Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Shameful”: Democrats sound alarm over “creepy” dark-money super PAC deal to help McCarthy win

After losing six brutal rounds of votes, the prospects of winning House speakership seemed all but dead for House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy. But amid negotiations between GOP leadership and MAGA holdouts on Wednesday, a Republican super PAC and a conservative nonprofit brokered a deal that may boost the California Republican’s chances of securing the 218 votes he needs to lead the chamber. 

The Congressional Leadership Fund, a McCarthy-linked PAC, and the Club for Growth, the nonprofit behind McCarthy’s hard-right detractors, have been at odds over the speaker nomination and a litany of issues. The CFG doesn’t want the CLF to primary any of its preferred Republican incumbents. The CFG’s other demands included putting more hard-right lawmakers into leadership posts, and offering line-item votes on spending bills. 

The CLF agreed, announcing it wouldn’t spend money in any open-seat primaries in safely Republican districts, nor funnel money to other super PACs for that purpose. 

In a Wednesday night statement from both groups, CLF President Dan Conston gave his nod. 

“CLF has never spent a dollar against a Republican incumbent before and obviously will continue that policy in the future,” Conston said. “CLF will continue to support incumbents in primaries as well as challengers in districts that affect the Majority, which proved to be critical to winning the Majority in 2022.”

McCarthy crowed to reporters in a moment captured by Fox News’ Chad Pergram. 

“You know what I saw on TV today? ‘Oh, this has to be a day that Kevin gets movement.’ So let’s measure it: You’ve got the Club for Growth. You see that? Is that movement in your view?,” he said.

The pact accompanies a handful of other late-night concessions of the McCarthy camp to the House’s right-wing GOP faction. 

The latest offers include adding two Freedom Caucus members to the powerful House Rules Committee (with hints at a third spot for a non-caucus conservative), allowing line-item votes in budget bills, holding a vote on constitutional term limits, and allowing any single House member to call for a vote to oust the speaker. The latter is down from the previously offered five-member motion requirement. 


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


The suite of concessions is the second offering laid at the feet of the 20-or-so members who’ve so far stymied the majority leader’s every bid for speaker. The first concessions came at the start of the week, when the McCarthy camp unveiled the proposed new House Rules package. One jaw-dropping inclusion grabbed headlines by proposing the near-total gutting of the chamber’s non-partisan ethics watchdog, the Office of Congressional Ethics.

In exchange, the CFG agreed to ding the annual scorecards of any House member who voted against McCarthy. 

“This agreement on super PAC’s fulfills a major concern we have pressed for,” CFG President David McIntosh said in the joint statement. “We understand that Leader McCarthy and Members are working on a rules agreement that will meet the principles we have set out previously. Assuming these principles are met, Club for Growth will support Kevin McCarthy for Speaker.” 

Former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who remains a member of the House, called the deal “shameful.”

“That’s really not in the spirit of the code of conduct for members of Congress. And so that is something that they should be more ethical about what they are doing,” she said.

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, called the deal “creepy.” 

“It is creepy that dark money super pacs are explicitly part of the negotiation regarding who becomes Speaker of the United States House,” he said in a Wednesday tweet.

The New York Times’ Ken Vogel also raised questions about the “backroom deal,” noting it may run afoul of super PAC coordination rules since “it was intended to influence particular (albeit still unspecified) congressional races” and “likely required sign-off” from McCarthy or his team.

The CLF and CFG denied any illicit coordination in a perfunctory footnote of their statement: “No one in Congress or their staff has directed or suggested CLF take any action here.” 

James “Buster” Corley, the remaining co-founder of Dave & Buster’s, has died

James “Buster” Corley, the co-founder of the restaurant and entertainment chain, Dave & Buster’s, has died, according to a report from CNN. He was 72. 

The first Dave & Buster’s was opened in Dallas in 1982 by Corley and David Corriveau. Corley had previously operated Buster’s, a bar in Little Rock that was situated next to a “saloon and game parlor” called Cash McCool’s, which was owned by Corriveau. After opening Dave & Buster’s, the two operated as co-CEOs. 

In a statement confirming his death, Dave & Buster’s said they will miss his passion. 

“His pioneering spirit and steadfast belief that ‘everybody is somebody’ set the foundation for bringing food and games to millions of Dave & Buster’s guests over the past 40 years,” it said. “Buster’s passion for hospitality, his demand for excellence, and the deep care he had for his team members were unparalleled.”  

The statement continued: “Our hearts go out to his family at this difficult time and while we will miss his wise counsel and his easy laugh, the legacy he and Dave built endures.” 


 

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

 


Per CNN, the Dallas Police Department was called about a man who was found with an “apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound” on the 6600 block of Yosemite Lane in Dallas; they did not identify the man, but Corley has an address on that block. The man was taken to a hospital where he died.

Kate Corley, James’ daughter, confirmed her father’s death in a statement to CNN affiliate WFAA-TV.

“Buster Corley had a stroke four months ago that caused severe damage to the communication and personality part of his brain,” she said. “The family asks for privacy during this time.”

Corriveau, Corley’s business partner, died in 2015 at the age of 63. The pair remained co-CEOs of the company before selling the business to a private equity firm in 2007.

If you are in crisis, please call the 988 Suicide and Crisis  Lifeline by dialing 988, or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting TALK to 741741.

Speaker battle may set up MAGA plot to hold debt ceiling hostage to cut Medicare, Social Security

The refusal by U.S. House Republicans to collectively get behind a speaker candidate in six rounds of voting so far this week has renewed concerns about the coming fight over raising the debt ceiling to prevent an unprecedented government default.

After the GOP won a narrow House majority in the November midterm elections, economists and progressives in Congress called for raising the federal borrowing limit during the lame-duck session. However, Democrats failed to pass standalone legislation or include a provision in the omnibus package President Joe Biden signed last week, setting up the battle for this year.

The arbitrary cap was last increased by $2.5 trillion to $31.381 trillion in December 2021 and is expected to be reached no sooner than the summer. Although that means lawmakers likely have months to act, some Republicans have signaled that they intend to use the threat of a potential default—which could cause a global economic crisis—to force concessions.

Specifically, GOP lawmakers have set their sights on cuts to Medicare and Social Security. While Biden vowed in November that “under no circumstances” would he go along with GOP attacks on such programs, the political theater in the House on Tuesday and Wednesday has fueled fears that some Republicans would be willing to force the first-ever default.

The House adjourned Wednesday afternoon until 8:00 pm ET, after a trio of votes in which far-right House Republicans repeatedly denied Congressman Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the speakership—events that followed three similar voting rounds on Tuesday. Members briefly returned to the chamber as planned Wednesday night and narrowly voted to adjourn until noon on Thursday. The chamber can’t move forward with any legislative business until the leadership position is filled.

“The 20 opposed to McCarthy want all-out war against Democrats and Biden,” Institute for Policy Studies fellow Sanho Tree said of the Republicans blocking his path to speaker. “They think that by taking the debt ceiling hostage this year, the House can force the Senate and [White House] to agree to slashing spending, a border wall, and cuts to Medicare and Social Security.”

Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., suggested to Punchbowl News‘ Brendan Pedersen that the speaker fight doesn’t “necessarily portend a problem with the debt limit,” adding that “I think there will be a way forward,” but some Democrats aren’t convinced.

“If House Republicans can’t even get it together to choose their leader, they can’t be trusted with the debt ceiling, fighting inflation, or helping families make ends meet,” Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., tweeted Wednesday evening. “They’ve proven they can’t lead.”

One of the House Freedom Caucus members who has repeatedly voted against McCarthy for speaker, Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., discussed the debt limit with journalists on Wednesday, reportedly saying: “Is he willing to shut the government down rather than raise the debt ceiling? That’s a non-negotiable item.”

According toThe Intercept‘s Ryan Grim:

A reporter asked Norman if he meant default on the debt, as the debt ceiling and a government shutdown are not directly linked. “That’s why you need to be planning now what agencies—what path you’re gonna take now to trim government. Tell the programs you’re going to get to this number. And you do that before chairs are picked,” he said, referring to the process of choosing and installing House committee chairs.

A quirk of parliamentary procedure requires Congress to authorize spending, then appropriate money for those authorized expenditures, and then to authorize the Treasury Department to issue debt in order to pay for that appropriated money. Some constitutional scholars argue that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional, but currently both parties recognize it as a legal and valid restriction on the government’s ability to issue debt.

Appearing on a Bloomberg Radio program Wednesday, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., floated the possibility of trading Democratic voters in favor of McCarthy for a debt limit deal.

“Eventually, he’s going to have to cut a deal with Democrats, because it’s going to be easier to get a deal with us than with his 20-headed monster he has over there,” Sherman said. “He’s going to have to agree with Democrats to not hold hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, to not put us in a position where we’re going to shut down the government. And eventually, I think Americans will benefit from this ugly picture of chaos.”

The New York Daily News reported Wednesday that though Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., “emphatically ruled out supporting embattled” McCarthy, the progressive congresswoman suggested to journalists that there was potential for a compromise speaker who agreed to raise the debt ceiling along with “a combination of” other concessions.

Meanwhile, some critics of the Republican Party used the ongoing speakership drama to remind Americans that no matter who ultimately ends up at the helm, “they all want to cut your Social Security” and protect wealthy tax dodgers.

Restricting abortion may lead to increased suicide rate among young women, study finds

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a landmark ruling on abortion rights, Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. While the original Roe v. Wade case was a pivotal moment in widening women’s rights to abortion care, that original ruling also led to a significant backlash — meaning attempts to restrict abortion access – that took place for many years long before last year’s overturning of Roe.

As reported by the The Guttmacher Institute, specifically the years between 2011 and 2017 ushered in an unprecedented wave of new abortion restrictions in the United States; 32 states enacted a total of 394 new restrictions. Sadly, according to a new study published in JAMA Psychiatry, a likely repercussion of these accumulating restrictions was an increase in death by suicide. The study suggests a connection between an increased rate of suicide and more abortion restrictions in a given jurisdiction.

In the study, researchers believe that abortion restrictions played a role in some suicide deaths among younger women between 1974 and 2016. The study is the first of its kind to show an association between between abortion restrictions like Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws and suicide rates among women of reproductive age.

“Enforcement of a TRAP law was associated with a 5.81% higher annual rate of suicide than in pre-enforcement years.”

Specifically, researchers looked at 21 states that imposed mandates on abortion facilities and providers via TRAP laws, which are designed to zone abortion clinics differently from other health providers, like hospitals, making it possible for them to be shut down completely. In those states, the number of suicides of women of reproductive age — aged 20 to 34 years — was nearly 6 percent higher than in previous years when those laws weren’t enforced.

Since researchers did not observe the same trend for older women, between 45 and 64 years old, they suspected the increase could have been a result of restricting abortion access. “Among reproductive-aged women, the weighted average annual-state level suicide death rate when no TRAP laws were enforced was 5.5 per 100,000,” the study said. “Enforcement of a TRAP law was associated with a 5.81% higher annual rate of suicide than in pre-enforcement years.”

The researchers from the University of Pennsylvania speculated the TRAP laws increased stress and anxiety among young women in these states.

“Stress is a key contributor to mental health burden and a major driver of increased suicide risk,” said Ran Barzilay, a child-adolescent psychiatrist, neuroscientist and one of the researchers in a press statement. “We found that this particular stressor — restriction to abortion — affects women of a specific age in a specific cause of death, which is suicide. That’s the 10,000-foot view.”

“We believe that reproductive healthcare plays a crucial role in enabling women to effectively balance their family formation choices with their broader life objectives and ambitions.”

Melissa Simon, an obstetrician gynecologist at Northwestern Medicine, told Salon via email that the study is “interesting,” but emphasized it’s “an ecological study so that means it is very vulnerable to bias and one cannot conclude causality from it.” “There are a lot of factors that contribute to suicidality, but this trend amongst reproductive age women in the states that have at least one TRAP law is interesting and an important first step in research that could better elucidate factors for why women of reproductive age have higher suicide rates in these states with such laws,” Simon said. “In addition, it is important to note that these states with TRAP laws also have higher maternal mortality rates than their non-TRAP law state counterparts.”

Simon added that substance abuse, suicide, homicide are some of the leading causes of “preventable maternal mortality in these states with TRAP laws.”

Despite cries from anti-abortion advocates who claim having abortions can reversely lead to an increased risk in suicide, much scientific research shows that restricting access to abortions is more harmful to one’s mental health, as reported by the The American Psychological Association (APA). Most famously, a five-year longitudinal study called The Turnaway Study found that women who had been denied an abortion experienced higher levels of stress and anxiety. The study also found that there was no difference in suicidal thoughts between women who had abortions and those who were denied an abortion.

“In general pregnancy is a very important and life-changing time in a person’s life and impacts health in many ways, and thus it is important to ensure mental health supports are available for the pregnant person in order to mitigate the stress and other factors that contribute to risk for suicidality and other causes of maternal mortality,” Simon said. “Having laws that prohibit a pregnant person to make health decisions over their own body, vis-a-vis TRAP laws, only further adds to the mental stress and anguish experienced.”

