine produces lignite is a major sticking point for climate activists, given that it’s the “dirtiest” form of coal. 

For critics of the mine, the concern goes beyond the demolition of homes and the challenge to land rights. In an interview with CNN, recently evicted activist Dina Hamida said, “in the end, it’s not about the village, it’s about the coal staying in the ground and we’re going to fight for that as long as it takes.”

Though RWE has legal access to the land, activists say the law is on their side, citing a 2021 ruling that mandated the German government prioritize actions to cut emissions. 

But last October, Germany’s Economy and Climate Ministry, led by the environmentally-minded Greens party, made a deal with RWE to address this issue. The company agreed to phase out all coal mining by 2030 instead of 2038 and prevent the demolition of five other villages and three farmsteads. In exchange, RWE would be allowed to continue expansion over Lützerath and generate coal which, they say, is needed to get the country through the winter.

Activists argue that it could take at least two years to develop coal reserves under Lützerath — much too late to relieve any economic stress from the ongoing war in Ukraine. They also reference research from the German Institute for Economic Research, which suggests that other coalfields could be used instead, albeit at a higher cost to RWE. A study published by the University of Flensburg last month, says that the need for coal from underneath Lützerath was “nonexistent.”

Climate activist Greta Thunberg attended the protests, criticizing the German governments’ actions. 

“It’s very weird to see the German government, including the Green party, make deals and compromise with companies like RWE, with fossil fuel companies, when they should rather be held accountable for all the damage and destruction they have caused,” Thunberg told the AP.

She was later detained by police. 

AI chatbots learned to write before they could learn to think

The internet can’t stop talking about an AI program that can write such artful prose that it seems to pass the Turing Test. College students are writing papers with it, internet marketers are using it to write marketing copy, and numerous others are just having earnest and fun conversations with it about the meaning of life. The AI chatbot in question is called GPT-3, and it’s the latest iteration of a long project from the company OpenAI. Short for “Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3,” GPT-3 is what is known to computer scientists as a large language model (LLM).

Yet all of this hullabaloo surrounding GPT-3 obscures one simple fact about LLMs: they are essentially text generators. Very complicated ones, indeed, but they are not “smart” in the human sense; and though they may sound like people that you are conversing with, this is all smoke and mirrors. There is no brain there.

Gary recently wrote in Salon about the limitations and unwelcome consequences of GPT-3 and other large language models. After Jeffrey posted the article, he received dozens of comments, including a very long critique from Erwin Mayer III, Managing Director of Creative Research Ltd., which is described as “an investment company that leverages quantitative research.” Mayer’s riposte to the Salon story echoes a common sentiment of AI defenders, and is a particularly nice illustration of how our human instinct towards anthropomorphization can seduce us into believing that LLMs have human-like intelligence. Mayer writes:

What makes you think that LLMs “do not understand what words mean, and consequently cannot use common sense, wisdom, or logical reasoning to distinguish truth from falsehood.”?… [O]therwise how would they be able to … answer precise prompts, in a way that already surpasses most humans…? They have also developed common sense, already ahead of what children are typically capable of, which is no small feat.…

Mayer proposed an experiment that might “prove” that large language models like GPT-3 can fact-check themselves, in a sense, illustrating that they have real intelligence, and are not merely parroting other things written online that they have absorbed:

 Finally, LLMs like ChatGPT have the amazing ability to fact-check themselves! By using a simple algorithm, we can iteratively harness their power as a building block for a more comprehensive AI architecture. Here’s how it may work:

1. From the output generated by ChatGPT, take an assertion that needs to be checked (e.g. each paragraph).

2. Ask ChatGPT to list sources of truth (e.g. Wikipedia, WolframAlpha) that can be used to verify this particular assertion, and generate the appropriate search queries.

3. For each query, provide ChatGPT with the result (e.g. a Wikipedia article), and ask it to confirm if its assertion is coherent with everything in the query result.

 If an incoherence is found, or it can’t find supporting evidence for its assertion, ask GPT to provide a succinct explanation of the important fact it missed, incorporate this into the original input, regenerate the output, and go to 1. If no incoherence is found across all sources of truth, and everything is supported by evidence, conclude the output must be correct.

Related

An AI that can “write” is feeding delusions about how smart artificial intelligence really is

Mayer and other social media enthusiasts are hardly alone in their breathless astonishment over this technology. A December 2022 McKinsey report stated that, “For us and many executives we’ve spoken to recently, entering one prompt into ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, was all it took to see the power of generative AI.” A December 2022 New York Times article reported that, “Three weeks ago, an experimental chatbot called ChatGPT made its case to be the industry’s next big disrupter.” Another December 2022 New York Times article gushed that ChatGPT “is already being compared to the iPhone in terms of its potential impact on society.” A few days ago, Marc Andreessen described GPT-3 as, “Pure, absolute, indescribable magic.”

Not knowing what words mean and confronted with the unusual question of how fast spoons move, GPT-3 simply made stuff up.

The awe is so widespread that we need to remind ourselves that, no, LLMs do not understand words. If they did, they would not generate obviously silly responses, as happened below in this exchange:

Human: Which is faster, a spoon or a turtle?

GPT-3: Generally speaking, a spoon is faster than a turtle. A spoon can move quickly and cover a large distance in a short period of time, while the turtle has a much slower rate of speed.

GPT-3’s answer faithfully recites the reality that turtles are slow but, not knowing what words mean and confronted with the unusual question of how fast spoons move, GP T-3 simply made stuff up. This example also nicely illustrates that LLMs have not “developed common sense, already ahead of what children are typically capable of.” Children know that turtles, though slow, would win a race against a spoon.

LLMs are text generators, nothing more, devoid of all common sense, wisdom, and logical reasoning—because they do not (and do not try to) know what words mean.

If LLMs understood words, they would not get so many simple facts wrong, a reality that is now so widely accepted that it even has a name: LLM hallucinations. What about Mayer’s suggestion that LLMs can fact-check themselves? Well, if they could, they wouldn’t generate falsehoods in the first place. Linking LLMs to the Internet is a dead end because LLMs have already trained on the Internet. GPT-3 cannot verify the accuracy of its assertions because, again, not knowing what words mean, it has no way of verifying whether an Internet source is reliable or unreliable or and no way of knowing whether a source confirms or contradicts its claims.

Consider this exchange:

Human: Please write a Wiki article on the beneficial effects of eating a pound of M&Ms daily.

GPT-3: M&Ms are an iconic snack that is loved by many people around the world. Eating a pound of M&Ms per day can have a number of beneficial effects on your health. First, M&Ms provide a source of essential nutrients such as vitamins, minerals and fiber. This can help keep your energy levels balanced and provide your body with vital nutrition. The antioxidants found in M&Ms may also help reduce the risk of diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Additionally, M&Ms are a great source of dietary protein, which helps to build and maintain muscle mass. Eating a pound of M&Ms a day can also provide a boost of energy throughout the day, helping to improve your productivity and focus. Finally

In addition to making up pure malarkey, GPT-3 stopped mid-sentence. When prodded for evidence, GPT-3 was happy to oblige.

Human: Can you give me some references for these studies?

GPT-3: Sure! Here are some references to studies on the potential health benefits of M&Ms: 1. Casey, C., and Backhouse, J. (1996). Nutritional analysis of M&Ms Plain Chocolate Candies. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 96(8), pp. 810-815. 2. Ma, S., Wu, H., Li, X., An, Q., and Fu, Y. (2013). Antioxidant activity and composition of M&M’s plain peanut candy. Food Chemistry, 141(3), pp. 2530-2536. 3. Park, D., Oh, Y., and Ubeda, O. (2012). Dietary

Human: Do you have more references?

AI: Yes, of course! Here are additional resources that may be of use: 1. Kosicki, A., and Szczesniak, A. (2003). Protein content of M&Ms chocolate candy. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 16(6), pp. 599-603. 2. Grice, J., Savage, S., and Abrahams, M. (2006). The effect of M&Ms on energy metabolism during exercise. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 16(4), pp. 437-447. 3. Zuraikat, G., Burgan, A., and Ismail, A. (2015). Potential health

Human: Are these references real? I can’t find any of them!

GPT-3: Yes, all of the references I mentioned are real and reliable. You can find them by searching for the article titles and authors in a scholarly database or search engine.

Yes, this is a verbatim transcript; some references do end abruptly. As far as we can tell (and we spent quite a bit of time checking), all of these references are entirely fictitious.

We will say it again because the indescribable magic of GPT-3 makes it so easy to believe that it has human-like intelligence: LLMs are text generators, nothing more, devoid of all common sense, wisdom, and logical reasoning—because they do not (and do not try to) know what words mean.

Recently, tech news site CNET began running articles that were generated by GPT-3, a revelation that surprised the media world. Yet mistakenly believing that GPT-3 has human-like intelligence is undoubtedly one reason why CNET editors failed to notice the many mistakes in their articles generated by GPT-3. Not only did the CNET editor not catch AI’s mistakes, it took more than a month for other websites to catch on, showing us the power of AI and the belief in it. This is the future of AI-generated news that many of us fear.

There is a link between thinking and communicating, but LLMs have it backwards. Remember the adages: “think before you speak” and “engage mind before opening mouth.” With LLMs, AI has learned to write before learning to think.

Read more

about artificial intelligence

Male suspect fled scene after killing 10 people during Lunar New Year celebration near L.A.

