Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Of course Trump wants to “terminate” Constitution: He wants to seize power and rule by force

Donald Trump aspires to be a warlord. As he showed repeatedly during his presidency and afterward — and in his decades of public life before that — he idolizes violence and is willing to use it to achieve his goal of unlimited power. More broadly, the ideological root and driving force of fascism is the quest for unrestrained, corrupt power. Violence is a central and inseparable element of that political project.

Trump must also be understood as the leader of a personality cult. His followers are devoted to him not just because of his personality and undoubted charisma — although those are important — but because of what he represents and symbolizes. In this case, Trump has offered his followers license to hurt those people they resent, fear and view as “un-American” or as lesser human beings, and otherwise to indulge their worst impulses without consequences.

The language and imagery of the MAGA movement and Trumpism are clearly those of a cult and movement organized around a strongman demagogue. Because these slogans and signifiers are part of a larger fascist imaginary, the facts and specifics do not really matter. What matters is the shared perception that violence, domination and apocalyptic revolution are the tools that will ultimately achieve Trump’s and the MAGA movement’s larger goals, especially by suppressing or silencing any person or group who dares to oppose them.

Over the course of the last few weeks, Donald Trump has amplified his warlord ambitions, and increasingly embraced the types of extreme beliefs and behavior that fuel such an identity. Contrary to what most of America’s political class and mainstream media would prefer to believe, there is a deep well of support for such authoritarian and fascistic politics and values in the United States.

As you surely know by now, on Nov. 22, Trump — who is both a former president and now an announced presidential candidate — hosted a pre-Thanksgiving dinner at Mar-a-Lago headquarters with rapper Kanye West, aka Ye, who has remade himself as a Black neofascist and Hitler fan. Nick Fuentes, an avowed white supremacist and antisemite and a de facto neo-Nazi, was also there as West’s guest. (Trump has claimed, with very little plausibility, that he had no idea who Fuentes was.)

White supremacy, Nazism, antisemitism and other forms of racial authoritarianism are inherently and fundamentally violent, genocidal and eliminationist enterprises. The apparent fact that Trump continues to embrace such beliefs and the odious people who espouse them is a great victory for the global white supremacist movement and its decades-long project to mainstream and normalize hatred and violence, not just on the far-right fringes of the “conservative” movement but in American political culture as a whole. 

Last Thursday, Donald Trump again demonstrated his commitment to becoming an American fascist warlord. As Salon’s Samaa Khullar reported, Trump “expressed his solidarity with the rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in a video for a fundraising event … hosted by the Patriot Freedom Project, which assists the families of those being prosecuted by the government”:

“People have been treated unconstitutionally in my opinion and very, very unfairly, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it,” he said in the video, which appears to be shot in his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. He also complained about the “weaponization of the Department of Justice,” and claimed the nation was “going communist.”

In a September interview, Trump revealed he was “financially supporting” some of the Jan. 6 defendants and promised them pardons and a government apology if he is re-elected in 2024. “I mean full pardons with an apology to many,” he told conservative radio host Wendy Bell. 

A successful warlord must of course reward the loyalty of his most loyal foot soldiers and paramilitaries, especially those who enthusiastically embrace his most dubious and dangerous commandments. At the Boston Globe, Jess Bidgood observes that Trump has launched his third presidential campaign by making clear that the “extremist fringe that was always part of his base is moving to center stage”:

There was his shocking dinner at Mar-a-Lago last week with the white supremacist Nick Fuentes and Ye, the rapper better known as Kanye West who has made a series of antisemitic statements. Trump also reposted memes from QAnon conspiracy-mongers on one of his social media accounts, an increasingly common occurrence. “It’s not a flirtation, it’s a cohabitation,” said Tim O’Brien, a biographer of the former president. “If the only difference is he’s now dining with them and in the past he’s refused to denounce them … he’s just more comfortable taking it all the way.”

The shift was more subtle but evident at his campaign announcement earlier this month. Even as Trump delivered a kickoff speech that hewed faithfully to the teleprompter, his cheering audience was dotted with supporters who had rallied on his behalf at the Capitol on Jan. 6, according to Politico — people who, just like Fuentes and Ye, had been welcomed onto the grounds of his private club.