One of the study’s authors, Jonathon Zandberg, told Salon via email “we hope people understand that we are not advocating for or against abortions.”


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


“We are simply trying to measure the indirect consequences of restricting access to reproductive care,” Zandberg said. “We believe that reproductive healthcare plays a crucial role in enabling women to effectively balance their family formation choices with their broader life objectives and ambitions; the realization that an unplanned pregnancy may now significantly perturb this balance seems to lead to adverse mental health outcomes.”

Collectively, the study’s authors believe their findings have clinical and ethical implications.

“Clinicians should be cognizant of the additional stresses that restricted access to reproductive care engenders as it pertains to clinical care and suicide prevention for women of reproductive age,” the authors wrote in the study. “Second, the findings inform ethical considerations surrounding access to abortions and reproductive care more broadly, even as the issue remains at the center of a divisive debate in the United States following the recent ruling on Roe v. Wade.”

Since the research from the recent JAMA study ended in 2016, it’s unclear how and if more recent abortion restrictions post-Roe have affected suicide rates among women.

“Our findings highlight the need for studies to identify mechanisms through which restricted access to reproductive care could affect risk for suicide among reproductive-aged women, including by amplifying stress and anxiety. which are established risk factors for suicidal ideation and behavior, or by eliminating autonomy in decision-making around childbirth and reproductive care,” the authors concluded.

If you are in crisis, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255 (TALK), or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting TALK to 741741.

 

Europe kicks off 2023 with a record-setting heat wave

Europe broke heat records last year, and 2023 is shaping up to be no different. A winter heat dome descended on the continent right just in time for New Year’s Day, crushing thousands of standing high-temperature records. Eight countries — Belarus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the Netherlands, and Poland — set new all-time records for warmest January weather on the first of the month. The heat wave caused temperatures to rise up to 36 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius) above average for this time of year. 

“This is exactly the kind of very abnormal event that is progressively rewriting global climatology,” Nahel Belgherze, a meteorologist in France, said in a tweet. Other experts based in Europe said the heat wave was unprecedented and alarming. Climatologist Maximiliano Herrera told CNN it’s “the most extreme heat wave in European history.” 

Climate researchers say the science linking climate change to record-setting heat waves is indisputable. Analyses of more than 100 hot spells over the past decade have shown that modern-day global warming, the majority of which has been brought about by the burning of fossil fuels, made nearly all of them more likely or severe. For example, an unusually hot summer in Texas in 2011 and a summertime European heat wave in 2017 were made 10 and four times more likely by climate change, respectively. 

It’ll take time for researchers to parse exactly how much rising global temperatures influenced this particular weather event. Abnormal heat is still moving through Europe as the heat wave mixes with Arctic air edging in from the northeast and dissipates. But it’s already abundantly clear that Europe just experienced a severe departure from the norm. 

Poland broke its national temperature record before the sun had even breached the horizon on New Year’s Day when the town of Glucholazy hit 65.7 degrees F, according to the Washington Post. France broke more than 100 heat records that day. A town in western Belarus clocked a maximum temperature of 61.5 degrees F — the norm there in midwinter is 32 degrees F. The warm winter has turned famed European skiing destinations soupy and brown. Parts of the Alps were totally devoid of snow as of January 1; a major skiing competition set to take place in Switzerland next week will depend entirely on artificial flakes

The extremely warm temperatures aren’t expected to stick around for much longer, but meteorologists say above-average temperatures could plague mainland Europe for at least another week.

“He is a prop”: Cori Bush accuses MAGA Republicans of tokenizing Black speaker nominee

Two members of the Congressional Black and Progressive Caucuses are speaking out after a Black Republican member of Congress is tokenized by a member of his own party during a nomination speech for the House Speaker’s race on Wednesday.

Just before the sixth round of voting got under way for House Speaker, Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., became the third GOP member of Congress to nominate Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla. Perry, who spoke for a band of defectors who’ve vocally been against electing Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., to the top spot in the House, told members they would “fix” a broken Washington and that history could also be made by “electing the first Black Republican Speaker of the House.”

The remarks met a swift rebuke from Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., who tweeted almost immediately, “FWIW, @ByronDonalds is not a historic candidate for Speaker. He is a prop. Despite being Black, he supports a policy agenda intent on upholding and perpetuating white supremacy.” Her tweet continued, “His name being in the mix is not progress—it’s pathetic.”

Perry would go on in his remarks to remind members that the first Black members of Congress were Republicans. Perry said during his nomination of Donalds, “As a matter of fact, you probably also know that Frederick Douglass, who went and worked with Abraham Lincoln to emancipate the people of color in this country, said he’d never be anything other than a Republican.” The reference is a popular, albeit misleading, talking point among the GOP given that the ideologies of both the Democratic and Republican parties essentially traded places long after Douglass proclaimed his loyalty to the party.

Donalds is one of a handful of Black Republicans to serve in the House of Representatives, the most since 1877. He was first nominated for Speaker during the fourth speaker vote by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, on Wednesday.

Bush told TYT after the sixth round of Speaker votes that her problem isn’t with Donalds, but the way the Republican party is using him as a way to counter the Democrats’ nomination of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who has been elected by his party to serve as minority leader.

“[M]y issue is they’re making him out to be a prop, making him out to be a token, you know. And, I’m not going to sit back and just be quiet about that. You’re not going to play the American people, the people of this country dumb,” said Bush. “You know, we’re not going to just put up someone because of the color of their skin, like that’s not enough. And he should be treated better than that. That’s my issue.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee told TYT that Democrats’ nomination of Jeffries was due to his “storied history in leadership in the United States Congress.” She would not comment on Perry’s intent, but said, “when you over-emphasize race, you already have a problem.”

Donalds came into office in 2021, the same year as Bush, as part of the “Freedom Force” – the Republican answer to the “Squad” that has “vowed to combat the supposed ‘evil’ of socialism”, as reported by The New Republic.

Despite being a Trump-backed candidate who voted against the certification of Arizona and Pennsylvania’s presidential elections in 2020, Donalds failed to win the chair seat for the GOP Conference against Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.

Jackson-Lee said that she would not comment on Donalds and that she is “sensitive” to issues that downplay the seriousness of race. She said that she would rather her Republican colleagues join her in supporting legislation around reparations proposals for “the historic record of slavery and the continued disparities in the African American community.”

For his part, Donalds shot back at Bush’s comments in a tweet of his own, saying, “FWIW, nobody asked @CoriBush her opinion on the matter. Before you judge my agenda, let’s have a debate over the policies and the outcomes. Until then, don’t be a crab in a barrel!”

A new EPA proposal is reigniting a debate about what counts as ‘renewable’

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new standards for how much of the nation’s fuel supply should come from renewable sources. 

The proposal, released last month, calls for an increase in the mandatory requirements set forth by the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. The program, created in 2005, dictates how much renewable fuels — products like corn-based ethanol, manure-based biogas, and wood pellets — are used to reduce the use of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel and cut greenhouse gas emissions. 

The new requirements have sparked a heated debate between industry leaders, who say the recent proposal will help stabilize the market in the coming years, and green groups, which argue that the favored fuels come at steep environmental costs. 

Below is a Grist guide to this growing debate, breaking down exactly what these fuels are, how they’re created, and how they would change under the EPA’s new proposal:

The fuels

Renewable fuel is an umbrella term for the bio-based fuels mandated by the EPA to be mixed into the nation’s fuel supply. The category includes fuel produced from planted crops, planted trees, animal waste and byproducts, and wood debris from non-ecological sensitive areas and not from federal forestland. Under the RFS, renewable fuels are supposed to replace fossil fuels and are used for transportation and heating across the country, and are supposed to emit 20 percent fewer greenhouse gasses than the energy they replace.

Under the new EPA proposal, renewable fuels would increase by roughly 9 percent by the end of 2025 — an increase of nearly 2 billion gallons. The new EPA proposal will set a target of almost 21 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2023, which includes over 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol. By 2025, the EPA hopes to have over 22 billion gallons of different renewable fuel sources powering the nation. 

Advanced biofuel, a type of renewable fuel, includes fuel created from crop waste, animal waste, food waste, and yard waste. This also includes biogas, a natural gas produced from the methane created by animal and human waste. Advanced biofuel can also include fuels created from sugars and starches, apart from ethanol. 

In its newest proposal, the EPA suggests a roughly 14 percent increase in the use of these fuels from 2023 to 2024 and a 12 percent increase the year after that. The EPA wants roughly 6 billion gallons of advanced biofuel in the marketplace by this year.

Nestled inside of the advanced biofuel category is biomass-based diesel, a fuel source created from vegetable oils and animal fats. This fuel can also be created from oils, waste, and sludge created in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Under the new EPA proposal, the agency is suggesting a 2 percent year-over-year increase in these fuels by the end of 2025, which equals a final amount of nearly three billion gallons.

Cellulosic biofuel, another type of renewable fuel, is a liquid fuel created by “crops, trees, forest residues, and agricultural residues not specifically grown for food, including from barley grain, grapeseed, rice bran, rice hulls, rice straw, soybean matter,” as well as sugarcane byproducts, according to the 2005 law.

“In the interim period, there’s going to be a need for lower carbon, renewable liquid fuels”

Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuel Association

The EPA’s recent proposal aims for nearly double the amount of the use of these fuels by 2024. Then a 50 percent increase the year after, equivalent to 2 billion gallons. 

The new RFS proposal also hopes to create a more standardized pathway for renewable fuels to be used in powering electric vehicles, with more and more drivers turning to EVs in recent years. 

“We are pretty pleased with what the EPA proposed for 2023 through 2025,” Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuel Association, an industry group whose members primarily include ethanol producers, but also represent biogas and biomass producers, told Grist. 

Cooper said that the EPA and the Biden administration recognize that alternative fuels are a growing and needed sector while the country tries to move away from fossil fuels. Setting standards for the next three years will help the biofuels industry grow, said Cooper, who predicted more ethanol, biomass, or biogas producers will emerge in the coming years. 

“I think the administration recognizes that you’re not going to electrify everything overnight,” Cooper said, “and in the interim period, there’s going to be a need for lower-carbon, renewable liquid fuels.”

The controversy

While renewable fuel standards have gained a stamp of approval from industry producers and the federal government, environmental groups see increased investment in ethanol, biomass, and biogas as doubling down on dirty fuel. 

“It’s not encouraging because it continues on the false premise that biofuels, in general, are a helpful pathway to meeting our climate goals,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the nonprofit environmental group Center for Biological Diversity

Hartl argues that investing in increased corn production to fuel ethanol will continue harmful agricultural practices that erode soil and dump massive amounts of pesticides on corn crops, which causes increased water pollution and toxic dead zones across the country and the Gulf of Mexico. The United States is the world’s largest producer of corn, with 40 percent of the corn produced used for ethanol. 

A study released earlier this year from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that when demand for corn goes up, caused by an increase in blending requirements from the RFS, prices increase as well, which causes farmers to add more fertilizer products, created by fossil fuels, to crops. The EPA’s own internal research has also shown greenhouse gas emissions over the next three years will grow with the increase in blending requirements from the federal mandate.

22.68 billion

the number of renewable fuel gallons the EPA hopes to have by 2025

The Center for Biological Diversity has been critical of the EPA’s past support of renewable fuel without a calculation of the total environmental impacts of how the fuel is produced and is currently in legal battles with the federal agency. They’re not alone in their critiques. 

Tarah Heinzen, legal director for Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit environmental watchdog group, said in a statement that an increase in both industrial corn production and biogas, a fuel created from animal and food waste, are not part of a clean energy future. 

“Relying on dirty fuels like factory farm gas and ethanol to clean up our transportation sector will only dig a deeper hole,” Heinzen said. “The EPA should recognize this by reducing, not increasing, the volume requirements for these dirty sources of energy in the Renewable Fuel Standard.” 

Alternative fuels, like biogas and biomass (a fuel created from trees and wood pulp), have gained steam thanks to the ethanol boom of the renewable fuel category. The biogas industry is set to boom thanks to tax incentives created by the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Biomass is a growing industry in the South, with wood pellet mills popping up in recent years. Scientists from across the globe have decried the industry’s suggestion that burning trees for electricity is carbon neutral, with 650 scientists signing a recent letter to denounce the industry’s claims.

The world’s largest producer of wood pellet biomass energy has come under fire from a whistleblower who said the company uses whole trees to create electricity, despite the company’s claims of sustainably harvesting only tree limbs to produce energy. Wood pellet facilities have faced opposition from local governments and federal legislators, with community members in Springfield, Massachusetts successfully blocking a permit for a new biomass facility in November. 

Despite concerns from environmental groups, the forecasted demands of the EPA show that the nation is pushing for more of these fuels in the coming years. This past spring, a bipartisan group of Midwestern governors asked the EPA for a permanent waiver to sell higher blends of ethanol year-round, despite summer-time smog created by the higher blend of renewable fuel.