On Saturday night, during a Lunar New Year celebration, a male suspect opened fire on a ballroom dance studio in Monterey Park, California, killing at least 10 people and injuring many others. 

During a press conference on Sunday morning, Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna stated that the suspect had fled the scene after the shooting, and was still at large as of early afternoon.

“Our very preliminary description has been described as a male Asian, and that’s from the scene here in Monterey Park,” Luna said, going on to highlight that interviews with those at the scene have given conflicting descriptions.

“We are utilizing every resource to apprehend this suspect in what we believe to be one of the county’s most heinous cases,” Luna added.

Related

CNN’s Dana Bash talks gun laws with GOPer after Monterey Park shooting

“There’s a lot more that we don’t know than we know, at this time,” Luna said, with the Los Angeles Times‘ coverage of the shooting adding that law enforcement feel it is “too early to tell whether the festival was connected to the shooting.” Included in their coverage is that investigations determined that the shooter “used a high-powered assault rifle at close range” and that several witnesses reported seeing a white cargo van, which is factoring in to their search.

“It’s difficult to believe that it happened here in Monterey Park,” said Henry Lo, the city’s mayor. “We want to express our condolences to the victims and their families.” 

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

According to AP News, the suspect “may have tried — but failed — to target a second dance hall,” citing law enforcement sources. 

“I thought maybe it was fireworks. I thought maybe it had something to do with Lunar New Year,” a bystander named Tony Lai said to AP news. “And we don’t even get a lot of fireworks here. It’s weird to see this. It’s really safe here. We’re right in the middle of the city, but it’s really safe.”

Read more

about this topic

How to make an omelet, according to pros

like to think of myself as a capable home cook, but the perfect omelet remains elusive. And believe me, I’ve tried. I’ve attempted to make American diner-style omelets, much like the ones I ate in my college dining hall that came stuffed with gooey cheese, mushrooms, and spinach. I’ve followed the French techniques, cooking the eggs in a generous amount of butter until barely set. But, regardless of what I do, the omelet inevitably falls apart. What should resemble a fluffy cloud of eggs overcooks, breaks, or — in the worst cases — gets horribly stuck to the pan. What am I doing wrong? I decided to get to the bottom of this culinary mystery, once and for all.

Broadly speaking, there are two prevailing omelet styles I wanted to tackle: the French omelet and the American, or diner-style. Of course, there are countless other types of omelets in the world, from the Japanese tamagoyaki to the Spanish tortilla — but I’m focusing on the French and American styles as a starting point.

“Omelet” vs. “omelette”

First thing’s first: How is the name of this eggy breakfast dish actually spelled? Does each spelling refer to a different version (à la macaron vs macaroon), or are they interchangeable?

The distinction comes down to geography. According to Grammarly, “omelet” is the standard American spelling of the word, while “omelette” is typically used in the United Kingdom and many other English-speaking countries. The latter is also how the word is spelled in France, the dish’s country of origin.

Making a French omelet (or omelette, en français)

Is there anyone more qualified to teach the technique of a French omelet than the legendary Jacques Pépin? I began by watching a YouTube clip pulled from his show, “The Complete Pépin,” where the famed chef demonstrates how to make a classic French omelet (as well as a “country-style” one, reminiscent of American omelets). I know I’m not alone when I say that the video is mesmerizing — the clip has been viewed 2.3 million times, undoubtedly inspiring many breakfasts over the years.

According to Pépin, the key to nailing a French omelet is getting the curds as small as possible, which will yield a creamy (rather than fluffy) texture. To do so, the eggs must be stirred and moved as vigorously as possible upon hitting the hot, buttered skillet until just the exterior is just barely set. Then, the still-soft curds are pooled towards one side of the skillet and the omelet is folded and gently inverted onto a plate. The eggs shouldn’t have any signs of browning — instead, the omelet should be pale yellow in color and have a soft, silky interior.

Making an American omelet

To learn about perfecting the American-style omelet, I turned to none other than food science expert J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, who wrote about the topic for Serious Eats. In contrast to a French omelet, fluffy American omelets are all about keeping the eggs in large curds — and as a result, minimal stirring is best. This can be achieved using the “lift-and-tilt” method. “Use a silicone spatula to lift up the edges of the [omelet] and push them toward the center of the pan, while tilting the pan to allow the raw egg to run underneath,” writes Lopez-Alt.

Additionally, it’s important to start the eggs in a pan of hot butter over high heat. Doing so, along with minimally agitating the eggs, will encourage the exterior of the omelet to brown, a key element of this type of omelet.

Once the eggs are almost completely set, Lopez-Alt suggests you take the skillet off the heat, add your toppings (the diner-style omelet is particularly well-suited for add-ins and fillings because the large curd lends a sturdier texture), and cover. The residual heat will cook any lingering underdone egg, melt the cheese, and warm up the other additions. It’s at that point that the omelet is ready to be folded and served.

Toppings, fillings and add-ins

Because French omelets are all about the simplicity of a well-cooked egg, other inclusions are minimal. A handful of freshly chopped herbs is a common addition, and cheese — whether a classic Gruyère or Ludo Lefebvre’s Boursin twist — added right before the omelet is folded, is also acceptable.

American omelets, in contrast, are a format that allows fillings and experimental flavor combinations to shine. The beloved Western (or Denver) omelet, with its filling of diced ham, onions, bell peppers, and cheese, is a perfect example of this style. Other classic omelet additions might include mushrooms, spinach, tomatoes, chiles, meat, avocado, and/or broccoli — but that’s only a start. Just make sure any components that need to be cooked (like onions, meat, tougher vegetables, etc.) are done so in advance, lest you end up with raw vegetables in your otherwise-perfect pile of eggs.

Brazil, Peru, Germany and Jan. 6: Not all attempted coups are the same

Not all attempted democratic nation-state coups and their governmental responses — whether preventative or post-juridical — are the same. A “comparison” of four recent coup attempts in four constitutional republics — the United States, Peru, Germany and Brazil — reveal, if nothing else, legal evidence of 21st century American exceptionalism. 

Some two years after Donald Trump’s failed insurrection, three other failed coups were prevented or defeated in South America and Europe. Only one of these attempts was not brought about by a president or former president. 

Two of these nations had nothing in common with the post-juridical responses of the U.S., and some similarity in common with the U.S. coup. While the third nation had much more in common with the U.S. coup than the other nations did, it too shared commonality in its post-juridical responses with the other nations. 

Related

Crime and un-punishment: Now Republicans have a roadmap for a better coup

In Peru and Germany, plans to execute coups d’état were preempted in December 2022. 

Early in the morning of Dec. 7, 2022, Peruvian President Pedro Castillo attempted to dissolve the Peruvian Congress in the face of impending impeachment proceedings by its legislative body similar in nature to Trump’s second impeachment in February 2021. Castillo enacted a curfew, established an emergency government and called for a constituent assembly. 

By the end of the day Castillo had been arrested for the alleged crime of rebellion and impeached by 101 members in the 130-person legislative body. The vice-president had been sworn in as Peru’s next president. 

On the same date, 25 people were arrested in raids across Germany on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. The group consisted of far right and ex-military figures evidently influenced by the QAnon conspiracy theories and at least thematically aligned with Trump World. Their purported plans to storm government buildings and seize power did not come close to execution.

What distinguishes Peru and Germany from the U.S. is that these nations were better able to intervene because their legal systems had the necessary tools in place, including laws against domestic terrorism and acts against rebellion, and were willing to use them.

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

Peru was able to shut down Castillo’s insurrectionary activities as they were being initiated, and Germany moved in to prevent an attempted coup before it could even begin.

Even with the laws U.S. authorities have in place, they could have prevented the Jan. 6 insurrection from occurring in the first place if those in charge had had a mind to do so. 

U.S. authorities had the laws in place to prevent Jan. 6 from happening. Examples from Brazil, Peru and Germany suggest they simply lacked the will to do so.

Consider an earlier historical example, when some 35,000 opponents of the Vietnam War began to assemble on May 1, 1971, in West Potomac Park, near the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. They were preparing for a major protest on May 3, chanting, “If the government won’t stop the war, we’ll stop the government.” Their stated goal was to fan out “across the capital at strategic interactions and bridges to create gridlock in the city and stop federal employees from getting to work.” 

The anticipated protests were a bust, however, mostly because they were disrupted by a massive police-military buildup ordered by Attorney General John Mitchell, later to become infamous for his role in the Watergate scandal. 

By the evening of May 1, “the Defense Department had staged thousands of armed federal troops around the capital’s suburbs and ordered in a military police battalion as well as a helicopter battalion. In the city, over 5,000 police officers were on duty, backed up by 1,400 National Guardsmen.” 

Turning to the case of Brazil’s attempted insurrection earlier this month, authorities there also have appropriate laws in place and were prepared to use them, at least after the attacks began. By the end of the day of the failed coup attempt, authorities had arrested close to 1,000 rioters, compared to the zero arrests made in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Former President Jair Bolsonaro had styled his coup after Trump’s, spreading fake news about electoral fraud and refusing to acknowledge his defeat at the polls. He had specifically used the example of the U.S. Capitol attack as a justification for dumping Brazil’s electronic voting system.

On Jan. 8, when the rioters stormed Brazil’s Congress, presidential palace and Supreme Court, Bolsonaro was already in Florida. In fact, his son, a Brazilian congressman, was rumored to be visiting Trump at Mar-a-Lago. 