Trump’s latest and perhaps most blatant attack on democracy came this past weekend, when he literally declared on his Truth Social platform that the U.S. Constitution should be “terminated” so that he can be returned to power immediately. It is no exaggeration to say that Donald Trump wants to be a dictator:

So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

How is the mainstream news media responding to Trump’s escalating warlord behavior and his threats of violence? As usual, largely through mockery and forced, anxious humor. Also by downplaying or ignoring the danger, failing to provide proper context and repeatedly asserting that the country’s democracy crisis is fading because of the midterms and that a return to “normal” is almost here. Whenever possible, the media defaults to its obsolete habits of the pre-Trump era: Both-sides coverage, conventions of “fairness” and “balance,” access journalism and horserace coverage focusing on who is supposedly up or down in opinion polls and fundraising. All these familiar patterns of Beltway reporting and commentary do the work of normalizing both Trump and the Republican fascist movement.

As I wrote in an earlier essay at Salon

Ultimately, as Donald Trump becomes more desperate, he will reveal more of his true self: a violent predator who will almost always attack instead of retreating or otherwise surrendering…. Aspiring warlord Donald Trump has told America and the world exactly what he and his movement intend to do. Unfortunately, the mainstream news media and other hope-peddlers have deluded themselves into thinking that it’s all a misunderstanding or harmless hyperbole. We should take Trump at his word. On these issues, he does not prevaricate or tell lies. It will do no good to protest that you couldn’t possibly have known. We all knew this was coming, and now it’s here.

One of the most dangerous errors being committed by the mainstream news media is a choice not to draw consistent connections between the words and deeds of Donald Trump and other Republican fascists and the behavior of their followers. Political scientists and other experts have repeatedly shown that tens of millions of Americans express clear support for Trump’s coup attempt and the Capitol attack of Jan. 6. 2021. Among that group there are many — even a small percentage would be a large number — who are prepared to engage in and support right-wing political violence and terrorism, with the goal of removing Joe Biden and the Democratic Party from power permanently and ending the country’s efforts to build a multiracial, pluralistic democracy.


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


As an institution, the mainstream news media consistently chooses to depict Trumpists and other white Republicans and “conservatives” in sympathetic terms, as fundamentally decent people and “real Americans” who feel justified anger and alienation and who must be heard and understood. Few if any other groups are treated with such fawning generosity, and/or such condescension. 

This reflects various factors, including the pervasive influence of white privilege and the white racial frame, the media’s fear of being labeled as unfair or biased against “conservatives,” a reluctance to alienate advertisers and an imagined “middle American” public, and a misguided commitment to the “moderate” middle ground rather than to telling the truth and defending democracy. The net effect of all this is that right-wing political violence is a fringe phenomenon outside mainstream political discourse, instead of a central ingredient in the Republican Party and “conservative” movement’s approach to politics and society. As we should have learned from Jan. 6, such an assumption is dangerously flawed. 

Agents of influence: How Russia deploys an army of shadow diplomats

BUDVA, Montenegro — Near a teeming town square along the Adriatic coast, where ancient city walls surround the ruins of bygone empires and shops and churches rise over the sea, Russia’s newly appointed representative to this tiny Balkan nation opened his consulate office.

Boro Djukic, the first honorary consul named by Russia in Montenegro, was supposed to use his prestigious post to champion cultural ties and the interests of local Russian business owners and tourists — a benevolent bridge between the two countries.

Instead, the middle-aged former bureaucrat took on an aggressive role in Montenegro’s politics, backing a movement that aimed to empower allies of the Kremlin and working to undermine the fragile government of a country considered a valuable U.S. ally in a turbulent region.

While honorary consul from 2014 to 2018, Djukic helped found a hard-line, Kremlin-backed political party that sought to force the country’s withdrawal from NATO. When the party needed a headquarters, he went one step further, offering his family home in a posh neighborhood in Podgorica, Montenegro’s capital.