Crumbl Cookies, the popular bakery franchise, violated child labor laws in 6 states

Crumbl Cookies, the franchise of bakeries known for its rotating menu of fun flavored cookies, is under fire for violating child labor laws in six states, according to the U.S. Department of Labor

The department’s Wage and Hour Division found violations affecting 46 minor workers at 11 franchises located in California, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Utah and Washington. Per a press release obtained by ABC4, an investigation found that the franchises in question allowed young employees, “many 14 and 15 years of age,” to work more than the law permits or in “hazardous or prohibited occupations.” Additional violations included minors operating dangerous machinery, like ovens, and working more than 40 hours per week.

Although labor laws vary from state to state, many laws prohibit 14 and 15-year-old workers from working more than 8 hours per day or working over 40 hours per workweek. Minors also can’t work before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m., except from June 1 through Labor Day, when their night shifts can end at 9 p.m.

The specific names of the 11 Crumbl franchises are as follows: Andersen Brentwood Inc., Walnut Creek Cookies LLC, Tri-Valley Treats LLC, Alpine Country Road LLC, Daniel Webster and Silver Dr NH LLC, Celestial Creations Hixson LLC, BE Bountiful LLC, BE Centreville LLC, Farr Bakeries LLC, SPB Investments II LLC and Limitless Enterprises LLC.

Tri-Valley Treats LLC, located in San Ramon, CA, has 9 affected minor employees and $15,417 in penalties, making it the franchise with the highest violations.

Collectively, Crumbl owes $57,854 in penalties. However, considering that Crumbl operates more than 600 locations in 47 states, the cookie franchise should have no problem paying their debts.

In response to the recent news and a request from ABC4 for further comment, Crumbl released this statement:


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


At Crumbl, we are committed to maintaining a safe and welcoming work environment for all of our franchisees and their employees. We take any violation of federal labor laws very seriously. We were deeply disappointed to learn that a small number of our franchised locations were found to be in violation of these laws.

We are actively working to understand what has occurred at these specific store locations and will take appropriate action to ensure that all of our franchisees are fully compliant with the law. We apologize to any of our franchisees’ employees who may have been affected by this situation and want to assure the public that we are committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and compliance at every Crumbl location.

Kentucky becomes the newest battleground in Republicans’ fight against green investing

Kentucky officials threatened to divest the state from 11 financial institutions on Tuesday over what it deemed to be climate-conscious investing practices. Targeted firms include BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup, all of which have publicly pledged to incorporate pro-environment principals into their financial strategies.

Such policies, Kentucky State Treasurer Allison Ball said in a press release, “boycott fossil fuels” and “intentionally choke off the lifeblood of capital to Kentucky’s signature industries.” The announcement follows a state bill passed last year directing her office to publish an annual list of financial institutions involved in a so-called “energy company boycott.” 

Kentucky’s efforts are the latest in the Republican Party’s larger campaign against what are known as environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, investing principles. After years of activist efforts to get financial firms to disclose and account for their climate risks, ESG practices — which, in theory, prioritize investments in renewable energy, for example, over oil and gas — have moved from the sidelines to the mainstream, becoming a buzz-acronym on Wall Street. In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, the federal agency meant to protect U.S. investors, proposed new rules that would require companies to disclose their carbon emissions as well as the risks posed to their business by climate change. According to the mutual fund research firm Morningstar, 90 percent of all companies now have, or are in the process of creating, ESG strategies.

But over the past year, Republicans have staked their ground against what Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called “woke capitalism.” As of last August, 17 states have proposed or adopted legislation to limit business with institutions that consider environmental and social criteria in their investment practices. West Virginia and Texas created similar lists to Kentucky’s last year, and Florida, Louisiana, and Missouri pulled a collective $3 billion dollars out of BlackRock, whose CEO has been one of the most outspoken financial leaders about the value of ESG investing. 

Now, Republicans are using their control of the U.S. House of Representatives as a new tool in their fight against ESG, which they say could harm the fossil fuel industry as well as stakeholder profits. Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican representative and new chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, called the SEC’s climate risk disclosure rules a “far-left social agenda” and has pledged close oversight of regulators. Other House Republicans will call asset managers to testify in hearings on their investments. At the state level, Republican state attorneys general have motioned that they are prepared to take the SEC policies to court if the rules are finalized, according to Inside Climate News

Yet when you look at the current state of climate-aligned investing on Wall Street, it seems Republicans’ concerns are much ado about nothing. While asset managers have started to invest growing subsets of funds in adherence with ESG principles, which consider things like the effects of climate change and the social impacts of supply chains, most of their money remains in funds that don’t account for carbon emissions. JPMorgan and Citigroup, both members of the United Nations’ Net-Zero Banking Alliance, were among the top financiers of the fossil fuel industry in 2021, according to a recent report. (Vanguard, the largest asset manager after BlackRock, dropped out of the alliance last month following backlash from Republican attorneys general.) What counts as an ESG investment also remains vague and undefined, which can lead to greenwashing; some financial companies’ energy transition funds, for example, can still invest in fossil fuel companies. While last year was the first in history where more money was raised in debt markets for green projects than for fossil fuel companies, Big Oil is still getting more money from high gas prices and private equity, and banks and asset managers appear to remain committed to funding the industry. 

In the wake of Kentucky’s announcement, the 11 financial firms added to the state’s restricted list have 30 days to notify the treasury of their holdings in energy companies, and 90 days to “stop engaging” in boycotts. If they fail to comply, the Kentucky government will pull its money from the institutions. So far, some of the listed companies have asserted their fossil fuel bonafides in response. In a statement to The Hill, a JPMorgan Chase spokesperson said, “We are among the largest financiers of the U.S. traditional and renewable energy industries, including in Kentucky where we serve some of its largest energy companies and utilities.” For Reuters, BlackRock pointed to its investments in energy companies like ExxonMobil and Occidental Petroleum.

Will California’s ‘atmospheric river’ storms end the drought?

For the past three years, California has been suffering under the worst drought in state history. Key reservoirs have bottomed out, farmers have left their fields unplanted, and cities have forced residents to let their lawns go brown.

Now the state’s weather has taken a violent swing in the other direction. A series of powerful “atmospheric river” storms — so called because they look like horizontal streams of moisture flowing in from the Pacific — have brought record-breaking precipitation to the Golden State over the last two weeks, dropping almost a foot of rain in the San Francisco Bay Area, overwhelming the state’s rivers, and bringing several feet of snow to the Sierra Nevada mountain range in the eastern part of the state. The storms have caused widespread devastation, destroying critical roadways in the Bay Area and killing at least five people.

Though it has come at a tremendous cost, the past few weeks of rain have helped to refill the reservoirs that supply much of the state’s water, and snowpack levels in the Sierra Nevada are now well above their average levels for this time of year, meaning that major rivers will be much more robust after the snow melts in the spring. Barring a major dropoff, this year will be much wetter than the last few. 

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” said Jered Shipley, the general manager of the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District, which provides water to pasture owners in the northern part of the state. “It gets us on track.” Shipley’s district takes water from Lake Shasta, the state’s largest reservoir, which all but bottomed out during the drought but has started to rebound over the past month.

If the reservoirs fill up as predicted, that will be great news for farmers and cities up and down the state, from Chico all the way to San Diego. Come spring and summer they’ll release the stored-up precipitation to cattle ranchers, nut farmers, and local water utilities around the state, ending a three-year spell of privation.

“To put it very bluntly, it’s been total devastation,” said Shipley. “This drought was a natural disaster. You may not have seen apartment buildings on fire or communities underwater, but [there were] displaced families, migrant workers not having jobs, businesses closing because nobody needed to service their tractors, feed stores closing.”

Even if 2023 does end up a wet year, it won’t prevent an ongoing water crisis, because surface precipitation is only one pillar supporting the state’s water needs. Since the reservoirs can’t hold more than a year of water, officials don’t have the option of holding it back to conserve for future years. And the other two pillars ensuring regular water availability in the Golden State — groundwater and the Colorado River — are facing crises that even a wet year won’t fix.

“This will fill our reservoirs, so that’s the good news,” said Jeffrey Mount, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California’s Water Policy Center, who studies atmospheric rivers and their impact on California’s water. “But we have been in a really dry period for the last 20 years, and that hasn’t come to an end yet.”

A false-color satellite image shows the flooding caused by an atmospheric river rain event that struck California around New Year's Day.
A false-color satellite image shows the flooding caused by an “atmospheric river” rain event that struck California around New Year’s Day. NASA Earth Observatory

In the agriculture-heavy Central Valley, for instance, many farmers rely on water deliveries from a federal canal that funnels water westward from the Sierra Nevada. But households in this area also depend on groundwater withdrawn from underground aquifers, and recent research shows that these aquifers are drying up at an alarming rate. This dropoff has led to a surge in the number of dried-up wells in recent years and has forced some towns to rely on deliveries of bottled water.  

A deluge of snow may help recharge the reservoirs that supply major Central Valley irrigators, but it won’t refill the underground aquifers in the region, in part because most valley communities don’t have the ability to store excess water. In other parts of the country like Arizona, officials can bank water from wet years in underground aquifers, but any extra rainfall in the Central Valley just gets lost.

Cities in the Los Angeles metropolitan area face a similar two-pronged challenge. The region gets about a third of its water from the State Water Project, a canal system that diverts water from the reservoirs in the northern part of the state, and these deliveries have declined in recent years, forcing some cities to make drastic cuts. 

The current bout of rain will help fill up those reservoirs, but the rest of the water used by these cities comes from the Colorado River, which snakes through the arid western United States. The river’s two main reservoirs in Nevada and Arizonaare both in danger of bottoming out this year, and the federal government may soon slash California’s water allotment to stop that from happening. The rainfall from this week’s atmospheric river event won’t do anything to alleviate that crisis, although it will make the most dire scenarios for Los Angeles much less likely.

“Our focus tends to be on filling of surface reservoirs, and everybody declares the drought over,” said Mount. “That’s just fundamentally wrong.”

Atmospheric river storms like the one that struck California this week account for as much as half of all West Coast precipitation even in normal years, which makes them critical for bringing the region out of prolonged drought periods. The most recent forecasts suggest that this year’s wetter trend will persist through the winter, but there’s still a small chance that “the door slams shut,” as Mount puts it, and rain stops altogether. The northern Sierras also saw high precipitation totals in November and December of 2021, but then the rain flatlined in January and February of last year, leaving the state well short of average rainfall.

“It doesn’t look like that right now,” Mount told Grist. “None of the models I’m aware of are saying that it’s going to stop.”

“You didn’t answer any question”: Fox News host Sean Hannity grills Lauren Boebert over “math”

As House Republicans continue their political sparring match amid Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s, R-Calif., repeated efforts to secure enough votes to become House Speaker, one lawmaker recently entered into a sparring match of her own.

On Wednesday, January 6, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., found herself at the center of a heated exchange with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

Boebert, who is one of the 20 Republican lawmakers adamantly refusing to back McCarthy’s bid for House Speaker, doubled down on her stance. Hannity opened the discussion with a reference to Boebert’s attempt to appeal to former President Donald Trump to advise McCarthy to withdraw his bid.

He went on to criticize the Colorado lawmaker’s “math” as he emphasized that the majority of the Republican lawmakers in the chamber are actually backing McCarthy.

“So, if I’m going to use your words, and your methodology and your math, isn’t it time for you to pack it in and your side to pack it in considering he has over 200 and you have 20?” Hannity asked.

“Sean, I understand the frustration, I promise you, but … ,” Boebert said before Hannity interrupted. “I’m not frustrated. You didn’t answer any question,” Hannity pointed out.

At one point during the interview, Boebert posed a bizarre suggestion saying she could enter the former president’s name as a nominee for House Speaker. Although it is not a requirement for a nominee to be a member of Congress, the suggestion appeared to frustrate Hannity even more.

“Is this a game show?” Hannity asked as he interrupted the Republican lawmaker again.

“No, no, no … ,” Boebert replied.

The Fox News host continued, “We’re going to pick Jim Jordan one day, [Byron] Donalds the other day, Trump the next day?”

At multiple points during the interview, Boebert attempted to cool things off but to no avail.

“We are here to legislate, we are here to get the country back on track and … ,” Boebert said.

“I can tell,” Hannity replied.

Watch the video below or at this link.

GOP in utter shambles, and Democrats are loving it: But it’s a bad look for America

The U.S. House of Representatives — even to those in it — often seems like a circus.

As Kevin McCarthy’s bid to become the next speaker of the House of Representatives failed for a fourth time Wednesday afternoon, President Biden and Sen. Mitch McConnell appeared together near a bridge over the Ohio River in northern Kentucky to speak about the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed last year.

Back on Capitol Hill, McCarthy would taste defeat two more times before the House adjourned until Thursday afternoon — after debating that for nearly a half an hour on Wednesday night.

Having fun yet in the New Year?