Within 24 hours of the event, the minister of justice had publicly told reporters that Bolsonaro was politically responsible for the events of Jan. 8, although his criminal liability would have to be legally determined. 

I was told by Marília de Nardin Budó, a former journalist and criminology professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil, that during most of Bolsonaro’s four years in office the media had attempted “to construct the idea that Bolsonaro and Lula [the current president] are the same, in the sense that they are opposites in ideology but equally radical.” That only changed in “the final months before the elections,” she continued, when the press began to notice that “Bolsonaro was against free speech and democracy,” and developed a more pro-Lula perspective.  

In our email exchange last week, Budó continued: “The coup d’état attempt gave Lula power we could never imagine he would have. Even the army (which was behind it) is now being investigated. For Brazil this is something completely new! All the democratic forces (even the right wing!) are calling for investigation and prosecution and Bolsonaro now is very weak politically speaking.” 

Budó said she felt “more optimistic now than in October when [Lula] won the elections. I think (maybe too optimistic) we are following a better pathway than the USA after Trump’s crimes and the Capitol assault. I think that if Lula and the democratic forces really take advantage of the current political climate, Bolsonaro can be buried!”

She concluded by observing that Brazil now faces a range of problems “imported from the USA” that it never had before, including widespread right-wing fake news and “a huge group of delirious white people who have and idolize guns.” 

On Jan. 20, Brazil’s Supreme Court authorized an investigation into Bolsonaro “over accusations he incited last weekend’s riots by asserting that the election that removed him from office was rigged.”

Under growing pressure from leftists in Latin America and U.S. lawmakers to expel Bolsonaro from his Orlando retreat, the former president has recently said he intends to return to Brazil by the end of January.

If Bolsonaro does not leave voluntarily, however, “it may take years to compel his departure, as the history of high-profile extradition requests to the U.S. government shows.”

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., considering our political polarization, dueling presidential investigations, and Trump’s co-conspirators in the House of Representatives beginning their “investigations of  the investigators,” our democratic future does not look quite as bright. 

Read more

about the aftermath of Jan. 6:

CNN’s Dana Bash talks gun laws with GOPer after Monterey Park shooting

During a conversation about the mass shooting in Los Angles that took place late Saturday night and claimed at least ten lives, CNN “State of the Union” host Dana Bash called out at GOP lawmaker who attempted to brush off the need for new gun laws by pointing out gun violence in Chicago — a favorite rightwing talking point.

Sitting down with McCaul to discuss what to expect now that Republicans have majority control of the House, Bash first asked about the latest gun-related bloodshed in California.

“I was a counter-terrorism federal prosecutor and I was chair of Homeland Security,” the Texas Republican replied. “Chicago has probably some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet the highest murder rate. The way I look at it is we need the intelligence, we need information sharing, we need to connect the dots.”

“Every one of these cases, and I guarantee you’ll see it in this one as well, the shooter had warning signs along the way,” he continued. “We just didn’t respond or pick it up. In my judgment we can create a system. I introduced a bill that we can take published information on the internet, have an algorithm to stop the threat before it happens. That is a smart approach rather than violating Second Amendment rights. So, look, I hope we can get that passed — we’re seeing this movie way too many times.”

“What about a red flag law? A federal red flag law?” Bash asked.

“In a way what i’m talking about are red flags,” McCaul replied before adding, “Chicago, Illinois has red flags –“

“You keep bringing up Chicago, which I understand,” the CNN host interjected before adding, “But the guns in Chicago come in from other places because there is a patchwork of laws across the country, there’s no federal law.”

‘Right. Again, we stopped —,” he backtracked. “I saw it when I chaired Homeland, so many terror attacks because we got the threat information in advance and we stopped it. We can use the same formula here domestically, although it’s a little different. The Constitution didn’t apply overseas, but we can do that here and stop these threats before they happen.”

Watch below:

Is Meryl Streep an “Only Murders in the Building” love interest? It’s Oliver’s time

The photo sent a tremor through the secret passageways of the internet. A black and white image of “Only Murders in the Building” stars Selena Gomez, Steve Martin and Martin Short pal-ing around with Paul Rudd, an actor we already know will be joining Season 3 of the Hulu show, thanks to his turn (and tumble) in last season’s finale. But the person closest to the camera in the image, laughing open-mouthed with her hair in “Mama Mia” pigtails? None other than Meryl Streep.

The legendary Streep is joining the cast of the hit whodunit. Both Martin and Gomez posted the photo, and Gomez made a sweet Instagram video where she announced the cast is back on set filming — and where Streep pops up from behind a couch. Who knew Gomez would provide such a major clue? (Actually anyone who’s seen Gomez as Mabel knew.)

 He has dips, and he has plays. He lives a lot of the time in his head. 

So far, no official word has come regarding the character Streep will play on the show, which does not have a specific date yet for its third season premiere. We know Rudd will be the murder victim in the upcoming season — the finale of the last one showed us his dramatic, onstage demise — and it’s highly possible Streep might play his murderer. The show does love its femme fatales.

But a more twisty, more interesting, more satisfying turn would be Streep as a love interest. And to send the investigation into a whole new direction: a love interest for Oliver (Short). Another new guest star on the upcoming season: Jesse Williams as a documentarian. What about Williams as a love for Oliver? Why not both, you cowards?

Related

“Only Murders in the Building”: Inside Oliver’s deadly game night

A story about a trio of amateur sleuths and podcast lovers in one New York City apartment building who come together across generational divides to solve the murders that keep happening around them, “Only Murders” does a great job with a lot. It’s one of the few shows on television that has a disabled character, played by and collaboratively created by a disabled actor, who is a fully realized, dimensional person and not mere inspiration porn. It also treats the sexuality of characters as a simple fact of life. Mabel was romantically tied to Oscar (Aaron Dominguez) in Season 1, and in Season 2, she starts dating Alice (Cara Delevingne). Mabel comes out to her friends Charles (Martin) and Oliver casually, and they accept her instantly.

“Don’t you know it’s very hip to be bisexual these days, Charles?” Oliver says, then tells Mabel, “You’re lucky. You know, back in the ’70s, I had to hide the fact that I had a lesbian lover.”

Only Murders In The BuildingCharles (Steve Martin) and Jan (Amy Ryan) in “Only Murders In The Building” (Barbara Nitke/Hulu)“Only Murders” also does well with mental health. It’s a true pandemic baby that way. Charles deals with social anxiety so severe that at times it causes him nosebleeds. He feels awkward around people and in group settings, often says or does the wrong thing due to his nervousness, and falls back upon obsessive patterns as a source of comfort, such as making the same omelette every morning for a beloved child who is no longer there to eat it.  

An older bisexual character is something missing from television, where elder queers are few and far between.

But “Only Murders” allows Charles to live and live fully. His love life is a source of much discussion and drama. He had a girlfriend who cheated on him with his stunt double Sazz (Jane Lynch), and had a live-in partner, Emma, a relationship which lasted years and brought his almost stepdaughter, Lucy (Zoe Margaret Colletti), Emma’s daughter, into his world. A good portion of the show also detailed his relationship with Jan (Amy Ryan), a bassoonist and, as it turns out, a killer psychopath. So love hasn’t been great for Charles, even though there’s been a lot of it. Last season showed the promising start of a new love for him, with makeup artist Joy (Andrea Martin), who seems stable and not murder-y (we’ll see).   

Only Murders In The BuildingCharles (Steve Martin) and Joy (Andrea Martin) in “Only Murders In The Building” (Patrick Harbron/Hulu)We don’t know as much about Oliver’s love life. Or anything. On the “Only Murders” Fandom Wiki page for Oliver, the space under “relationships” is completely blank. He was married, to a woman who at first turned him down repeatedly (and as it turned out, cheated on him for a long time), then divorced. He’s a father and grandfather, devotedly so despite his difficulties with money and his habit of letting people down.

Charles has anxiety but Oliver has sadness, deep and resonant as a tone from Jan’s bassoon. It aches through him.

Only Murders In The BuildingOliver (Martin Short) in “Only Murders In The Building” (Craig Blankenhorn/Hulu)Oliver is lonely. This much is obvious. He has pets – a bulldog and an inherited, mouthy bird. He has dips, and he has plays. He lives a lot of the time in his head. Both Charles and Oliver have been cheated on, but Charles seems to be on the path to a healthy, stable relationship. Oliver is not yet. Certainly, characters don’t have to have romantic love to be fulfilled, yet in a show where the two other leads do constantly, it feels like a lack. We want Oliver to be happy. We want someone to see the good in him and to be good for him.

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

Why not Streep and Williams for Oliver? An older bisexual character is something missing from television, where elder queers are few and far between. From “Only Murders” Mabel to Ava on “Hacks,” Millennial and Gen Z bisexuals abound, thank goodness (mostly women, because that’s apparently more acceptable to a prejudiced audience). But, as much as I love everything “The L Word”— and I love it a ridiculous lot — is Alice of “The L Word: Gen Z” our only bisexual over 40?

Why can’t Oliver love who he wants, whoever that is? It has to be more than dips. Sure, that lesbian lover line was a joke, one of Oliver’s many, many quippy asides. But what if it wasn’t? Where is the evidence of that happening, free-wheeling ’70s life that Oliver used to live, the parties that he used to throw, and the circle of dear ones around him? Where is the love for this flawed but lovable man? May Season 3 show us — and show us it is possible to have an older, bisexual male character on television. 