A sign near the front door read: “Residence of the Honorary Consul of the Russian Federation.”

Djukic was part of a faithful network of honorary consuls embedded by the Russian government around the world that has supported President Vladimir Putin amid his most contentious military and political campaigns, including the February invasion of Ukraine that has killed or injured thousands of civilians, an investigation by ProPublica and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists found.

Under Putin, Russia has become an enthusiastic supporter of the largely unregulated system of international diplomacy, which for centuries has empowered private citizens in their home countries to serve as liaisons for foreign nations.

Experts say Russia is using honorary consuls as part of a strategy to move public opinion in the Kremlin’s favor and, over time, weaken pro-Western governments, particularly in European countries vulnerable to influence. In one high-profile case, intelligence officials tied two consuls in North Macedonia to an alleged Russian propaganda campaign to destabilize a stretch of southeastern Europe.

In Montenegro, Ljubomir Filipovic, a political scientist and former deputy mayor of Budva, said Djukic helped spread chaos and dysfunction in a country that has struggled to establish an identity since it became a sovereign nation in 2006.

“He went beyond what an ordinary honorary consul would do. He went even beyond what an official diplomat would do,” said Filipovic, who tracked Djukic’s activities as consul. “The intention was to damage the social fabric of Montenegro — and he did that.”

Honorary consuls were once deployed primarily by smaller countries unable to afford career diplomats in critical foreign outposts. The arrangement is now used by most of the world’s governments as a way to further their interests in regions where embassies are far away or too costly to maintain.

Under international treaty, honorary consuls receive some of the same privileges and protections provided to career diplomats, including the ability to move consular bags across borders without inspection and maintain archives and correspondence that cannot be searched.

Consuls, however, are widely expected to be unobtrusive advocates, volunteers who focus on cultural and economic ties without proselytizing the political views of the governments they represent. “Apolitical in their words and deeds,” according to guidelines approved by an international association of consuls.

Many consuls fulfill that role honorably: promoting industry, the arts and academia on behalf of their appointing countries; assisting stranded or sick travelers; and helping with visa applications.

But a global investigation led by ProPublica and ICIJ identified at least 500 current and former honorary consuls who have been accused of crimes or become embroiled in controversy, including some who exploited their status for profit, to advance criminal activities or to dodge law enforcement. The scale of the abuse emerged in a review of thousands of pages of court documents, government reports and media accounts from dozens of countries.

Russia, which for decades did not appoint honorary consuls, has increasingly leveraged the system in service of its political agenda. Inside Russia, several of Putin’s closest associates secured their own honorary consul appointments — with the privileges that come with the title — and formed an advocacy group called The League of Honorary Consuls. Outside Russia, the government has appointed honorary consuls on six continents, quadrupling their number to more than 80 in the first decade after Putin took office.

Consuls appointed by the Russian government have denounced Western sanctions and criticized NATO. An American who served as Russia’s honorary consul in Denver traveled to Crimea several years after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized the peninsula. She visited a museum and posed for photos, while the U.S. State Department reported that torture, arbitrary arrests, ethnic violence and corruption were rampant there under Russian rule.

This year, as Russian rockets fell on Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, at least two honorary consuls representing Russia spoke out again. “I’m sorry he did not do it sooner,” one consul, Constantine van Vloten in the Netherlands, declared in support of Putin.

A consul in Spain appeared on Russian state television to decry violence he attributed to the “Ukrainian terrorist state.” Before he was named consul, Pedro Mouriño Uzal traveled to Crimea as an independent observer and vouched for the “absolute normality and tranquility” of a 2014 referendum, widely condemned as illegitimate, to incorporate the region into Russia.

Uzal told ProPublica and ICIJ that criticism of the vote was unfounded and that Ukraine has “joined the ranks of terrorist organizations that attack civilian infrastructure and take lives of civilians.” Van Vloten said in a statement that he has no personal relationship with Putin and that he wished the military operation had started sooner “so that it could end sooner the civil war.”

Several of Russia’s honorary consuls quit to protest the invasion. But others have remained in place even as countries in Europe and Asia expelled Russia’s career diplomats.