Live! For the first time on television and the first time since 1923! The vote to name the Speaker of the House goes longer than one ballot. It’s the dramatic story of factions on edge. On the right we have the far right and the twisted 20 crazies. Join us! C-SPAN’s newest hit show.  It’s “Speaker of the House” broadcast live, in living color and for free.

See the thrills. Listen to the chills:

“It’s hurting our party!”

“Coalition government!”

“It’s all or nothing!”

“Washington is broken!”

“Democracy is messy!”

“We respect our opponents, but hate the Democrats!”

Where’s the popcorn? It’s the best staged circus in history with clowns, brave and ignorant fools; a high wire, a trampoline and trapeze act, human oddities and despicable acts usually only seen in all the worst parts of the Christian Bible, or a cheap adult bookstore. 

It’s American politics at its finest. The Republicans are in shambles and the Democrats are loving it, watching the GOP eat its own for once. Usually it’s the Democrats who engage in a public cannibal feast, so you can imagine the joy they have felt watching two days of the Republicans turn carnivorous.

It’s always tough to take Jim Jordan seriously, and his apparent coup attempt against McCarthy had all the appeal of a middle-school production of “Macbeth.”

Never has the election of a House speaker been so electric. For once it’s more exciting than watching bingo. But it comes with a price — all politics does. Rep. Jim Jordan got a shot at the center stage and feigned loyalty to Kevin McCarthy (which is suspicious on the face of it) while enjoying Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert and others puckering up and presenting their eager lips to his political posterior. 

It’s hard to take Jordan seriously even when he swears with all of his heart that he’s for real. As he made his own impassioned plea in nominating Kevin McCarthy, a reporter turned to me and said, “Is he nominating McCarthy or himself?” Jordan’s apparent coup attempt against Kevin McCarthy’s leadership had all the appeal of a badly performed middle-school production of “Macbeth” and was viewed by the GOP as a joke — except for the 20 people in the House apparently crazier than Jordan.

When that failed, the former wrestler and current Ohio congressman proved he was a deal maker on a sinking ship. Jordan is the guy who’d sell you a stateroom on the Titanic, real cheap — after the iceberg hit. His real desire, we’re all told, is to head up the Judiciary Committee and spend the next two years investigating Hunter Biden’s laptop. After that, he wouldn’t mind being speaker. Be careful what you wish for, Jimbo. 

But he’d had enough by the end of Tuesday night, and by the time Wednesday rolled around Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida found himself the first African-American man nominated by the Republicans for the speaker’s role. Of course, he was nominated by the 20 most extreme members of the GOP, who want to sabotage the democratic process by introducing rules that will enable their minority wing to effectively exercise control over the entire House. Only the Republicans can sound racist even as they nominate a Black man for the top job. 


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


McCarthy, no slouch at sleaze, remained firm — as did his supporters. After six ballots, no one budged, blinked or changed their mind. In fact after adjourning Wednesday afternoon in order to supposedly work out a deal, the House reconvened at 8 p.m. The only noticeable difference was the ruddy smiles on some faces that indicated they’d spent the last few hours imbibing. Thirty minutes later, after much haggling, the House finally adjourned for the night.

The biggest smiles were on the faces of Democrats — including that of Joe Biden, who shook his head at his public appearance with McConnell and then again later when he arrived at the White House as he condemned the Republicans’ inability to choose a leader: “Having a Congress that can’t function is just embarrassing. We’re the greatest nation in the world. How can that be?” 

The answer to that question is simple, but few want to face it. Certainly not the Republicans, who declared how great we are even as they showed us their inability to govern. We all know politicians are itinerant whores, but this first week of Republican control of the House looks like a mashup between the television shows “Dallas” and “Hee Haw.” (Look it up. I haven’t got time to explain.)

Everyone claimed they wouldn’t blink and their opponent would, which set up the head-on collision on the House floor. “A House Divided,” the headlines screamed. No kidding. The House is divided between Democrats and Republicans, and the Republicans are divided among themselves.  The dazed and stunned GOP, a far cry from the boogeymen (mostly old white men) they want to be, looked like pre-schoolers taking a dump on the living floor while the extended family visits for the holidays. Of course, some people enjoy that type of thing, and apparently many are members of Congress.

The far right was exposed, but they never cared about that. You can’t embarrass a group of individuals who are unaware of their own ignorance. Worse yet, they have no shame. They care only about unfettered power. 

The only issues on their mind are fentanyl and immigration, both of which they either purposely twist or completely misunderstand. Chances are it’s both.

During the course of the last two days a flurry of rumors passed through the House. Walking the halls of House offices is often like visiting a dentist’s office in a whorehouse. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the dentist took the day off. So we heard that McCarthy was crossing over to talk to Democrats, hoping to get them not to show up for the vote so he could win. Conversely, GOP members were going to get fed up and throw their lot in with Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, who got 212 votes (six short of the needed threshold of 218) in all six rounds of voting. 

We heard that McCarthy hoped to get Democrats not to show up for the vote so he could win it — or that GOP members would get fed up and throw in their lot with Hakeem Jeffries. None of it was true.

Depending on which rumor-monger was spreading the story, it was either members of the twisted 20 holdouts or six members of the Republican mainstream who would switch over. Some spread the rumor that Republicans would either vote “present” or not show up at all, thus giving Jeffries the speakership by default. None of it was true. Only one Republican, Victoria Spartz of Indiana, voted “present.” McCarthy’s supporters never budged. The twisted 20 only changed their public face and the Democrats never twitched. “This is their problem,” several Democratic congressmen told me. 

That’s just fine with Matt Gaetz, who would be the guy who steered the GOP Titanic into the iceberg. Breaking with McCarthy, Gaetz — the poster boy for criminal crazy — loudly lobbied and promoted first Jordan and then Donalds. 

“I hope they get their act together,” Biden said more than once on Wednesday. Maybe he does, but he’s clearly enjoying the spectacle. “The rest of the world is looking,” he admonished. “It’s a little embarrassing it’s taking so long, and the way they are dealing with another.”

The extremists in the GOP — a party of extremists — keep saying this is about rules changes. They neglect to mention that they want to change the rules so a minority can rule the majority. It’s their last chance at relevance. In two years most of them won’t be around.

But there are several things that this historic haggling has clearly brought into focus, and the most important is how out of touch the Republicans are with everyday Americans. While screaming about their relevance, they show how irrelevant they’ve become. Are the Democrats just as bad? Maybe, but at least they’ve kept their mouths shut in the last few days while the GOP descended into mind-numbing chaos and put their ugly political posteriors on clear view.

Rep. Kat Cammack nominated McCarthy for the final vote on Wednesday,  saying  she understood why people didn’t want him as speaker while also praising him for standing up to critics — which he famously has never done. Not to be outdone, Rep. Lauren Boebert nominated Donalds by imitating a coyote baying at the moon while demanding McCarthy give up. Should McCarthy eventually prevail, Boebert will have a tough time finding a committee assignment. Meanwhile Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose childish insults of McCarthy in the past have been more embarrassing for her than him, was seen breaking with her fellow crazies while standing on a leash behind McCarthy. She’s betting McCarthy gives her a plum committee assignment if he gets the job.

Then there’s McCarthy himself. The insipid, spineless man who once delivered a speech entitled “How the GOP can solve problems in government” has been unable to solve the simplest of matters — getting 218 votes. 

It doesn’t portend well for government in the next two years. But one thing said by all the different people who nominated McCarthy for speaker does ring true: This is a transparent display of our government in action — and there’s no doubt that people on both sides of the aisle don’t like what they see. The House circus showed off a variety of freaks, but as a governing body it is less effective than a grade school PTA.

That Cheshire-cat grin on most Democrats’ faces as they watch the GOP crumble should be put aside. The challenge  facing the country is acute and Republican members of Congress have shown themselves to be feckless fools with the mental acumen of toddlers, the demeanor of preschoolers, the confidence of a schoolyard bully and the ability of a large rock in a stream.

We must do better. Oddly enough, we saw better Wednesday.

Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell are the bitterest of political rivals. They disagree on many issues. They have had harsh words for each other. There they were speaking together Wednesday in the red state of Kentucky. Shaking hands. Riding in a car together. Discussing issues, sharing pleasantries and promoting the bipartisan infrastructure bill Biden spearheaded last year. Blink and you’ll miss the bipartisanship in our government. But for those who want some hope, there it was. It got very little attention as the circus set itself ablaze on Capitol Hill. 

There, it was all about anger and vitriol. Late on Wednesday the blood feud in the House GOP continued, with reports that a McCarthy-aligned super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, has agreed to stop picking candidates in primaries in safe Republican seats.

McCarthy will do anything to be speaker. It will be interesting to see what he’ll do with the job. Don’t expect much — the bloodletting has left the GOP anemic and weakened. For how long, no one can say. But it’s left an indelible impression on the voting public.

The Republican Party is out of touch and its hypocrisy can be summed up by Rep. Warren Davidson. He spoke out against dehumanizing the opposition as he nominated McCarthy in the fifth round,  then attacked the Democrats in the next sentence. What a start to the new year.

Desperate Kevin McCarthy caves to more MAGA concessions — including making it easier to fire him

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy’s far-right opponents extracted additional concessions during negotiations on Wednesday — but it’s still likely not enough to secure the speaker job.

McCarthy has now lost six rounds of voting, failing to win over any of some 20 holdouts during the first two days of the House speaker drama. After another three failed ballots on Wednesday, Republicans adjourned the House twice and scrambled to negotiate a solution to the impasse.

McCarthy, who has long had his eye on the speaker job, already made major concessions to MAGA Republicans, reportedly vowing to investigate former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Biden administration and the treatment of Jan. 6 Capitol rioters. Earlier this week, McCarthy also agreed to remove pandemic and post-Jan. 6 security protocols at the Capitol, limit the Office of Congressional Ethics and create new committees, impose rules to limit congressional spending and lower the number of lawmakers required to force a vote to oust the speaker to five.

But after all those concessions failed to move the needle, some of his critics were able to extract even more from the weakened GOP leader after the sixth vote failed.

McCarthy agreed to lower the number of lawmakers required to force a vote to oust the speaker from five to one, according to CNN. He also agreed to place more House Freedom Caucus members on the House Rules Committee and vowed to hold votes on controversial term limit and border security bills.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, a McCarthy-aligned super PAC, and the conservative Club for Growth, which has opposed McCarthy’s speaker bid, also reached a deal for the Club for Growth to back McCarthy in exchange for the CLF not spending money to back candidates in open-seat Republican primaries in safe GOP districts, according to NBC News.

One Republican called the proposal “an amazing deal they’d be dumb to turn down,” according to Axios.

But the deal, particularly the lower threshold, could cause other problems for McCarthy among his own supporters. “Many more moderate members had been concerned about giving in to the far-right on this matter since it could weaken the speakership and cause chaos in the ranks,” CNN reported.

Still, the proposal would not placate all of the holdouts. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, one of the Republicans leading the charge against McCarthy, told Republican leaders he could get 10 holdouts to flip if the negotiations pan out while others may be willing to vote “present” instead of against McCarthy, according to the report.

“We’ve had more discussions in the last two days as a body sitting there, than we’ve done in frickin’ four years,” Roy told reporters on Wednesday.


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


But McCarthy, who received just 201 of the 218 votes needed to become speaker on Thursday, would still need to win over additional dissidents. With Republicans holding 222 seats in the new Congress, McCarthy can only afford to lose four votes.

“We just talked. I’m not sure any needle’s been moved,” Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., one of the so-called “Never Kevin” voters, told NBC News.

Some of the detractors have also demanded to be subcommittee chairs, riling some McCarthy supporters.

“It’s a non-starter,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told NBC News. “For most of us, we work hard to get promoted in these positions by being a team player. To say, ‘I’m going to vote for you if you give me a subcommittee chair’? We do not like that quid pro quo.”

Bacon said on Wednesday that there have also been “preliminary talks” between some Republicans and Democrats about supporting a “consensus candidate” for speaker, an idea floated by some Democrats as well.

But other prominent McCarthy supporters poured cold water on the idea.

“That’s really off the table,” longtime Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., told NBC News. “I don’t think anybody voted to do that. I don’t think that works very well in any time. I think it’s particularly unsuited to these times. The polarization is too great.”

Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., also rejected the notion of a bipartisan deal.

“Anybody who’s imagining some sort of unity or fusion approach, I think, is probably paying more attention to Aaron Sorkin movies than they are to how this place normally functions,” he told the outlet.

Without a deal to win over enough Republicans or Democrats, McCarthy faces more failure when the House is scheduled to reconvene at 12 pm Thursday, even if he gains the backing of the Roy-led group.

And even if McCarthy is able to secure enough support, some critics worry that he has already given away a lot of power.

“McCarthy is conceding so much that he won’t be able to lead. He wants the title, not the job,” wrote Bloomberg columnist Tim O’Brien.

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., called McCarthy’s concession to lower the threshold “ridiculous.”

“Kevin McCarthy has now been so weakened,” he tweeted, “that he and the GOP caucus will not be able to govern effectively even if he becomes Speaker.”