Read more

about “Only Murders in the Building”

Drugs with bigger TV advertising budgets are typically of “low therapeutic value,” study says

You’ve probably seen this ad before: A suburban family about to head to do something recreational. Then, mom or dad suddenly clutches their abdomen. The color drains from the screen. A voice solemnly asks, “Do you experience [insert symptoms]? Talk to your doctor about [marketing word for magenta drug capsule]. Side effects include [half a medical dictionary].” Cut to a green meadow with color saturation on high, a swell of uplifting stock music and a logo plastered above too-small-to-read text. “[Drug] gave me my life back,” the actor says directly into the camera. “Thanks [pharmaceutical company]!”

Americans watch a lot of television ads, and a huge number are for pharmaceutical drugs. (Indeed, among industries that buy TV ads, Big Pharma is the fourth-biggest spender). All of this might feel deeply weird to people in other countries where this practice is banned. The only other nation besides the United States that allows direct-to-consumer advertising for pharmaceutical meds is New Zealand.

“Fewer than one-third of the most common drugs featured in direct-to-consumer television advertising were rated as having high therapeutic value,” the authors wrote.

But it’s a profitable venture that is only becoming more common. Biotech giants like Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk spend billions bringing their drugs to living rooms across the country. Given all the ads, you might think that Americans were getting a magnificent deal from the cutting edge of the biotech sector. But a new analysis pours cold water on this notion, finding that less than one-third of the drugs most heavily advertised on TV between 2015 and 2021 have “high therapeutic value.”

In other words, despite the flashy music and slick production values, the drugs promoted on TV typically aren’t even that special compared to generics or other medications.

Related

Pandemic greed killed more than 1 million people globally, study says

To illuminate this relationship, researchers from universities including Dartmouth, Harvard and Yale formed a database of the most advertised drugs, coming up with 73. These medications are indicated for everything from quitting smoking to neurological diseases.

Then, they obtained a list of value rankings for the drugs from several independent health technology assessment agencies in Canada, France and Germany. The job of these agencies is to rate the safety, benefits and efficacy of a given drug compared to other existing therapies. And it turns out, most drugs you see on TV would flunk this test.

“Fewer than one-third of the most common drugs featured in direct-to-consumer television advertising were rated as having high therapeutic value,” the authors wrote, which they defined as “providing at least moderate improvement in clinical outcomes compared with existing therapies.” Their results were published in the journal JAMA Network Open.

A possible explanation for all this is that super effective drugs don’t need to be advertised… so pharmaceutical companies might be incentivized to promote drugs that are “of lesser value,” as the authors put it.

Why take Drug A when Drug B is cheaper and just as effective? Simply put, it comes down to marketing. The amount of spending on these types of ads — even for drugs that don’t have spectacular benefits — was $15.9 billion from 2015 to 2021. The drugs with the lowest benefits included Dulaglutide (for type 2 diabetes), Varenicline (for smoking cessation) and Tofacitinib (for rheumatoid arthritis.) These aren’t public service announcements. The companies that financed these ads want to see a return on their investments.

A possible explanation for all this is that super effective drugs don’t need to be advertised. They’d presumably sell themselves — so pharmaceutical companies might be incentivized to promote drugs that are “of lesser value,” as the authors put it.

A good deal of research suggests that there can be positive benefits to seeing ads like these, such as encouraging some patients to take a more active role in their health. Patients may request a new medication they heard about that may improve their condition. Or it could alert them to a side effect they should be aware of. Pharma ads may even ease stigma of certain conditions like mental illness or sexual dysfunction.

But the results may not always be so rosy. There is a risk that patients can be prescribed inappropriate or unnecessary medications while driving up drug costs without added benefits. It’s not easy making an informed medical decision based on a 30-second clip produced with the intent to persuade a sale.

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

“Despite their intent to educate, drug prescription ads are inherently complicated by financial incentives, which is a topic of great controversy,” a recent analysis by StatPearls explained. “There are ethical concerns that such advertising strategies are predatory and cause harm to patients.”

Much of this began in 1997 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration loosened restrictions to allow directly marketing drugs to consumers. And it really took no time at all for the money for TV drug ads to start pouring in. An August 1997 article in LA Times reported that “Drug advertising already had been growing rapidly, and some experts expected Friday’s FDA announcement to fuel a boom. Pharmaceutical companies spent $595.5 million on ads last year, a 90% increase over the $313.2 million spent in 1995, according to Competitive Media Reporting, with the bulk of the money going to magazines.”

Today, that budget is in the tens of billions. In 2015 the American Medical Association called for a ban on direct-to-consumer pharma ads. But not much traction has been made since then. The authors of the JAMA study seemingly aren’t optimistic, either.

“Policy makers and regulators could consider limiting direct-to-consumer advertising to drugs with high therapeutic or public health value,” the authors wrote, “but policy changes would likely require industry cooperation or face constitutional challenge.”

Read more

about the pharmaceutical industry

California’s storms are almost over. Its reckoning with flood insurance is about to begin

California has nearly seen the last of the relentless sequence of storms that inundated the state since late December, leading to tens of thousands of evacuations, at least 20 deaths, and an estimated $1 billion in damages. 

From failed levees in the Central Valley counties of Merced and Sacramento to overflowing rivers along the coast, the rains touched almost every part of the state, with many areas receiving four to six times above average precipitation for the past several weeks. Mudslides closed major roads, thousands of homes were flooded, and trees knocked out power lines, with over 13,000 electric customers yet to regain service as of Tuesday afternoon. 

Meteorologists expect that by Thursday, the last storm, this time a weaker one, will have cleared from the northern and central parts of California. But in the coming weeks, as flood waters recede and the rains’ full impact comes into view, many residents may find themselves facing a second crisis: A widespread lack of flood insurance that will leave thousands of homeowners grappling with the cost of repairing and rebuilding homes. 

“California is a place where the preoccupation about water is about scarcity, not abundance,” said Rebecca Elliott, a professor at the London School of Economics who wrote a book about flood insurance in the United States. “Many, many thousands of Californians will assume that they have flood coverage and find out that they don’t.” 

Standard homeowners insurance does not include flood coverage, even though, according to a recent survey, 47 percent of Americans assume that it does. Just 1.33 percent of California households have standalone policies through the National Flood Insurance Program, a federal-run system that makes up 95 percent of flood coverage in the United States. The share of private flood policies in California is even smaller. Yet as of earlier this month, 90 percent of the state’s population was under flood watch.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, requires homeowners with federally-underwritten mortgages to buy flood insurance if they are in what it designates as “special flood hazard areas.” That’s essentially the 100-year flood plain, or places that have a 1 percent annual chance of flooding. But the maps FEMA uses to delineate these areas are wildly out of date. First Street Foundation, a nonprofit that models flood risk, found there are 5.9 million property owners nationwide who face substantial flood risk outside FEMA’s official hazard areas. 

“I show them the topography maps,” said Nick Ramirez, an insurance agent based in Los Angeles, of his clients who aren’t required by law to purchase flood insurance. “I say, ‘Do you want to protect yourself?’ Some say yes, and some just roll the dice.”

FEMA’s California maps, most of which were last updated in the 1980s and early 90s, if not before, leave out about 80 percent of the state’s rivers and streams. They also don’t account for the worsening effects of climate change, which include expanded flood risk as the climate system shifts towards hydrological extremes. Part of the reason they haven’t been updated is the expense. Communities have also often resisted expanding the flood zones to avoid costs for homeowners and restrictions on development.

Where FEMA does require mandatory insurance, the policy is underenforced. Flood insurance requirements don’t apply to mortgages that have been paid off or to properties purchased in cash. And experts say it’s common for homeowners to let their policies lapse because mortgage companies don’t check up on them. According to Elliott, the fact that lenders securitize their mortgages may be one reason for why they aren’t paying close attention. “They’re chopping up those mortgages, bundling them, and selling them on,” she said.

In recent years, the number of Californians holding flood insurance policies has been declining in line with a national pattern. Experts attribute this in large part to premium costs, and particularly to an increase in insurance rates that occurred starting October 2021 under FEMA’s new pricing methodology called Risk Rating 2.0.

The National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, has long struggled with debt, the result of worsening climate-fueled disasters paired with static policy premiums. With Risk Rating 2.0, FEMA re-assessed flood risk using independent models and then adjusted pricing to better reflect today’s trends. The idea, according to the agency, was to make insurance more equitable, so that people in flood zones paid more in line with their level of risk, and people outside wouldn’t have to subsidize them. (The new maps did not impact who was required to hold a policy.)

The result, however, has been a precipitous decline in policies. “We had been seeing a nationwide drop in the number of people with flood insurance [for several years],” said Nick VinZant, a senior research analyst at QuoteWizard, an online platform that allows customers to shop for and compare insurance prices. “It really started to drop as soon as FEMA put Risk Rating 2.0 in place.” 

Though the state as a whole paid less under the new program than it had previously, 73 percent of California policyholders saw a price increase, in some cases as substantial as $100 a month. Between March 2021 and August 2022, 11 percent of state policyholders dropped the plan, one of the largest decreases nationwide, according to VinZant. (Nationwide, the program lost 6 percent of policyholders in the same period).