Though Russia does not release lists of its honorary consuls, ProPublica and ICIJ were able to identify consuls appointed by Russia who have served in at least 45 countries.

One is a hotel and nightclub owner in Mexico whose personal security guard is accused by Mexican officials of meeting at the consul’s properties with leaders of an organized crime gang known as The Russians, according to a 2021 military intelligence report.

Another was a businessman in Equatorial Guinea whom Russia named an honorary consul in 2011 after he was imprisoned for selling cruise missiles — capable of carrying nuclear warheads — to Iran and China. He is no longer a consul and could not be reached for comment. The consul in Mexico did not respond to requests for comment.

In Montenegro, Djukic remained a consul for about four years. In 2018, the government stripped him of his title reportedly as part of a coordinated response by governments, unrelated to Djukic, to the poisoning of a former Russian military intelligence officer who had become a British spy. Russian agents were accused of carrying out the attack; Moscow denied any involvement.

Djukic, who did not respond to requests for comment, has denied acting improperly as consul. “I am not a Russian citizen, but as a person who loves Russia, I represented it in the best possible way,” he told local media after Montenegro terminated his diplomatic status.

This year, one day after the invasion of Ukraine, Djukic denounced NATO and praised Putin on social media.

Putin, he wrote between heart emojis, stopped “American domination over the whole world.”

Putin’s Circle

Honorary consuls are nominated by foreign governments but serve at the discretion of their home countries. There are thousands of consuls, though no one has a more precise estimate because dozens of governments don’t publicly release the names of their appointees.

Under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, consuls are entitled to a coveted series of benefits that can include special identity cards, passports and license plates. They cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed in the official course of duty and their offices, and correspondence and consular bags are protected from searches.

For decades, what was then the Soviet Union declined to appoint consuls overseas or approve requests by foreign governments for consuls on Soviet soil. Soviet leaders saw honorary consuls as nothing more than “bourgeois spies,” scholar Geoff Berridge wrote in his widely cited book about diplomatic law and practice.

Soon after Putin became president in 2000, however, Russia fully embraced the honorary consul system. The title afforded protections and diplomatic credentials to a new class of well-connected elites.

ProPublica and ICIJ found a who’s who list of Russian power brokers and oligarchs — in mining, steel, gas, oil and banking — who have had honorary consul status.

In 2002, four of Putin’s associates founded the League of Honorary Consuls. Little is publicly known about the group, but Russian government documents show that the league spends donations on the “defense and support” of consuls.

The organization is based in Putin’s hometown of St. Petersburg, where he was a leading liaison to foreign diplomats during his rise to national power.

The founders secured their own honorary consul appointments: one from Brazil, another from Bangladesh, a third from Seychelles. Putin himself reportedly recommended that the government of Thailand appoint as consul the fourth organizer, Yury Kovalchuk, an oligarch the U.S. government has called “a personal banker” to Putin and other senior government officials.

In 2019, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made clear that his government supported the honorary consul system. Meeting with the leaders of some of the smallest countries in the Pacific region at the United Nations in New York, Lavrov announced: “We are actively using the institution of honorary consuls. … I think we should expand the practice.”

ProPublica and ICIJ found that at least nine current and former consuls in Russia have been sanctioned for their reported ties to Putin or for supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine. That includes Kovalchuk, whom U.S. authorities blacklisted in 2014 after the Russian invasion of Crimea and again in March after the latest attack on Ukraine.

Kovalchuk did not respond to requests for comment.

Under Putin, Russia also nominated a cadre of its own consuls around the world. Some were Russian expatriates, others influential local magnates of culture and industry.

Russian regulations for honorary consuls in the late 1990s said the volunteer diplomats would promote “friendly relations … the expansion of economic, trade, scientific, cultural and other ties.”

In Montenegro, Djukic went much further.

“He’s Everywhere”

Born in Podgorica in 1970, Djukic grew up eating his mother’s dumplings and borscht. His father worked for a time as a director of a tobacco factory and later moved to the Soviet Union.