RIP Pope Benedict XVI — but let’s not ignore all the harm he did the church and its people

They say you should never speak ill of the dead, but we may need to make an exception for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. I don’t presume to judge the state of his soul when he met his maker. But in the mostly positive coverage of this complicated man and his troubled papacy, I fear we will forget all the damage he did to so many Catholics over the course of his long career. 

This is not about vengeance. It’s an attempt to stop a Benedict cult before it begins. During his more than four decades at the Vatican, Benedict had a profound impact on the American Catholic church, long dominated by conservative prelates appointed by him and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II. These American bishops placed their allegiance in Benedict even after he stunned the world by retiring in 2013, a step one Vatican critic called the “only great reform” of his papacy. At his death, these anti-abortion warriors and hardliners remain, in thought, word and deed, Benedict’s Mini-Mes.

How did the late pope harm Catholics? Let me count the ways.

Nicknamed “God’s Rottweiler” for his zeal in 24 years at the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose roots date back to the Inquisition, he not only opposed the ordination of women to the priesthood but claimed the ban could never be lifted. 

As pope, he fired an Australian bishop for merely suggesting that ordaining women might to be a good way to address the shortage of male priests. 

His church not only didn’t give more power to women; it actively tried to suppress them. 

In 2012, his Vatican chastised U.S. nuns for being influenced by “radical feminism,” and for purportedly straying from U.S. bishops’ positions on homosexuality and women’s ordination. The Leadership Conference of Women Religious was placed under the supervision of three conservative American bishops for its “serious doctrinal problems.” 


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


For someone so in love with law and order, Benedict should have tackled the church’s sexual abuse crisis with more zeal and thoroughness. Yes, as pope, he did expel scores of priests, but that was a half-measure. Indeed, when he served as the church’s doctrinal cop, he reportedly advised Catholic bishops across the globe that abuse cases could be kept secret and not reported to law enforcement.  

While serving as an archbishop, he may have practiced what he preached. According to a recent report commissioned by the Munich archdiocese, the late pope was implicated in the coverup of four abuse cases, accusations Benedict strongly denied. 

In a statement, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests insisted: “Honoring Pope Benedict XVI now is not only wrong. It is shameful.”

Benedict also showed little mercy to gay Catholics. Marianne Duddy-Burke, the head of DignityUSA, which represents LGBTQ Catholics, observed that Benedict’s views and pronouncements “forced our community out of Catholic churches, tore families apart, silenced our supporters, and even cost lives. He refused to recognize even the most basic human rights for LGBTQIA+ people. Many of us experienced the most harsh and blatant religiously justified discrimination of our lives as a result of his policies.”

Whenever the choice was to protect the institutional church and its rigid teachings, or to help his flock, Benedict always chose rigidity. Indeed, his Vatican defended a Brazilian archbishop’s decision to excommunicate the mother of a nine-year-old girl likely raped by her stepfather for seeking termination of the pregnancy. The doctors who deemed the abortion necessary to save the girl’s life were also excommunicated, but not her rapist.

Benedict did replace the archbishop who caused all the controversy, likely because he stirred up so much bad publicity, not because what he did was inhumane. 

That precisely defined the problem. Like his predecessor John Paul II, Benedict saw the church as a bulwark against the world. He was consistently more worried about the institution and the purity of doctrine than about the welfare of the people within it. 

By resigning but sticking around with a title he made up, pope emeritus, and choosing to dress in papal white, Benedict was like the ever-present brake to Pope Francis’ more progressive instincts, and a constant reminder to conservative Catholics that the authentic papacy (in their view) still burned brightly. 

May Benedict now rest in peace — and fade into the past. That may free Pope Francis to make the reforms the church so badly needs.

McCarthy debacle comes with a lesson: There’s a downside to being a party of fascist trolls

It’s been entertaining, in a dark sort of way, watching the mainstream media try to explain what is fueling the conflict between Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republicans’ supposed leader, and the 20 or so members of his own caucus who are preventing him from becoming House speaker. The New York Times called the anti-McCarthy faction “ultraconservative” and the Washington Post noted that most are full-on election deniers. Not only are these euphemisms for what they actually are — a bunch of fascists — it also falsely implies that the disagreement is ideological. It’s not. McCarthy is in full agreement with the anti-democratic views of this group. He was among the 147 House Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 election in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol attack. While McCarthy was initially cranky about the violence of Jan. 6, 2021, he has done everything in his power to shield the powerful conspirators who incited it, including Donald Trump himself, from any accountability. 

There’s no real daylight between the foaming-at-the-mouth fascists and McCarthy, much less other GOP leaders like Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, a shameless coup booster and reborn Trump loyalist, and Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who once described himself as “David Duke without the baggage.” Recognizing this, some political observers have started describing the fight as “personal,” as if the anti-Kevins just don’t like the guy. But that’s not plausible either, since the common factor uniting the 20 or 21 holdouts is not personality type but the fact that they come from safe seats in deep-red districts. These folks are far more worried about losing a primary to someone who runs on a more-fascist-than-thou platform than about losing to a Democrat. 

After McCarthy failed to win the speakership three times on Tuesday, the punishment continued on Wednesday. Those whom Team McCarthy dubbed the “Taliban 20” aligned with Democrats on the “let Kevin suffer” platform, allowing the voting to resume. After three more tedious roll-call votes in which absolutely nothing changed — except that the renegades are now voting for Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida, not Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio — the House adjourned again with no speaker, no assigned committees, no members actually sworn in. (Actually, it adjourned twice, after briefly reconvening on Wednesday night.) Presumably they’ll try again on Thursday, and perhaps some kind of deal will be struck, although no one seems to have a viable theory of what that will be. 


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


So if this godawful mess is not personal or ideological, then what is it? Ultimately, it’s not about Kevin McCarthy at all. It’s about the Republican Party’s self-conception in its exciting new fascist iteration (which was forged under Donald Trump but doesn’t really have much to do with him either). Fascism needs to be understood less as an ideological movement and more as a movement devoted to the worship of power for its own sake, and also a dramatic aesthetic of constant warfare and performative purification of an ever-narrower conception of the body politic. 

Ultimately this godawful mess isn’t about Kevin McCarthy at all. It’s about the Republican Party’s self-conception in its exciting new fascist era, forged in the era of Donald Trump.

Those are big words, and I apologize, but here’s a simpler way to put it: Fascists are a bunch of trolls who are never satisfied. They must always prove their power by ganging up on someone who’s been cast as an “outsider.” As the Atlantic’s Adam Serwer famously observed, “The cruelty is the point.” Most of the time, the targets are racial and sexual minorities, liberals or immigrants. But sometimes, that restless need to constantly bully someone manifests in purification rituals, where a once-trusted or even beloved insider is deemed an outsider who must be ritually purged. It’s just Kevin McCarthy’s turn in the proverbial barrel, though he almost certainly hasn’t helped his cause by constantly debasing himself before the hardliners. He’s marked himself as a weenie, and that just makes his tormentors enjoy watching him suffer even more. 

The Trump era has, understandably, led to a nonstop and frustrating debate over what exactly “fascism” is. I favor the famous 1995 essay by Italian philosopher Umberto Eco, who argued that fascism is a movement of “rigid discombobulation, a structured confusion,” replete with contradictions and incoherencies, and yet that “emotionally it was firmly fastened to some archetypal foundations.”

In other words, fascism is about vibes more than fleshed-out ideas. Very, very authoritarian vibes. One big reason we can identify Republicans as fascist now is because while their appetite for power knows no end, their willingness to govern — that is, to use power to achieve substantive ends — has diminished to nothing. It’s all vibes and no ideas, beyond an inchoate loathing of anyone they deem too dark-skinned, too queer or too literate to be truly American.

In his “Ur-Fascism” essay, Eco laid out 14 features of fascism, which add up not to a coherent political philosophy so much as a series of antisocial impulses. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but the McCarthy debacle illustrates some of Eco’s most important observations: Fascism is deliberately irrational. Indeed, it makes a fetish of irrationality. It’s a “cult of action for action’s sake” that believes thinking before acting “is a form of emasculation.” The fascist believes that “life is permanent warfare” and therefore there must always be an enemy to struggle against. That’s why fascists love conspiracy theories. Their “followers must feel besieged,” and since they have no real oppressors to rail against, they make up imaginary ones. 


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


After Trump’s coup failed and the red wave of the midterms didn’t materialize, Republicans are turning on each other. Even healthy political parties tend to have periods of recrimination after suffering bitter defeats. For the dysfunctional Republicans, however, this anger is being refracted through their increasingly fascist worldview, which is paranoid, irrational and hostile to democracy. That’s why the demands made by the anti-McCarthy faction are incomprehensible and seem to change by the hour. The mentality that “life is permanent warfare” leads to the party’s desire to constantly purify itself of the enemy within, in this case the despised “RINOs.” But as more and more RINOs get purged, the definition becomes more expansive and maintaining party purity becomes almost impossible. Eventually, craven sycophants like McCarthy are rechristened as RINOs and thrown overboard. There is no endpoint where the party has finally cleansed itself. 

Watching Republicans tear each other apart like this isn’t just entertaining, but also useful. Fascists are always itching for a fight. Under Trump, that energy was directed outwardly at their perceived enemies: Democrats, liberal “elites,” immigrants, LGBTQ people and eventually democracy itself. But as this House leadership fight has shown, fascists will also turn on each other like a bunch of weasels in a sack. With any luck, they tear themselves apart before they can tear democracy down. 

Nancy Pelosi may not be the House Democrats’ leader anymore, but her party are responding to this clown show in a way that shows they retain the unity and clarity of purpose Pelosi typically brought to their caucus. They are resisting the centrist punditry that insists Democrats have a responsibility to swoop in and protect Republicans from their own worst elements, as if saving their most vicious opponents from their own mistakes were somehow the same thing as saving democracy. We saw this impulse most recently in the media reaction to Democratic campaign ads highlighting the MAGA bonafides of certain far-right candidates to GOP primary voters, believing those kinds of radicals would be easier to beat in a general election. Those media criticisms were based on the shaky assumption that fire-breathing fascists are a bigger threat to democracy than supposed “mainstream” Republicans like McCarthy, who share their anti-democratic views but can play moderate in front of the cameras. 

Watching Republicans tear each other apart is both entertaining and useful. Fascists are always itching for a fight, and given the chance they’ll turn on each other like a bunch of weasels in a sack.

Well, the strategy of sowing internal discord among Republicans is working pretty well so far. A lot of the GOP’s most egregious nuts lost their elections. Those who made it across the finish line are currently in the process of blowing their party up. Democrats are wise to continue refusing to bail Republicans out of their own mess. Even though Kevin McCarthy is the fascist crowd’s newest piñata, that doesn’t mean it’s good for Democrats or democracy if he secures the speaker’s gavel. He has no interest in governing. The plan, if we want to call it that, was to ignore legislation and appoint lots of House committees to spread conspiracy theories about Joe Biden and other political foes. McCarthy was also expected to use threats about the debt ceiling and a possible government shutdown in a pointless and destructive effort to force cuts in Social Security and Medicare. By far the best thing for democracy is if the Republicans simply implode and their nefarious schemes never come to fruition. 

Frankly, I think that’s why Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just did a friendly bipartisan event with Biden in Kentucky, highlighting the benefits of infrastructure spending. Not long ago, McConnell would have done everything in his power to keep a Democratic president from getting credit for a popular program. He may now be starting to see the downside to this nihilistic approach to politics, which threatens to consume his entire party.

It’s more than likely, however, that the Kentucky event will only sow more intra-party discord, further enraging the burn-it-all-down types and turning them even more forcefully against GOP leadership. Republicans may control the House, but they can’t control their own worst impulses. Meanwhile, Dark Brandon and the Democrats continue to flip the politics of fascist trolling back in the GOP’s face. Democracy is still at risk, make no mistake. But it now seems possible that its enemies may tear their own house down before they get the chance to destroy ours.

China went from “zero-COVID” to uncontrolled spread. What happened?

For years, China was a public health model for successfully preventing the spread COVID-19. Until it wasn’t: within the past month, the number of COVID-19 cases exploded. Last week, fifty percent of passengers on two different flights from China to Milan tested positive for COVID-19, according to multiple reports. That number hints at the astonishing grip the SARS-CoV-2 virus has on the world’s most populous nation.

Of course, uncontrolled spread means a massive increase in mortality rates due to COVID, too. The situation has become so calamitous that Chinese crematoriums are overwhelmed, with one major crematorium in the district of Longhua reporting five times as much traffic as usual. As a result, some families have been forced to leave the corpses of loved ones in their homes for days while waiting for funeral services. 

As The BMJ, a medical journal, reported, the number of COVID deaths per day in China as of late December was estimated by a health analytics firm to be around 11,000; the reason for the estimate is because Western experts take umbrage with the way China counts COVID-19 deaths. The same medical model predicts 1.7 million deaths from COVID-19 in China by April 2023. 