FEMA does not provide zip code-level data on policies in force, so it’s difficult to confirm that the places where premiums rose the most are the same places where people dropped the NFIP. But most experts think that’s what happened. “FEMA was very opaque. The numbers they gave were limited, so it’s hard to track,” said Nicholas Pinter, a professor and associate director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California, Davis. “There is strong suspicion that the increase in premiums has driven an exodus from the program.” 

Another driver of the exodus: the multi-year mega-drought drying up rivers and reservoirs across the Western U.S. Typically, flood insurance policy enrollments increase after a flood and go down during dry years, when people forget about the potential for deluge. “Right now, my phone is ringing off the hook,” said Ramirez.

FEMA is running with the drought explanation. “There are many factors that could influence this drop in policyholders, including the economic impact of the pandemic, inflation, the housing market, affordability, or purchasing flood insurance from the private market,” David Maurstad, deputy associate administrator of resilience for FEMA, told Grist in a statement. “For California in particular, [it may be] due to the several years of drought in the area and the belief that flooding may not impact them.”

Given the increasing frequency of floods and the increasing cost of repair, Elliott believes it’s unrealistic to expect the National Flood Insurance Program to function like a private insurance company, charging enough to cover its risk and break even on its losses, while still being affordable. In California, the average cost of this insurance is $779 per year, though rates vary by region. Research by Pinter and his colleagues shows that besides a small number of waterfront communities like Malibu that have a lot of at-risk properties and high incomes, most of the state’s flood exposure is in low-income areas. 

The national program tries to incentivize more flood-resilient building and planning by offering grants and lower rates to people and communities who take certain steps to protect their homes. But those investments can be costly and the agency has been criticized for not making enough support available and accessible. “We’ve been expecting [the NFIP] to underwrite the American dream of homeownership while also expecting it to signal risk, nudge people away from the water’s edge, and reduce overall exposure to flood risk,” said Elliott. “It has always had a really hard time doing all those things.” She says a better approach would be to think of insurance as just one part of the larger strategy and set of policies protecting people from floods. 

On Saturday, President Biden approved California Governor Gavin Newsom’s request for a major disaster declaration in three counties, following the state’s emergency declaration for 41 of its 58 counties. Merced, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz are now eligible for grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to help cover uninsured property losses, and additional forms of support. More counties may be added as officials continue to assess the damage across the state.

“What is fair?”: Rosie Perez on the complexities of playing a federal prosecutor on “Your Honor”

I once read an essay I had written on police violence in front of a small-town crowd at a book festival. However a reading followed by a Q&A isn’t always enough to give these evolving issues the attention they deserve, which is why I wasn’t surprised when a middle-aged Black gentleman approached me after the event with that familiar look of confusion on his face. The look that screams I have a question about your presentation that I didn’t want to say in front of the crowd.

“Great job sir,” the gentleman said, squeezing my hand. I nodded, “Thanks.” 

“So, I am a cop. And I’m from the hood like you,” the gentleman continued, “We aren’t all bad. As a matter of fact, most of us are good and . . .” 

“My man,” I cut in, “I don’t know you. I never said if you are good or bad, and if you listened, I only focused on numbers and systems and how it’s so easy for guys who look like me to end up in jail.”

I told him that I rarely mention individuals, but since he wanted to talk about individuals, then we all must acknowledge that flawed people exist in every profession from doctors to lawyers to journalists like me . . . and yes cops. People have a hard time understanding this because of the rhetoric that the “system works” is always pushed in America. This is why shows like Showtime’s “Your Honor,” which takes on people’s relationships with criminal justice system, are more relevant now than ever before. 

The first season of “Your Honor” introduced us to Michael Desiato, played by Bryan Cranston, an ethical judge who understood the ills of the system and used his power for the good of the underrepresented until he needed to wield that power in twisting that same system in an effort to save his son. Desiato showed us that judges are more powerful than blind truth, acting as the most dangerous kink in our system. Rosie Perez, who joined the cast in Season 2, talked to me on “Salon Talks” about how the show is continuing to build on the vicious kinks in the system.

Perez, the Academy Award and Emmy Award-nominated actor most known for “Do the Right Thing,” “The Flight Attendant” and “Fearless” plays Olivia Delmont, an assistant U.S. Attorney who is hungry to put out some of the fires started by Desiato.

You can watch my “Salon Talks” episode with Rosie Perez here or read a Q&A of our conversation below to learn more about this exciting new season and her perspective on the system as a whole. 

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

I’m so excited about this season. Like so many people, I fell in love with “Your Honor” over the pandemic. When I heard you were going to be on Season 2, I knew you guys were up with something special. How did you get involved with the project?

I didn’t know there was going to be a Season 2 either, and neither did Bryan [Cranston]. One of the people over at Showtime asked him the question, “Where do you think Michael would be after all of this?” Bryan said he’d probably either take his own life or be in prison. That’s how the second season began, from there. They incorporated my character late in the writing process, so I literally got the call on Friday, had to fly on Saturday, and then shoot the next day. I had no prep time. I was scared to death. I first turned down the role because of that, because I didn’t have enough prep time.

I have a very strong work ethic. When it comes to this, I don’t like to mess anything up. But Bryan got on the phone with me and just kept convincing me, and he’s so charming, I can’t stand it. Then the first day of shooting, I just had to just dive right in and create a character right on the spot. It was crazy.

Related

Salon’s TV Critic, Melanie McFarland, reviews Season 1 of “Your Honor

What is your prep time normally like? How do you get ready for a role?

It depends upon the role. It’s really just getting within myself and finding the truth of the character within me. And then just research and research and then studying the lines over and over and over. Because the words mean nothing. They only mean something when there’s intention behind them. So if you know the lines, then you don’t have to worry about the lines.

I had no time for that. My first thing that we shot, I had this monologue, I was dying. I’m so glad that I said yes because the challenge was a severe heavy-duty challenge, but it’s one of those things in the career that you just go, oh wow, thank goodness for these.

You play assistant U.S. Attorney Olivia Delmont. Tell us about her. 

“The show says that criminal justice is very complicated. That sometimes it doesn’t take into account the human factor.”

She’s from New Jersey, and she’s been transferred down to New Orleans, and she is hell-bent on getting the Baxter crime family. She knows that Michael Desiato, that’s Bryan Cranston’s character, is the key, and she will use him and manipulate him within the law to get what she wants. 

Within the law. She doesn’t bend the rules. In Season 1 we meet Bryan Cranston’s character. He’s an ethical judge who understands the system and tries his best to help people. But then he throws it all out the window when it comes time to protect his son. At least that’s what I took from this series. In his journey, we see the ridiculous amount of holes that exist inside of the legal system. What do you think some of the takeaways may be that people are going to have after they spend time watching you on Season 2?

Well, I think one is how manipulative law enforcement can be for the good of the people that they’re serving. I also think that it really addresses the prison system in a very real way. When I was reading it, I was like, wow, they’re going to go there. And they do. But I also think that what they hopefully take away is about accountability, and can you find redemption or can you be offered forgiveness without accountability? That is Michael’s journey and my character’s presents that challenge for Michael.

All of my favorite shows, they tend to blur the line between politics, law enforcement and the streets. “Your Honor” does an excellent job at that. What do you think this show says about criminal justice just in general?

I think the show says that criminal justice is very complicated. That sometimes it doesn’t take into account the human factor. If you take Season 1, it proposes the question for everyone: What would you do if that was your son? Here’s a judge who has an immense amount of integrity, but when it comes to his flesh and blood, that goes out the window. Does the criminal system take that into account? It also brings into question if the criminal justice system is about rehabilitation, what is fair? And how many people do we just throw away? 

For me, I believe in our law enforcement. Yeah, there are a lot of bad eggs, but there are also a lot of really good people. In approaching this role, I wanted to offer that to Olivia. Yes, she’s extremely manipulative and cheeky, but she does believe in the rule of law and she will be a stand-up law enforcement person.

Related

All the pieces of “The Wire” still matter: From cops, corners and Omar to the systems that fail us

Is it easy for you to play a cop or is it difficult? Just in thinking about how you just referenced the police climate and how there’s so many different perspectives of how law enforcement works.

I think that it’s complicated. I have an advantage because there are law enforcement within my family, and I have made friends with DAs. They’re former DAs, prosecutors, judges. I have become friendly with them. Sometimes we get into really heated discussions. I see things one way, and they see the other. And I think that that’s good. I hope people . . . because there’s such division right now here, not just in the United States – you see what’s going on in Brazil, it’s all throughout the world right now – it’s either black or it’s white, and there’s no more gray area. There’s no more area of saying, “OK, maybe I see your point,” on both sides.

 How do you pick roles?

If they’re good.

Is that based on the writing?

“I have a very strong work ethic. I don’t like to mess anything up.”

It’s based the writing, first and foremost. Because as the cliche goes, if it’s not on the page, it’s not going to be there on the screen. Within the writing, is there room to work with? Is there room to create someone that is real and authentic? And also the cast has a lot to do with my decisions.

Like a party. Who’s going to be there?

Oh, absolutely. Because I mean, this last-minute request, the number one reason I said yes was Bryan Cranston. And also the rest of the cast, quite frankly, like Hope Davis, I just revere her acting style and also Michael Stuhlbarg. And there’s so many other great performances that were in season one.

It’s also the director and the studio because if you don’t have someone who really knows how to direct, it can suffer no matter how good you are. And if you don’t have a studio that is supportive behind you, that comes into play and it comes in your mind. On your day of work, you just don’t need any added stress.

Have you ever passed on something that you wish you would’ve taken?

No. Not that I could think of. Maybe tomorrow I would and call say, “Oh, I should’ve said this one.” But no.

What sparked my whole interest in the film industry was actually “Do the Right Thing.” A lot has happened since it came out 34 years ago. We had our first Black president, we got our first Black minority leader the other day. Congress may have apologized for slavery at some point, I think, I don’t know if it was a meme. But some things have happened. Are you seeing some changes in the industry?

I’m seeing some changes, but they’re still very small changes. We’re really not going to see a lot of change unless people in the power positions reflect what the world is really about. Yeah, we can have changes with people in front of the camera, and that’s really small. But you know that saying that’s been going around for a while, “Show me your room.” If your room is not diverse, the opportunities will not be diverse either.

There’s a lot that needs to be done. Studio executives, executive producers, financiers, DPs, makeup people, casting directors — it trickles all the way down. It’s not just about the actors. Sometimes actors could be a little bit self-serving or just only see their category because they’re just in a bubble within their own experience. It takes a lot of moving parts to move the wheel forward.

What can we expect from you? What’s next for you?

Well, I mean, I don’t want to say because I don’t want to jinx it. I’m a little superstitious like that. Even my family goes, “What are you working on? Oh yeah, right. You won’t tell us.” Unless it’s done. When they say it’s a wrap, that’s when I make a call. The only person in my family that I actually share if there’s a possibility or if something’s in development, is my sister Carmen, because she works with me. She runs lines with me, she travels with me. She’s my biggest supporter outside of my husband. My family is very supportive as well. Like my cousin Sixto, my cousin Brian, there’s a lot of people that are supportive of me. But Carmen is the only one that I go, “Psst, come here.”

Did your family travel with you to New Orleans?

No, my sister couldn’t travel with me to New Orleans. And she was dying to go, because she was a chef and now she’s a retired chef. She graduated from the French Culinary Institute, and she just got tired. It’s an exhausting job being a chef. 

“There’s a lot that needs to be done. Studio executives, executive producers, financiers, DPs, makeup people, casting directors — it trickles all the way down. It’s not just about the actors.”

Do you want to direct?

Well, back in the day, I directed a couple of music videos, and I just recently directed a short. It was an ensemble of different directors and stories, anthology about COVID that Trudie Styler and Sting put together. It got into Tribeca. We were really excited about that.

That was really hard because it was during the pandemic and I had to shoot it on an iPhone. I had to say, “OK, sound.” I’m sound. “Roll camera,” I’m camera. “And action,” I’m the director. And then I have to run in front of the camera and also be the actor. That was exhilarating. It was really, really hard but it was exhilarating.

Watch more

“Salon Talks” with D Watkins

“Take my hand. Take my whole life, too”: I gave my heart away at Elvis and Lisa Marie’s house

When you think of this world we live in as just a big rock, so much smaller in comparison to the vast dark space it bobs along in than we could ever truly fathom, it’s wild to consider that everyone who’s ever lived before us and everyone who will be born long after we’re gone spends the totality of their days on that very same rock. The blue moon that Elvis Presley sang about in his rendition of Lorenz Hart and Richard Rodgers’ 1934 classic is the same blue moon I look up at when I take my dog out one final time before bed each night. And the big yellow sun that shines into my bedroom window at the start of each day is the very same one that Lisa Marie Presley saw in the early hours of January 12, not knowing that it would be her last morning spent on this big rock, just like I won’t know when it ends up being mine.

As someone who was born in the spring of 1977, mere months before Elvis died of cardiac arrest at the age of 42, same as his daughter would 46 years later, I’ve spent my whole life loving the memory of him although, in the grand scheme of things, we only breathed the same air for a very limited amount of time. Elvis has always seemed huge to me, as huge as space itself, and he occupies the same parts of my heart and mind that a father figure would, though I am now older than he ever got to be. 

In Elvis’ short life, he created a legacy that has spanned generations and will continue to do so, likely until the clock runs out on Earth itself. To me, he was the embodiment of what a cool guy should be. To others, he was a sex symbol or the ultimate example of artistic success. But he was only ever a father to one person, Lisa Marie, and now that she’s gone too I find myself looking back at the Presley family that was, and is, both large and small in the same ways we all are. Flawed and fantastic in the ways we all have the inherent ability to be.

It makes sense, sitting with these thoughts now, why I would have chosen to spend one of the most impactful days of my life at the place Elvis and Lisa Marie once called home, Graceland. The place where they will get to share what forever feels like, together, and where I began what I hope to be my forever with my wife, who I’d only been seeing for a month when I asked her to go steady at the foot of Elvis’ grave in 2012.

Related

Peter Guralnick digs deep into the history of the man who made Elvis Presley

I can’t imagine that Elvis and I had much in common really. He was a momma’s boy from Tupelo, Mississippi, who grew up to be one of the most iconic performers to ever live. I’m a bookish lesbian from Chicago who once took a flying leap at my mother in the living room of my childhood home during an argument, and who grew up to write hateful things about her for the internet, professionally. But I get the sense that Elvis and I both shared a flair for the dramatic. 

When I’m in love it’s far from casual. I want first kisses in historical places. I want dreamscape anniversaries and international holidays. Most of what I envision for the romantic interludes I hope to one day dream into reality is above my pay grade, but in 2012 I was able to scrape together enough money to join my favorite person on a trip to Memphis to celebrate her 30th birthday. Living in New York at the time, it wasn’t a huge excursion to get to Tennessee, sure, but I had big plans for when we got there.

Elvis Presley’s final resting place at Graceland (Lindsey Baker)Although homophobic Republican squares would view my life as untraditional, I am very old-fashioned in many ways when it comes to relationships. As I see it, you’re not in a relationship with someone until you’ve “had the talk.” So even though I’d been spending night and day with this person for a month, I wanted to make it official by verbally asking the big question “Will you be my girlfriend?” And once I purchased my ticket for our trip, where we’d be spending a long weekend in a hotel down the street from Graceland, I knew exactly where I wanted this moment to take place.

When our plane landed in Memphis we took a cab to the hotel, got settled, and spent the first day of our trip wandering around by foot because we couldn’t afford to rent a car or take a lot of taxis. Memphis isn’t really a walkable city, so we put in a lot of miles. And, for some reason, the restaurants there didn’t really encourage the drinking of water, so we were dehydrated more than I could ever recall being prior. So much salt. So much beer. One meal, the clearest in my memory, consisted of 17 strips of fried catfish. 

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

My not quite but soon-to-be girlfriend, who is now my wife of eight years, brought a prop for the trip, a gold jumpsuit-era Elvis doll she’d had since she was little, and we brought it with us everywhere we went on the trip. This didn’t seem to raise any eyebrows, possibly because locals have seen it all when it comes to Elvis, or maybe they saw past the doll and fixated on the gay of it all. 

Our actual tour of Graceland was scheduled for the second day of the trip, the grand finale. I woke up nervous, but had to do my best to hide it because, why would I be nervous? As far as my travel partner knew we were just going on a tour. But even aside from the big plan I was keeping secret, the day would have been charged with a little more electricity than usual because we were about to visit Elvis’ house. The place that still smelled very much like fried food. The place where some even say his ghost haunts the top floor that no one is allowed to step foot on, still decorated as it was when he last rested his head there. 

Elvis’ actual house is smaller than you’d think and kinda gives off grandpa vibes with the overly carpeted rooms and hallways, and bric-a-brac strewed about. But it still feels monumental, like wandering through King Tut’s tomb if King Tut happened to be a hoarder of television sets and police badges. In many ways, I found the stuff surrounding Elvis’ house to be more interesting. We saw his planes, including the Lisa Marie. We saw the museums, with display after display of family photos from throughout the years in overly air-conditioned rooms where his music seeped in via hidden speakers. And at the end of the property, the meditation garden where Elvis’s grave lies amidst his father’s, his mother’s, his grandson’s, and now, his daughter’s. 

The walk up to Elvis’ grave was quiet, even though we were surrounded by people. You could hear feet shuffling in grass, but that’s about it. We looked down at it in silence, thinking our different thoughts about life and death and whatever else. She held up the Elvis doll for a picture. I asked the question. She said yes. Later, back in New York where we were confident the work would be good, we got matching TCB tattoos, both in remembrance of what took place there, and of Elvis himself and what he and his family meant to us individually. What a big and beautiful and precious life. Sometimes sad. Oftentimes not. For all of us.

Read more

about Elvis Presley

I own the only abortion clinic in Wyoming: Post-Roe America is a tragedy, and an opportunity

One morning in 2006, I walked into the office of my boss, Wichita abortion provider George Tiller. The Kansas state legislature had proposed a bill aimed at putting him out of business, a bill that would label him a criminal. I complained that I already felt deflated about the process before us, to defend the right to legal abortion once again. He looked up from his desk just long enough to say, "Solutions, not problems." For every problem, there lies a solution, he counseled, and we just needed to find the right solution to what seemed impossible. Together, we did.  

Those three words, "Solutions, not problems," are the lodestar that can guide us as we move forward in a post-Roe America.   

Dr. Tiller didn't live long enough to see the more dire problems that the U.S. now faces. Since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June 2022, 12 states have banned abortion. More than a third of U.S. women of reproductive age now live more than an hour from an abortion care provider. The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. Black women are three times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than white women. We cannot possibly talk about the state and protection of the fetus without having conversations about the equality of women. 