This marks a remarkable turn of events for a country that previously had remarkably low COVID rates compared to the rest of the world, even accounting for the nation’s unwillingness to share health data. In November 2020, as Western nations were overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases, public health experts lauded China’s success in keeping the virus at bay in the pages of the medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Among the reasons cited by writer Talha Burki include China’s “centralized” response system; the fact that it is the largest manufacturer of protective medical equipment; citizens’ memory of the first SARS outbreak; and the “speed” with which the country moved to halt transmission. China “managed to control the pandemic rapidly and effectively,” Burki opines. 

So what happened since then? The story of China’s long march to uncontrolled, rapid spread starts with a protest.

Late last month, thousands of Chinese citizens took to the streets in protest against their nation’s strict COVID-19 policies. The specific catalyst, Western nations subsequently learned, had been an apartment block fire in the city of Urumqi, one that had resulted in 10 deaths. Although the Chinese government claimed that the tenants were able to go downstairs, social media posts of footage from emergency responders made it appear that people were trapped in the building due to lockdown policies. Since the first protest on Nov. 26th, demonstrations popped up in every area of the country.

In response to those protests, the Chinese government drastically rolled back its strict policies for fighting COVID-19, colloquially known as the “zero COVID” approach. That, in turn, led to the essentially uncontrolled spread that we are seeing now.

“China’s lockdown policies prior to the protests were really not part of any pandemic playbook.”

So what went wrong in China? What lessons can Americans learn from China’s COVID-19 policies and experiences?

According to experts, the Chinese government’s problem may be that its policies have swung from one extreme end of the pendulum to the other.

“China’s lockdown policies prior to the protests were really not part of any pandemic playbook prior to this one,” Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told Salon by email. While most nations implemented gradual programs like rolling lockdowns until vaccines were widely available, and then abandoned them once the public was safe, China took a different tactic. “China had been enacting policies as if COVID-19 could be eliminated or eradicated,” Gandhi said. This approach clashed with the consensus held by Western infectious disease experts since mid-2020, who believe SARS-CoV-2 cannot be eradicated.

“A knowledge of the history of infectious diseases told us that only one pathogen has ever been eradicated worldwide from humans, which is smallpox,” Gandhi told Salon. When smallpox was eradicated in 1979, however, it was because humanity had advantages beyond the vaccines: The virus did not have other animal reservoirs, was easily recognizable once a person was infected, and conferred lifelong natural immunity. The SARS-CoV-2 virus, by contrast, “has none of the features of smallpox that made it eradicable,” such as not spreading when pre-symptomatic, not appearing in other animals and having clinical symptoms that do not appear like other viruses. This meant the ultimate mission of “zero COVID” was inherently unrealistic: “We have to ‘live with COVID-19’ but always work to control it by vaccines and therapeutics.”

China succeeded in curbing the initial outbreak in spring 2020 and prevented ‘waves of infections and soaring death tolls during the first two years of the global pandemic.”

The upshot of China’s extraordinarily strict policies, however, was that it indisputably saved millions of lives from potentially deadly or crippling COVID-19 infections. The downside is that, as when they dragged on for too long, they led to widespread mental health problems in a number of ways.

“China’s COVID-zero policies, which effectively sealed China off from the rest of the world, used mass testing combined with quarantine and containment strategies to crush even small numbers of cases and prevent epidemic spread,” Carl Minzner, a Senior Fellow for China Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations and author of “End of an Era: How China’s Authoritarian Revival is Undermining Its Rise,” told Salon by email. He acknowledged that, like other East Asian nations including South Korea and Taiwan, China succeeded in curbing the initial outbreak in spring 2020 and prevented “waves of infections and soaring death tolls during the first two years of the global pandemic,” in contrast with the rest of the world. Indeed, during this period “most Chinese citizens [managed] to enjoy relatively normal lives.” 


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


Yet despite these benefits, the extreme nature of the Chinese lockdowns eventually pushed the citizenry too far. As unusually transmissible strains like delta and omicron emerged, the zero COVID policies became increasingly strict. This ranged from sudden lockdowns of specific neighborhoods and districts to months-long lockdowns of large cities like Xi’an and Shanghai. The previous feeling of normality had evaporated, with no end in sight.

“By November 2022, some 400 million people were under some form of movement restriction,” Minzner told Salon. “Naturally, such policies began to impose severe economic and social costs on citizens and businesses, leading to steadily increasing discontent among many.” Yet like quickly ripping off a Band-Aid after the body can no longer endure the thought of keeping it, Chinese President Xi Jinping has swiftly rolled back many of his previously draconian policies. According to Dr. Ali Mokdad — a Professor of Health Metrics Sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and Chief Strategy Officer for Population Health at the University of Washington — the Chinese people are freed from the government’s COVID-19 tracking app and are permitted to quarantine at home.

Eventually the government decided to end all remaining aspects of its zero COVID policies as of early January. Instead of clamping down with as much might as it could muster, the Chinese government now went to the other extreme — and did so, it seems, without much of a plan.

“The main issue is that China did not have an exit strategy (no plan B), and they opened so fast instead of a phased approach.”

“The main issue is that China did not have an exit strategy (no plan B), and they opened so fast instead of a phased approach,” Mokdad told Salon. “There are reports of China’s hospitals being overwhelmed since the explosion of COVID-19 cases and that many patients are elderly. Hospitals did not have enough time to prepare for a surge and do not have enough beds, and medications such as fever and cold medicine and antivirals are nearly impossible to find.” While the government announced that it will start mass distributing Paxlovid, “it is not clear how much is available to make a difference and reduce the burden on the medical systems.”

If anything, the evidence of China’s poor planning can be demonstrated by comparing their COVID-19 policies with those of its longtime rival, Taiwan.

“Beijing’s core problem is it made little — if any — preparation for what would follow after COVID-zero policies,” Minzner explained. “This is quite different from, say, Taiwan — which signaled to its citizens well in advance that a retreat from COVID-zero was impending, stockpiled supplies, and made preparations to have medication delivered to infected people at home when cases surged as expected.”

There are lessons here for the United States.

“I think the US should have realized early on that SARS-CoV-2 does not have features of being able to be eradicated as explained above and that immunity is the only way to get through a pandemic (most safely, via vaccination),” Gandhi wrote to Salon. “Our vaccine uptake in the United States was not as high as other high-income countries, leading to avoidable deaths in the U.S. I think we should have touted the vaccines more as a way back to normal life in the U.S.”

Trump says rumors that he’s dumping McCarthy are fake

On Wednesday, former President Donald Trump took to his Truth Social platform to angrily debunk a fake press statement claiming he had rescinded his endorsement of Kevin McCarthy for House Speaker in favor of Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL).

“I have always supported Byron Donalds, have consistently Endorsed him for Congress and, in fact, feel that I was a primary reason he entered politics in the first place,” wrote Trump. “He is a young man with a great future! With that all being said, the story and statement that was just put out that I endorsed Byron for Speaker of the House is Fake and Fraudulent. He will have his day, and it will be a big one, but not now!”

Donalds was put up as an alternative candidate for Speaker today, after many of the defectors voted for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) the previous day. The original fake Trump statement was an image circulated on Twitter with his “Save America” masthead, which he used to release statements prior to Truth Social being set up, and which he still uses on occasion.

“I have been monitoring the vote at the House from the beautiful Mar-a-Lago, and I am very disappointed,” said the fake Trump statement. “Kevin and I spoke last night, and he made certain promises that he has not kept. Very, very sad. Many are now saying Kevin is part of the problem! Enough is Enough, Kevin! The Swamp needs to be drained, and it seems we need new Leadership. House members should now rally behind Byron Donalds, who will be sure to push the MAGA agenda. Get it done!”

This comes after Trump reasserted his endorsement for McCarthy this morning, after a brief interaction with a reporter last night in which he appeared to be noncomittal about McCarthy’s Speakership.

It also comes as the anti-McCarthy Republican defectors appear to be unswayed by the former president’s pleas. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), one of the defectors, even saying on the House floor, “The president needs to tell Kevin McCarthy that, sir, you do not have the votes, and it’s time to withdraw!”

Former FBI profiler says Idaho killer planned for a “mass casualty event”

Police have yet to release critical details of Bryan Kohberger, the Washington State University criminology graduate student arrested in connection with the grisly stabbing murders of four University of Idaho students, including any possible motive and link to the victims — due in large part to state law in Idaho that prohibits such details from being released until the criminal proceedings actually begin in that state.

But on Wednesday’s edition of CNN’s “The Lead,” former FBI Special Agent and criminal profiler Mary Ellen O’Toole laid out what some of the details already released say about the crime — and potential other physical evidence that could say even more.

“Do you believe this was a targeted attack?” asked anchor Jake Tapper.

“I believe if the injury patterns demonstrate that one or two of the victims were treated differently, just in terms of how many times they were stabbed, if there were — if there was postmortem mutilation, that would say it was targeted specifically to that victim or two victims,” said O’Toole.

“Does this seem to you like a crime in which an individual got violent because a situation got out of control, or does it seem more like a planned mass murder?” Tapper asked her.

“No, it seems planned to me,” said O’Toole. “It seems that there was effort and strategic thinking that went into it. And what is concerning for me, whoever the suspect ends up being, that there was strategic thinking during the crime. In other words, the person was not overwhelmed by what they did, but strategically thinking throughout the entire crime, and that goes to a whole different type of personality.”

Watch below:

Former White House Press Secretary offers advice on speaker stalemate: “Go get drunk”

After coming up short on the sufficient amount of votes needed to appoint a new speaker, the U.S. House has adjourned until 8 p.m. ET on Wednesday.

Appearing on Fox News to discuss the stalemate and the rising tensions within the Republican party as they grapple with this vote, Former White House Press Secretary and Co-anchor of “America’s Newsroom,” Dana Perino, offers a suggestion . . . hash it out at a bar.

“Today there was no movement towards Kevin McCarthy, there was a slight movement back,” Perino said. “They’re a little bit at a stalemate, so I think the other thing that’s happening is the name calling is getting ratcheted up within the party.”

Looking into the not too distant future where a new speaker has been appointed, and all of these people have to work together, Perino sees a way for them to squash any ill-will now and keep things moving before matters get any worse.

“I think there’s only one solution they should do tonight,” Perino furthers. “Everybody needs to go to the bar. And it need to be an open bar. They need to all get drunk and have a moment because that’s what you do with a team when you’re having a little bit of a problem . . . Go get drunk!”


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


“As a DC bartender, I can tell you that House Republicans are very bad tippers and no bartender deserves serving all of these morons in a single night,” Tweets Kat Abu from Media Matters in response to Perino’s solution. 

How the vote will advance from here is anyone’s guess, but Politico writer Nicholas Wu shared a possibility to Twitter on Wednesday afternoon.

“Another R opposing McCarthy, Rep. Bob Good, predicted to reporters that McCarthy would withdraw,” tweets Wu. 

 

“One nation united under pasta”: How the “discovery of pasta” shaped Italy

Anyone who cooks up a dish of pasta, anywhere in the world, can’t help thinking of Italian cuisine. Even if they live on another continent and the food has been in their diet for generations, it makes no difference: the Bel Paese is a touchstone by default.

Yet pasta does not just belong to Italy: in the Western world alone, there’s Moroccan couscous, Spanish fideuà (a paella made with short, thin noodles instead of rice), and all kinds of filled pasta — German maultaschen, Russian pelmeni, Ukrainian varenyky, the uszka and pierogi of Eastern Europe and so on — which have nothing to do with the Italian tradition and developed on their own.

If you think about it, it’s a little strange that a single country in the heart of the Mediterranean developed a culture with hundreds of pasta dishes, up and down the peninsula, that characterize its cuisine more than anything else. In the end, pasta is just one way of eating a dough of water and flour: bake it, and it’s a pie, flatbread or pizza; dip it in boiling oil, and it’s a fritter (plain or filled), but boil it in water, and you’ve entered the vast world of pasta.

Definitions are not set in stone, however, and that is why, for the first few centuries of its existence, pasta was not considered a culinary category unto itself. The circumstances of its birth are also rather hazy, and although we know that Sicily was a center of production for dried pasta as early as the twelfth century, the thread of its origins gets lost somewhere back in Classical Greece and the Near East.

Seen from the outside, Italy is one nation united under pasta: families cook it almost every day at home, and very few restaurants fail to offer at least one kind on the menu. There are famous recipes that can be found everywhere and have become true national symbols, like spaghetti with tomato sauce, but most have an extremely local connotation. You can probably find a good carbonara in Milan, or excellent trenette with pesto in Rome, but these dishes are still closely associated with the place where they were invented. If we look a little closer, we will notice that every place has its own specialty, and that the next town over has a different way of cooking what is more or less the same dish. Italian cuisine is built from a myriad of recipes forming an intricate mosaic, whose tiles are hard to make out; the differences are sometimes minimal, and may even hinge on individual family traditions.