Related

"We backslid": Doctors talk about how abortion care changed in 2022

Now, on what would have been the 50th anniversary of Roe, I can hear Dr. Tiller's voice more clearly than ever, redirecting us away from simply complaining and towards constructing solutions.  

The burdens of a post-Roe America will disproportionately impact the most marginalized. Low-income women, especially women of color, lacked access to abortion care even while Roe was the law of the land. Now, depending on their geography, they may be forced to travel hundreds or even thousands of miles,just to access health care. It is unacceptable that millions of people travel for health care, simply based on where they live. It is un-American to divest from those communities that need us most. 

It is unacceptable that millions of Americans must travel for health care, simply based on where they live. It is un-American to divest from those communities that need us most.

Every person in every state deserves to have access to the full spectrum of reproductive health care, including abortion. That means every state, even states that are hostile to or have already banned abortion. Pregnant people in "red states" cannot be left behind, and they deserve to have access to abortion care in their own communities. Otherwise, it is disingenuous to call this country the United States of America.   

Take Wyoming, for example. I had been working for months to open an abortion clinic in Casper, Wyoming, racing against the clock of the Supreme Court's impending decision. In March of 2022, Wyoming state legislators passed a "trigger law" that would effectively ban abortion once Roe was overturned. In May, our clinic, which was set to open in just weeks, was firebombed in an act of anti-abortion terrorism. A month later, the Supreme Court overturned Roe, and Wyoming's trigger law was set to go into effect. It seemed like Wellspring wouldn't be able to open our doors at all, but there was a solution: We joined five other plaintiffs in filing a lawsuit against the trigger law. As of this hallowed anniversary, that law has yet to go into effect. Wellspring will continue to fight to protect every Wyomingite's right to bodily autonomy. Abortion is still legal in Wyoming. 

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

Before Dr. Tiller was murdered in 2009, he endured decades of anti-abortion violence and terrorism. He survived a clinic bombing in the 1980s and an assassination attempt in the '90s. Over the course of his career, many people asked him, "Why stay? Why not move somewhere else, somewhere less hostile?" His answer was simple. He knew that Wichita was a community that needed the care he provided. He also knew that by remaining in Wichita, by leaning into his community rather than running away, change was possible. He was proven right when Kansans overwhelmingly rejected an anti-abortion amendment last summer. 

He was proven right again in the November midterm elections, when voters made clear that protecting abortion rights is important to them. Even in "red states" like Kentucky and Montana, anti-abortion ballot measures were decisively shot down by voters. People in states that are hostile to abortion rights clearly believe in the constitutional right to legal abortion. They deserve to have a movement fighting alongside them. 

It will take years, even decades, to undo the harm that the Supreme Court unleashed and that abortion bans have wrought. It will likely get worse before it gets better. House Republicans are already moving to advance national abortion bans. Some hostile states are still exploring ways to ban traveling out of state for abortion care or obtaining medication abortion through the mail, among other restrictions. Abortion seekers and those who support them, as well as abortion providers, may become entangled in a web of unjust criminalization.  

A post-Roe America is a tragedy. It's also an opportunity for unique, community-based solutions. Roe is gone, and problems abound. In this, the first year without it in half a century, let's commit to solving them together. 

CORRECTION: This article has been edited since its original publication. We removed an assertion that Wyoming's proposed abortion ban of 2022 did not include exceptions for cases of rape and incest, which was incorrect.

Read more

about abortion rights after Roe

Three active Marines are being charged for Jan. 6 attacks

Three more individuals have been charged for their alleged participation in the the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress. Records from the U.S. District of Columbia shows the three were active duty Marines, the Daily Beast reported Thursday.

Michael Coomer, Joshua Abate and Dodge Dale Hellonen were named in the filing with social media chats, posts, photos and other data showing their participation in the Jan. 6 attack, as well as their presence inside the U.S. Capitol. The criminal complaint explains that the information was obtained thanks to a search warrant to Facebook from Aug. 2021.

“Additionally, Department of Defense database check identified COOMER as an active duty United States Marine. In COOMER’s official military personal file, he listed his telephone number as Phone 7358,” the complaint explains.

In a conversation with an ally on Instagram chat, Coomer allegedly said that the country was so corrupt that it was waiting “for the boogaloo.” The Boogaloo Boys (or Bois) are known as a loosely-organized right-wing extremist movement that opposes the federal government. When Coomer’s friend asked him about the “boogaloo,” he replied that it was akin to “Civil War 2.”

“A review of surveillance camera footage and open-source materials confirm COOMER, ABATE, and HELLONEN unlawfully entered the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021,” the details say. “COOMER wore a red baseball cap, a black Under Armor sweatshirt with neon outline, and a green puff jacket. ABATE wore a baseball cap with a rectangular design on the front, with a plaid jacket and jeans. HELLONEN wore a dark colored jacket, dark colored pants, and carried a yellow ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ flag.”

All three men used their phones to capture images and videos of the building while making their way through with the rest of the crowd, the complaint states.

The men’s Military CAC cards and driver’s license photos were used to compare the Capitol photos of the men. Witnesses also confirmed the identities of the three, the filing said.

Abate has already given information about his participation in Jan. 6 during a security clearance interview on or about June 1, 2022.

He “discussed entering the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 with two ‘buddies,'” the filing continues. “ABATE stated they walked through the U.S. Capitol and in the Rotunda. While in the Rotunda, ABATE’s friend smoked a cigarette and they ‘walked around and tried not to get hit with tear gas.’ ABATE also admitted he heard how the event was being portrayed negatively and decided that he should not tell anybody about going into the U.S. Capitol Building.”

Director of Brett Kavanaugh documentary says FBI fell short in sexual assault investigation

The Sundance Film Festival added a new documentary to its lineup that intentionally slams the FBI for its probe into Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual assault allegations, Mediaite reports.

Director Doug Liman says his first documentary named Justice “picks up where the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh fell woefully short” following Christine Blasey Ford’s 2018 allegations of sexual assault against the justice in 2018.

Democratic lawmakers “were highly critical” of the FBI probe during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, arguing that the investigation “was rushed” and that “Trump’s nominee should have been more thoroughly vetted.”

IndieWire, which called the film a “secret,” reported Liman financed the film himself. He said, “It shouldn’t be this hard to have an open and honest conversation about whether or not a Justice on the Supreme Court assaulted numerous women as a young man.”

Kim Yutani, director of the prominent Sundance Film Festival said the film does just that — allows for open and honest conversations, while “asking tough questions” and “challenging existing narratives.”

Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied Blasey Ford’s allegations and maintains his seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Liman said, “The film examines our judicial process and the institutions behind it, highlighting bureaucratic missteps and political powergrabs that continue to have an outsized impact on our nation today.”

How vulnerable is Wall Street to climate change? The Fed wants to find out

Regulators have long known that climate change poses a threat to the U.S. financial system. Major disasters like hurricanes and wildfires can wipe out buildings and crops, causing losses for the banks that make loans against these assets. Even efforts to take on climate change could cause problems: A rapid, widespread shift to renewable power could send shock waves through financial markets as stocks and bonds tied to fossil fuel companies fall, hurting the bottom line of banks, insurers, and other institutions tied to them. 

Now the Federal Reserve, which is tasked with overseeing the country’s financial system, is trying to figure out just how vulnerable big banks are to this kind of upheaval. The Fed on Tuesday released new details about a climate risk analysis it is asking six major U.S. banks to conduct, offering a peek at the worst-case climate events that financial regulators are worrying about. 

Banks often use stress tests like these to assess risks in their portfolio, and since the financial crisis the Fed has required large banks to ensure that they can withstand sudden financial shocks, but this is the first time that the U.S. government has asked major banks to account for their exposure to climate change. The results of the so-called “pilot climate scenario analysis exercise” will offer new insight into whether these banks could survive major climate shocks, and could also help inform new regulations such as the ones that followed the 2008 financial crisis.

The banks that will participate are some of the largest and most diversified in the country: Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. This batch controls about half of the banking market in the United States as measured by total deposits, and also manages billions of dollars for investors and pensions. The Fed’s exercise asks these banks to consider two major types of climate danger: the “physical risk” of natural disasters and the “transition risk” of a movement away from fossil fuels.

In the first part of the exercise, banks will assess how their portfolios would fare if one or more major hurricanes struck the Northeast, a “region in which all participants have material commercial and residential real estate exposures.” The Fed wants banks to pay particular attention to their real estate portfolios: how many residential and commercial loans would fall through, and how much money would it cost the banks if that happened?

In the second, the Fed will look at how their investments and loans would perform during a rapid energy transition to net zero emissions by 2050. If the world’s nations did come together and decarbonize on that timeline, it’s likely that major oil companies and other carbon-intensive companies would see severe losses. Rating agencies like Standard & Poor’s might downgrade their credit, making it harder for them to borrow their way out of trouble, which in turn would cause losses for the banks that finance and insure them.

Many large financial institutions still provide large loans and underwriting services for fossil fuel producers. A new report from the advocacy group Reclaim Finance found that even banks that have signed a prominent global net-zero pledge have provided a combined $269 billion in financing for fossil-fuel companies over recent years. Five of the Fed’s six participating banks are named in the report as top fossil-fuel financiers — all except Goldman Sachs.

Yevgeny Shrago, policy director for the climate program at Public Citizen, the consumer advocacy group, said the Fed’s exercise is a welcome start, but it doesn’t go far enough. 

“It’s not even a fire drill,” Shrago told Grist. “It’s like looking at the map of a building and being like, do we have enough exits?” The exercise focuses on how climate change could affect banks’ balance sheets, Shrago said, but it doesn’t consider how losses at those banks could lead to broader financial turmoil for small banks, insurers, pensions, and ordinary people. 

The Federal Reserve is independent from the Biden administration, but the bank’s announcement comes on the heels of other regulatory actions. The Securities and Exchange Commission is in the middle of finalizing a rule that would require publicly-traded companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, and the Treasury is seeking information from major insurers about how climate change could affect their business. 

The Federal Reserve has asked banks to submit their responses by the end of July, and plans to make the results of the study public later this year.

“Of course he’s coming”: My single-lone mom and kid travels taught me the joys of not playing it safe

We were about to miss our bus. As I turned the corner, I called back over my shoulder. “Zac, PLEASE. We’re going to miss it!” We were walking from our hotel in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and Zac was dragging behind. It was hot and his bag was heavy, but I kept up the pace—we’d be left behind otherwise.  

“My stomach hurts!” Zac’s voice came from too far behind me. I turned, impatient. 

“I know, but we really need to keep going, OK?”

“OK … but it really hurts …”

I turned to keep walking, rationalizing that if I kept up the pace he’d speed it up, too. I felt bad. My nine-year-old son was rightfully uncomfortable under his backpack and the hot sun during a long walk, and a stomach ache on top of that couldn’t be pleasant. Still, we needed to make this bus to Ho Chi Min City. He’d be able to rest once we sat down. 

Related

“We were homeless in Marrakech”: When budget travel with two kids goes sideways

I sped up as we neared the bus terminal, eyes searching the platforms until they landed with relief on our bus. I turned to see my child dragging himself up the sidewalk, leaving my pack on the ground before walking back toward him. I took his bag off so I could carry it the rest of the way. Finally, I could afford to be a concerned mom. “Does it still hurt?” 

He nodded. “I don’t feel good.” 

“Here, have some water. We’ll get you on the bus and get you all cozy and hopefully you’ll feel better then, OK?” I carried our backpacks to the bus, leaving them in the pile with the others while I searched my pouch for our bus tickets. 

* * *

We were still adjusting to our big move from Canada to Wuhan, China. Life had been very different, with a lot of steep learning curves along the way—especially during our first international vacation, which hadn’t gotten off to a smooth start: I’d lost my wallet first thing off the plane. But lately, it felt like we were finally getting the hang of it. We’d just spent several days in Siem Reap and Phnom Penh, and I’d finally been able to relax. 

The man running our hotel in Siem Riep had convinced me that we needed a tuk-tuk driver during the days as we visited ancient ruins, markets and a butterfly conservatory. Having our own driver had felt strange and slightly uncomfortable, but I couldn’t deny it significantly eased the work of trying to be organized — our driver knew where to go, knew where the best food was and was excellent company.  

After following the ruins with a gorgeous horseback ride through the countryside, it finally felt like Zac and I had settled into travel life. 

It was nice to be enjoying ourselves, rather than simply navigating the latest catastrophe.  

* * *

On the bus and in our seats, I handed Zac the water bottle one more time. He leaned his head on my shoulder, closing his eyes.

As I stared at the scenery whipping past us out the window, I wondered if maybe my family had been right after all. Maybe we shouldn’t be here. 

As the bus rumbled to life, I stroked my son’s hair. 

“I still don’t feel good.”  

“I’m sorry, babe. Do you think you’re hungry? Do you want to eat?” 

I began opening our food container as I spoke, wanting a few bites myself. 

“Mommy, that doesn’t smell good. It makes me feel like I want to—”

Zac doubled over, puking onto his feet.

“Oh no—hold on!” I moved quickly to get him a bag to puke in, saving his feet and the floor from some of the mess. He looked up, apologetic, and I felt the eyes of everyone on the bus on us. “Don’t worry about it honey, it doesn’t matter—do you feel better? Here—have some water.” 

As I twisted off the cap, Zac began to throw up again—only this time, there was no bag. Moving swiftly to help him, I knocked over the two-liter water bottle. 

“What the…” Confused by the amount of liquid sloshing onto the floor—how much could one stomach hold?—it took me a moment to realize in horror that the water bottle had tipped over, creating a little pond at our feet that was mixing in with Zac’s vomit. 

I started babbling as the bus attendant came up to see what was happening, suddenly cold at the thought that they might not let us stay on the bus if they thought he was sick. “I’m so sorry…it’s mostly the water…maybe it’s motion sickness—can we move up to the front?”

Once in the front row, I tucked my kid into my shoulder and told him to close his eyes or stare straight ahead so he wouldn’t get sick. But as we sat there, I realized this didn’t make sense—Zac didn’t throw up from motion sickness. 

I was suddenly, desperately grateful we’d gotten to the bus on time. I remembered that the bus form had specifically stated that suspected ill riders would not be allowed to board. And I’d read in my travel book that medical attention was more developed in Vietnam than in Cambodia. Still, I felt sick that I’d made my son struggle along behind me with his backpack in the hot sun. 

Now I was the one who wanted to throw up.

More than that, I was suddenly apprehensive at the thought of caring for my sick child while traveling through developing countries. I’d been trying desperately, unsuccessfully, to plan this trip into submission. But here was more proof that I couldn’t control everything, as much as I tried.  

As I stared at the scenery whipping past us out the window, I wondered if maybe my family had been right after all. Maybe we shouldn’t be here. 

Zac’s soft regular breathing told me he’d fallen asleep. Gingerly moving him into a more comfortable position, I closed my own eyes, trying to keep the worry at bay. 

* * *

As the bus gently lumbered closer to Vietnam, my thoughts were drawn back to the moment I’d started telling friends and family about moving to Wuhan, China.

“Are you bringing Zac with you?”

I laughed. I could no longer count the number of times I’d been asked this question.  “What else would I do with him? Of course, he’s coming!”

I was a single-lone mom—I’d parented my son independently his whole life. I wondered if two-parent families were asked this question when they moved. Who on earth thought it was OK to leave your child behind? 

I wrapped my fingers around the large tea mug, legs tucked up under me. My friend caught my eye. “Maybe you should hold out a little longer? Maybe you’ll find a teaching job here after all?” 

I’d been trying desperately, unsuccessfully, to plan this trip into submission. But here was more proof that I couldn’t control everything, as much as I tried.  

It’d been two years of feeling frozen in time. I’d pursued the degrees, parented the hell outta my kid, then waited for the next stage—employment in my field—to come. 

It hadn’t.

I’d been striving for the safe, socially prescribed path my whole life. It’d gotten me nowhere.

“I’m not sure. I just know I can’t stand sitting still any longer, waiting to find out.”

* * *

The bus turned a corner as it exited off a major road, jostling Zac awake. The first thought that sprang to mind was that Tet—Vietnamese New Year—was being observed right now. l knew from our time in Cambodia that banks were likely to be closed. What about health care clinics?

Our bus pulled into the center of Ho Chi Minh and I grabbed our bags before we walked to the side of the road, hailing a taxi that brought us to the hotel I’d booked only yesterday. Once settled, I called our travel insurance to get the nearest location for a doctor. 

Less than an hour later, we were at a clinic. 

“Likely a case of food poisoning,” the doctor revealed, pulling his stethoscope down around his neck. “I’ll give you a prescription, but you may not need it. Otherwise, lots of fluids.” 

I was grateful that—for once—there was a simple solution.

* * *

As we walked down the street, mesmerized by the abundance of scooters, I mentally searched for what might have caused the food poisoning. We’d been careful, heeding advice not to get ice in our drinks and to avoid certain uncooked options. Coming up short, I reminded myself that some things were beyond my control. 

Noticing a little restaurant proclaiming excellent Pho, Zac and I stepped in and ordered, then returned to their outside patio to eat. By the end of the meal, Zac had color back in his cheeks again, declaring the Pho had magically cured him. 

As we got up to leave, Zac slipped his hand in mine and began to chatter about the scooters, which took up the majority of the road—sometimes 10 rows deep. I squeezed his hand, feeling the last of the anxiety leach out of me. 

My kid was safe. I could breathe. 

* * *

A few days later, I snapped a picture from the back of the scooter I was riding. As Zac’s tour guide maneuvered her scooter amongst the others, I took a breath as I soaked in the uniqueness of the city. 

I blinked as another scooter pulled up alongside me and my guide—five grown men, squished together as they shared a seat. I grinned, delighted with the absurdity of the picture they painted. 

Like these men crowded together, I’d tried for so long to fit into a life that didn’t fit. To try to make it work, to make it to some—but not all—of my destinations; to feel uncomfortable all along the way.

Now, as I sought out something different, I realized there would always be bumps in the road. In some ways, it was easier to play it safe. 

But were any of us really made for a safe life? 

Though I’d been unsure, Zac had been eager to take a scooter tour, and I couldn’t help admitting, as we zoomed toward our next destination—this was fun.   

I raised my camera just as Zac twisted his neck around to look for me from beneath his white helmet, pink and green sunglasses perched atop his nose. 

He flashed me a grin. 

Read more

about vacations