Seen from the outside, Italy is one nation united under pasta: families cook it almost every day at home, and very few restaurants fail to offer at least one kind on the menu.

It’s a bit like looking at an Impressionist painting: seen from afar, it seems clear enough, but as you get closer the overall picture splits apart and the brushstrokes become an indistinguishable blur.

Since pasta is a food so deeply tied to identity, it becomes a factor distinguishing those who cook it, or rather “know how to cook it,” from those who don’t; in short, the classic dividing line of “Us and Them,” which more or less falls along national boundaries. When Italians go abroad, they can’t help being amazed by how pasta is eaten in other countries, and two common errors in particular draw the fiercest criticism. The first is cooking it too long, that is, not al dente: that characteristic consistency where the core is still firm to the bite. A dish of spaghetti or macaroni that is too soft is thought of as a mortal sin, and in Italy would justify sending the food back to the kitchen, although that rarely happens.

The other mistake that “They” often make is serving pasta as a side to meat. Those noodles nestled alongside a bit of roast, or maybe a beef stew? To an Italian, they’re completely incomprehensible, because pasta is a primo piatto, a first course, and meat is a secondo, and never the twain shall meet.

What many fierce Italian champions of orthodoxy do not realize is that these two ways of serving pasta were once quite common even back home, and it was from here that they spread abroad over a century ago. “Overcooked” pasta was standard in northern Italy until the early twentieth century; the fashion of cooking it al dente sprang up in the South, and took a long time to work its way up the peninsula and become the national standard. Just a few generations ago, it was normal for a Neapolitan to cook pasta differently compared to someone in Milan.


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


The habit of using it as a side dish was also quite common. From the Renaissance up to the late nineteenth century, one finds many cookbooks that suggest covering boiled meat, especially poultry such as duck or capon, with macaroni or filled pasta. In Italy, this custom almost completely disappeared over the course of the twentieth century, as pasta carved out its own place on the menu, both at home and in public settings.

Essentially, when Italians criticize this sort of thing, they are revealing the cultural divide that separates them not only from foreigners, but from their own ancient culinary roots.

In countries such as Germany, Britain, France or the United States, pasta was brought by Italian immigrants. Initially considered an interloper at the national table, it took quite a while to be assimilated into those cuisines. And as we know, immigrant communities tend to be protective of their traditions, which they rightfully consider a fundamental part of their identity. So this — along with the fact that contact with their homeland was only sporadic — may be why their cooking preserved some older habits, continuing down a path that Italy diverged from. In much the same way that a language cut off from its country of origin tends to evolve separately, holding on to some archaic patterns of speech.

This led to hybridized cuisines that have every right to exist, but almost never reflect contemporary Italian usage.

For instance, Italian American cooking, with its spaghetti and meatballs, chicken Alfredo or macaroni and cheese: recipes that all evolved out of traditional Italian ones, but are now only distantly related to those original delicacies and have no real counterpart in Italy. The famous macaroni dish so common in the US and UK actually echoes the oldest way of eating pasta — topped with cheese alone — but remains a specialty of the English-speaking world, and you’d never find it on a restaurant menu in my country.

Pasta becomes entangled with cultural identity not just in relation to foreigners, but even — and one might say above all — when Italians are talking to other Italians. Endless arguments over the “authentic” recipe for a given speciality are par for the course. This maniacal attachment to our foods usually causes considerable amusement among non-Italians, who can’t see why, say, the very notion of breaking spaghetti in half to fit it in the pot, or of adding a spoonful of tomato sauce to carbonara, should be such hot-button issues.

Pasta becomes entangled with cultural identity not just in relation to foreigners, but even — and one might say above all — when Italians are talking to other Italians. 

In Italy, there have always been foods associated with a given region, and examples can be found all the way back to the Middle Ages, although they are often individual products rather than actual dishes.

Even in those days certain foods had a special relationship with their place of origin, but there was nothing resembling the fanatical attachment to tradition that we see today. The fierce battle against real or imagined threats to our national cuisine is a rather recent phenomenon. And the particularly inflexible attitude of the people I call “food purists” in this book took shape around the beginning of the 1960s, during Italy’s frenzied industrialization.

If you read the newspapers of the time, they convey a clear sense that Italian culinary traditions were in jeopardy: according to commentators, an incredible legacy was at risk of disappearing for good.

The model they were looking to was France, which had been keenly aware of its national culinary heritage for some time and was working to protect certain skills, terroirs, and products through research and publications.

So the years that followed brought a concerted effort to record and preserve Italian foodways, but the link to thousand-year-old traditions that gourmets are always invoking was still missing from the picture. And the quest for (or rather, invention of) the ancient roots of Italian cuisine unleashed a debate that is not only still open, but has taken on gigantic proportions.

When it comes to food history, my research has concentrated on cookbooks as a primary source of information, but in order to interpret them correctly it has been necessary to explore many other fields, such as access to ingredients, production techniques, transport, food prices and every other aspect of the ancient diet.

These studies have revealed that many popular beliefs about the origin and evolution of classic Italian dishes, particularly pasta specialties, are flat-out wrong.

Writing about food in Italy is often complicated enough as it is but proposing variations on traditional recipes could be thought of as an extreme sport in this country. It’s far safer to wave around a sharp sword than to serve friends a carbonara made with cream.

As a rule, in Italy, cooking is a phenomenon that flows out of the kitchen into every aspect of conviviality and social life. Food is an opportunity to strengthen family ties and friendships, the consummate binding agent. And this is true of pasta in particular, because it can be easily prepared in large amounts to share with others, at relatively little expense. If it’s homemade pasta, which fortunately still exists in many parts of Italy, the whole family is often summoned to take part in the preparation of some beloved dish, especially for special occasions. It is not uncommon for everyone to gather around a big table to make the lasagna, tortellini, orecchiette, or ravioli that will become part of a festive meal. And on such occasions, the fun starts long before everyone sits down to dinner, as friends and relatives all pitch in to concoct complex dishes.

Foreigners are often surprised to learn that over dinner, Italians like to discuss what they’re eating, what they’ve eaten, and what they plan to eat or cook in the future. Of course that’s not entirely true: sometimes we just make small talk, or chat about literature, music, philosophy, history and so on.

But only if the food is mediocre.

Click here to purchase a copy of “The Discovery of Pasta” by Luca Cesari.

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.

New Louisiana law requires digital ID to access online porn, raising questions and backlash

A newly effective Louisiana law is placing constraints on who can access and watch pornography on the internet. And the technology it requires for the ID process is raising concerns.

Called House Bill 142, the new law requires websites containing 33.3% or more pornographic content to verify viewers’ age using a government-issued form of identification, a process known as “reasonable age verification.” The law was officially set into motion on Jan. 1 after it was introduced last year by Rep. Laurie Schlegel (R-LA) — who was inspired by musician Billie Eilish’s comments on the harmful effects of watching porn — and approved in June by Gov. John Bel Edwards.

“Pornography is creating a public health crisis and having a corroding influence on minors,” the legislation text reads, per PCMag. “Due to advances in technology, the universal availability of the internet, and limited age verification requirements, minors are exposed to pornography earlier in age.”

Schlegel, who is also a licensed professional counselor and certified sex addiction therapist, emphasized the importance of such laws in a statement to Fox News Digital:

“We require brick and mortar businesses to check ID before providing anyone access to this type of material but somehow we’ve given the internet a free pass. How does this make sense? And because it’s free and easily accessible without any need to verify your age, hardcore pornography is just a click away from our children. Research has shown that kids as young as six are now seeing pornography and that 1 in 10 visitors of porn sites are now under 10 years old. This is not acceptable. One researcher even said that children’s unlimited access to extreme and graphic pornography is the ‘largest unregulated social experiment in history’ and our society is paying the price.”

Under the Louisiana legislation, users can use the digital driver’s license app LA Wallet to verify that they’re 18 years of age or older.

The fallout

News of the bill, however, wasn’t greeted positively by everybody. Twitter user Public Defendering who’s a criminal defense lawyer posted their concerns in a thread. They even cited, “Under his eye,” a greeting phrase used by the people of Gilead in “The Handmaid’s Tale” referring to both the authoritarian and ever-watchful eye of that novel’s leadership.

Public Defendering noted that most establishments require a physical ID, which, incidentally, has less of chance of being duplicated or tracked than a digital one. They also point to a terms of service clause that allows LA Wallet third-party vendors to access user data.

For many on Twitter, questions were raised about how many children actually access porn, and whether this measure would even deter those who would. A simple VPN device is all that’s needed to gain access or they could simply search elsewhere that doesn’t hit the arbitrary 33.3% threshhold.


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


The idea of consumers heading elsewhere is what Techdirt focuses on, implying that it’s the sites themselves that may be affected – either by exiting consumers not willing their online behavior to a porn site be tracked or by the sites adjusting content to fall below the 33.3% threshhold, however that is determined.

“It’s a smokescreen that allows prudish legislators to hide their desire to control what content even adults can consume (by raising state-sponsored barriers) behind statements about concerns for the health and well-being of constituents,” writes Techdirt.

As the public continues to examine what ramifications this bill could have if other states follow suit, which many conservatives are backing, a 2018 Wired story sums up the biggest issues with a state-backed digital ID requirement:

“Digital IDs will become necessary to function in a connected digital world. This has not escaped the attention of authoritarian regimes,” Wired writes. “Already, they are working to splinter the internet, collect and localize data, and impose regimes of surveillance and control. Digital ID systems, as they are being developed today, are ripe for exploitation and abuse, to the detriment of our freedoms and democracies.”

Cardiologists explain what could have caused Damar Hamlin’s cardiac arrest

On Monday night, Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin suffered a cardiac arrest while playing in a football game against the Cincinnati Bengals. Millions of horrified Americans watched as the NFL player collapsed after being struck in the chest by Cincinnati wide receiver Tee Higgins during a tackle. Even in a game notorious for inflicting devastating injuries on players, Hamlin’s cardiac arrest was especially shocking to the public, which watched live as first responders spent 10 minutes administering CPR and applying a defibrillator. Among other questions, Hamlin’s cardiac arrest raises concerns about how such a seemingly bizarre tragedy could have happened in the first place.

Hamlin, after all, is a 24-year-old athlete with no reported history of heart problems. He does not fall into the usual demographic for cardiac arrest patients. Could such a tragedy befall anyone? Was it random chance — or perhaps something spurred by the tackle, and the general health problems the sport is known to exacerbate?

According to the experts who spoke with Salon, it is plausible — albeit not confirmed — that Hamlin suffered from an ailment known as commotio cordis.

According to the experts who spoke with Salon, it is plausible — albeit not confirmed — that Hamlin suffered from an ailment known as commotio cordis, a condition in which the heart’s rhythm is disrupted by a sudden blow to the precordial region (just above the chest) during the wrong moment in a heartbeat. The human heart pumps blood through your body through a process known as a cardiac cycle. Cardiac cycles can be measured by an electrocardiogram (ECG) and scientists know that there are five “waves” that occur as the heart goes about its cardiac cycle: The P, Q, R, S and T waves.

As it turns out, you definitely do not want a hard blow to your chest during a T wave. If during the ascending limb of the T wave a boxer takes a punch to the chest, a hockey player is struck with a puck to the chest or a baseball player is slammed by a baseball to the chest, it can accidentally lead to cardiac arrest. If the regular heartbeat is not restored quickly, the patient will die. As such, there is no question that the first responders who diligently worked to revive Hamlin are the reason why he did not die on the field.


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


“Without CPR and electrical defibrillation death is likely,” explained Dr. Robert A. Kloner, chief science officer and scientific director of cardiovascular research at Huntington Medical Research Institutes, in an email to Salon.

As for the seeming freakishness of this happening to such a young person, Kloner pointed out that commotio cordis “can occur in people with otherwise normal hearts.” Although rare, the mechanics of the heart are such that it is indeed possible for otherwise healthy individuals to suffer from cardiac arrest if struck in the chest at precisely the wrong moment. Moreover, Kloner emphasized that there may be other information in Hamlin’s medical history which could explain his cardiac arrest.

“Without knowing Damar’s medical history there are some other possibilities that would need to be ruled out,” Kloner told Salon. “He should be ruled out for a congenital malformation of the arteries to the heart or a type of cardiomyopathy that makes him more prone to arrhythmias; and hopefully once recovered should have a thorough cardiovascular work up.”

Commotio cordis is “pretty rare,” only occurring when a precise and unusual sequence of events occurs.

Dr. Jeffrey Teuteberg, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford University, said that “it does seem like commotio cordis is the most likely explanation for his arrest,” although he specified that we don’t know for sure yet.

So can commotio cordis strike anyone at any time? The good news for the general public is that commotio cordis is “pretty rare,” only occurring when a precise and unusual sequence of events occurs. Yet Monday’s incident is a reminder that “despite how sophisticated the heart is, it still has its moments where [it] can be vulnerable to something like this,” Teuteberg said. If anything, it serves as a warning that heart-related health incidents are serious, and that it is valuable to be prepared in advance.

“I think one of the big take-home messages for the public is the importance of proper CPR and how critical an AED [automated external defibrillator] is in this type of situation,” Teuteberg wrote to Salon. “The faster you can get to somebody and have effective CPR and then defibrillate them with an AED the better the outcomes are going to be.”

The bad news is that it is still unclear what happened in Hamlin’s situation, or whether he will fully recover. (At the time of this writing, Hamlin is still listed as being in critical condition, meaning his vital signs are unstable and his fate is uncertain.) When the human body is forced to go without proper circulation for a prolonged period, every organ is affected. As Kloner added, “we do not know whether Hamlin suffered organ damage during the period when they lacked adequate perfusion of blood.”

“This will determine his prognosis,” Kloner told Salon.

The other bad news is that various political commentators have seized on Hamlin’s tragedy to spread their own message about COVID-19 vaccines. Right-wing influencers like former Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield, Turning Point USA head Charlie Kirk and former Republican political candidates Lauren Witzke and Joey Gilbert have all hinted or stated that COVID-19 vaccines are responsible for Hamlin’s cardiac arrest. Conservatives like Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo have in the past claimed COVID-19 vaccines are linked to heart problems — and point to documents like an anonymously-authored and non-peer reviewed short state analysis, or a November study by the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), to make that case. Yet the CMAJ study emphasized that “although observed rates of myocarditis were higher than expected, the benefits of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in reducing the severity of COVID-19, hospital admission and deaths far outweigh the risk of developing myocarditis.” Other studies consistently show that COVID-19 infections can cause both short-term and long-term heart problems, and that it is a far greater risk to your heart to get a COVID-19 infection than it is to get an mRNA vaccine.

Even the doctors who suspect commotio cordis as the culprit behind Damar Hamlin’s cardiac arrest made it clear that this is only an educated guess.

Regarding the short state analysis touted by Ladapo, Dr. Monica Gandhi — a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco — told Salon at the time that “this study is too flawed to be used to set policy on the mRNA vaccines in younger males.”

In addition to being wrong about vaccine science, the political commentators are also forgetting one of the most important rules of medicine: Wait for the evidence. After all, even the doctors who suspect commotio cordis as the culprit behind Damar Hamlin’s cardiac arrest made it clear that this is only an educated guess.

“With a lot of things that happen publicly without obvious clear explanations, I think it is always best to wait 24 to 48 hours to get the complete story before making any conclusions,” Teuteberg told Salon, adding that even the commotio cordis hypothesis could ultimately be proven wrong. Kloner, who strongly doubted that vaccines had anything to do with Hamlin’s cardiac arrest, likewise observed that the people who claim vaccinations caused Hamlin’s collapse misunderstand the science they are citing.

“The incidence of inflammation of the heart (myocarditis) after vaccine is low and those who do get it usually have mild cases,” Kloner said. “I do not know Damar’s vaccination status.”

Kloner also added a personal note.

“I am a native of Buffalo, NY and a Bills fan, so I certainly wish Damar the best and hope he recovers,” Kloner told Salon.

“We’re open to that”: AOC floats speaker deal with GOP after talks with Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar

As House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., lost three more rounds of votes for speaker on Wednesday, some House Democrats floated a potential deal with Republicans – even as their own caucus chair threw cold water on the idea. But amid the chaos of the GOP’s ongoing schism, the pressure to end the Republicans’ two-day debacle has grown, with hopes of a Democratic deal spurred by comments from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio.  

On Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez was spotted chatting on the House floor with McCarthy detractor Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., stirring speculation about possible cross-aisle negotiations. Gaetz said McCarthy was betting on Democrats to cut a deal with McCarthy, voting present to allow him a win, Ocasio-Cortez told The Intercept on Tuesday.

“McCarthy was suggesting he could get Dems to walk away to lower his threshold,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And I fact checked and said absolutely not.”

Ocasio-Cortez also had a sidebar with McCarthy opponent Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.

In the long hours that followed, however, her position may have shifted. In an interview with MSNBC’s Alex Wagner, Ocasio-Cortez again affirmed that Democrats were uniting behind House Democratic Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. She hinted, though, that other options could still be on the table when asked. 

“So the question is, is there anyone in their caucus that can build that consensus? If there isn’t, McCarthy’s team may have to come to the Democratic Party,” she said. “And, if that’s the case, then what would that even look like? It’s rather unprecedented. Could it result in a potential coalition government?”

“If they want to play ball, we’re open to that,” she added.

However, Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday stressed that McCarthy could not be the unity candidate. 

“But, I mean, hey, if we could get some chairs,” she told The Daily Beast’s Ursula Perano.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, also raised the prospect of potential negotiations.

“I wish I could be part of some kind of a unity caucus that would yield him the votes,” she told NBC News. “I’m a Democrat, but I have many Republicans in our district. And not that we would agree with him on everything, but at least let the man become speaker.”  

Democratic Caucus Chair, Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., threw cold water on the idea of a pro-McCarthy Democratic compromise before the chamber’s session. 

“We would look at that, but I haven’t seen any proof that Republicans are willing to engage,” he told reporters at a press conference.

But some GOP members have raised the potential for negotiations.


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


Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told CNN’s Jim Sciutto that Republicans were already in “preliminary talks” with Democrats on a possible consensus candidate for House Speaker. Bacon reportedly mentioned possible concessions that could be made to Democrats, including skewing committee ratios more favorably for Democrats. 

With no resolve after six rounds of votes for House speaker, the GOP is at an impasse over how to proceed. A deal with the Democrats, of course, could risk causing further backlash from the Freedom Caucus and potentially others in the Republican Party. 

As Politico’s Nicholas Wu hinted at in a tweet, the possibility of a third day – perhaps a fourth? – of GOP dispute looms ever larger. 

“Special Forces: World’s Toughest Test”: Where “Battle of the Network Stars” meets a redemption tour

In a universe where Rudy Walking MalpracticeGiuliani did not show up on “The Masked Singer” after playing a key role in perpetuating The Big Lie, a person could legitimately say the texts Hope Hicks sent to Ivanka Trump’s former chief of staff during the insurrection are correct.

“In one day he ended every future opportunity that doesn’t include speaking engagements at the local proud boys chapter,” Hicks said Donald Trump as part of an exchange with Julie Radford released by the House select committee on the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection.

 “And all of us that didn’t have jobs lined up will be perpetually unemployed,” she added. “We all look like domestic terrorists now.”

Do they, though? Americans are stubbornly and conveniently amnesiac. Given enough time – which could range anywhere from a month to a few years – people will forget Hicks and her colleagues did anything too terrible. Alyssa Farah Griffin is Exhibit A. She stood by Trump until December 2020, well after he sowed lies about the election being stolen. Now she’s a cohost on “The View.” (“Alyssa looks like a genius,” Hicks enviously texted.)

Former Trump White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer became a “Dancing with the Stars” contestant and currently hosts “Spicer & Co.” on Newsmax. Opportunities abound!

Speaking of that: the first time I quixotically pleaded to the powers that be to refrain from enabling Spicer’s post-Trump administration career aspirations, I added this postscript: “And don’t you dare give any more screen time to [Anthony] Scaramucci than he’s already getting.”

Special Forces: World's Toughest TestKate Gosselin, Anthony Scaramucci, Montell Jordan and Dr. Drew in “Special Forces: World’s Toughest Test” (Pete Dadds / FOX)

Five years after that hilariously pointless declaration, The Mooch is now a contender on Fox’s “Special Forces: World’s Toughest Test.”

In the realm of celebrity, heroism and villainy are relative terms.

 “Special Forces” is described as the “ultimate celebrity social experiment.” It tosses 16 of the formerly famous or famous-to-a-specific-demographic into a desert, where quartet of ex-special forces operators push them through brutal physical challenges and subject them to relentless verbal abuse. Their challenge is to last 10 days and survive these simulations of what the producers describe as “the highly classified selection process.” Most won’t make it. 

This unintentional infomercial for the Church of Marjorie Taylor Greene, aka CrossFit, welcomes Scaramucci into a mix that includes Jamie Lynn Spears, Dr. Drew Pinsky, Kate Gosselin and eight-time NBA All-Star Dwight Howard, who is apparently one of the league’s most disliked players.

Before you sense a theme, remember that reality show producers cast potential heels to keep the mood interesting. “Special Forces” also enlists an array of professional athletes and an Olympian, along with Spice Girl Mel B, Bravo “Real Housewife” Kenya Moore and R&B singer Montell Jordan, who seems like a decent guy.

Special Forces: World's Toughest TestJamie Lynn Spears in “Special Forces: World’s Toughest Test” (Pete Dadds / FOX)

Of course, in the realm of celebrity, heroism and villainy are relative terms. Some people still love Dr. Drew despite his controversial stint hosting “Celebrity Rehab,” his early contributions to coronavirus misinformation and other bad medical advice. Some people have empathy for Britney Spears’ sister, although reportedly the pop singer is not one of them.

Scaramucci, meanwhile, is an opportunist who managed to parlay public humiliation into a brand strength. While Trump’s bootprint was still drying on the Mooch’s pants, he booked a slew of TV appearances and swooped into “Celebrity Big Brother” as the second edition’s “fake” houseguest. (His appearance on that show was preceded by another Trump surrogate, Omarosa Manigault Newman.)

Faking it is not an option on “Special Forces,” a show where the agents responded to giving Spears a trauma flashback and making her projectile vomit by telling her to stop crying. Later another made celebrity chef Tyler Florence crawl like an animal because he tried to suck up to him.  

However, as much as one may salivate at the prospect of watching leathery, burly men hand egocentric people their asses, “Special Forces” is still very much an exercise in humanizing and humbling its contestants. The goal, one of the pros explains, is for the participants to emerge from the experience as better versions of themselves. Hence it works best as a window into a star’s sense of self-awareness and vulnerability, which forecasts that some will come out looking rosier than others. 

Special Forces: World's Toughest TestMel B in “Special Forces: World’s Toughest Test” (Pete Dadds / FOX)

Mel B gets an early hero focus, introducing herself by explaining that she’s participating to reclaim her inner strength after getting out of a decade-long abusive relationship. “I’m a Spice Girl  –  girl power,” she says and wanly adds, “but my confidence got taken away from me. So this is all about me gaining it back.”

“Scary Spice” already has her fans, as does Moore, who proves in an early physical test that she’s a mugger’s nightmare.

Sensitive admissions don’t work in every participant’s favor because in some cases, those confessions come from a place of vanity and ego as opposed to humility. Of course, some go the other way and are high on their own supply, only to confirm their relative frailty beyond the protective bubble of the entertainment world by collapsing before the competition even begins.

Many of them are relatively modest about their odds of success in this environment. The Mooch is not.

Explaining that he hits the gym “one and a half to two hours most days,” he goes on to brag, “I was the White House communications director for 11 days before I got fired. You know, I can take a lot of heat. No problem.” It’s tough to tell whether that’s a joke.

Every “Special Forces” contestant has something to prove, whether to themselves or to an audience whose attention they’re driven to command or recapture.

Sadly, we don’t get to see whether this is true in the two-hour premiere which, like every other reality competition, coalesces around a few people who embody that episode’s theme. (The first is “Weakness.”) Every reality show finds its raison d’etre in the edit; here, at least initially, we’re presented with an athletic and psychological parable about public perception versus self-perception. 

Special Forces: World's Toughest TestRecruits with Director Staff Foxy in “Special Forces: World’s Toughest Test” (Pete Dadds / FOX)

Gosselin exemplifies this as someone who used to be one of the most famous reality TV stars in the United States thanks to her time on “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” and through no direct fault of her own is most recently recognizable as the poster model for what a “Karen” looks like. (Blame her famously unfortunate asymmetrical haircut.)

It takes a hard heart to not feel a mote of empathy for Gosselin as she runs dead last in a short marathon to their barracks, ugly crying the entire time. It’s also easy to remember she could have kept her whole body at home and spared us and herself the discomfort and disappointment.


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


But the famous differ from us in this way. Every “Special Forces” contestant has something to prove, whether to themselves or to an audience whose attention they’re driven to command or recapture. It’s emotionally cleaner to cheer on Mel B as a survivor and a Gen X and Millennial symbol of Girl Power 2.0 than it is to watch a Trump sycophant endure beyond another person who even the military veterans were surprised to see go home.

“Special Forces” may not prove popular enough to fully restore reputations. Truth be told Howard, a basketball star, is probably more redeemable in the public’s view than the record-holder for shortest tenure as a White House communications director. But it is suitable for someone like the Mooch to find temporary purchase here since this is a test of resilience. How that translates depends on to whom it refers. For someone like Mel B, it’s a compliment, fueling wagers that she can outlast most of her competition.

Applying it to someone like Scaramucci insinuates a level of virulence, as if he’s a flare-up of some disease that can never be fully eradicated. Call the affliction infamy, with the understanding that plenty who know better will jump at the chance to host a full comeback.

“Special Forces: World’s Toughest Test” premieres at 8 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 4 on Fox.