In 1989, with the Soviet bloc unraveling, Djukic went to Moscow. Then 19 and knowing little Russian, he struggled to find his way.

“My first impressions were not very joyful,” he later told a Russian-language newspaper in Montenegro. “It was like being thrown into the past by a time machine. … I ended up in a half-starved Moscow with dirty, broken streets, empty counters, shops without shop windows. People were driving old cars.”

After working for an Austrian trading company, he returned in 1997 to Montenegro and found work as an adviser at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 2013, Ukraine named him an honorary consul in Montenegro.

Djukic said in an interview at the time that he wanted to give back, helping Ukrainian tourists with visa problems and families with emergencies while on vacation, routine duties of honorary consuls.

“It’s time to give from yourself, to do useful things,” he said.

That consulship ended; Djukic said only that the decision was tied to leadership changes after Russia annexed Crimea in early 2014.

He was soon appointed a consul by Russia, initially maintaining a low profile even as tensions in Montenegro continued to rise.

The country of 620,000 had once been part of Yugoslavia and, later, part of a smaller federation with neighboring Serbia. By the time Djukic became consul in 2014, setting up his office near a town square in Budva, Montenegro was an independent nation seeking to become a member of NATO.

That position made Montenegro, with longstanding ties to Moscow and an influx of Russian tourists and investment, a high-stakes battleground between Russia and the West.

In 2016, Montenegrin authorities disrupted an Election Day coup attempt by Russian military intelligence operatives and others who had plotted to overthrow Montenegro’s government and kill its pro-Western prime minister.

Montenegro joined NATO the following year, a move celebrated by political leaders and diplomats as a guarantee against foreign meddling.

“It will never happen again that someone else decides instead of us and our state behind our back, as was the case in the past,” Montenegro’s then-Prime Minister Dusko Markovic said at a ceremony in Washington, D.C.

In the Senate a few weeks later, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., praised Montenegro’s leaders and warned of Putin’s “long-term campaign … to erode any and all resistance to his dark and dangerous view of the world.”

“Every American should be disturbed,” McCain said.

Four months later in October 2017, Djukic took a bold public step.

As honorary consul, he helped organize a trip to Moscow for Marko Milacic, one of Montenegro’s most well-known anti-NATO populist leaders. Milacic had already been convicted for organizing what local media described as an unauthorized protest. Reporting to prison to serve a 20-day sentence, Milacic had paused outside to burn a blue-and-white NATO flag.

In Moscow, according to a subsequent social media post by Milacic, the politician met with Sergei Zheleznyak, a top Putin ally who was under U.S. sanctions for his involvement in the annexation of Crimea.

Two months after the trip, according to records obtained by ProPublica and ICIJ and reporting by local media, Djukic signed the founding documents for True Montenegro, a Kremlin-backed, right-wing political party led by Milacic. Djukic would later acknowledge that the party set up its headquarters at his family home in a Podgorica neighborhood of expansive houses and foreign embassies.

In 2018, shortly after the Montenegrin government removed Djukic as consul, he stood alongside Milacic at a press conference, endorsed True Montenegro and defended his own involvement in politics.

“If I had several million euros or dollars, I would legally offer them to Mr. Milacic,” Djukic told reporters. “Why? Because I like his idea.”

Djukic also commented on Facebook that he had been “persecuted” by NATO. And in an interview with a Russian media outlet, he defended the men behind the attempted coup in 2016, calling one of the plotters a “comrade, friend” and saying there was no conspiracy.

“If there was something like that, I would know for sure,” Djukic told the interviewer. “This is in the same category as everything else that has been done against Russia in recent years. There was no coup d’état. The maximum that could be … someone in a drunken conversation said, ‘Come on, let’s kill someone.'”

Milan Jovanovic, an analyst for a democracy group in Montenegro that tracks disinformation, said Djukic was an influential force. “He went from national Montenegrin to … the closest possible cooperation with Russia,” Jovanovic said.

In a two-bedroom apartment crowded with books about philosophy and religion, Filipovic, the political scientist and former Budva deputy mayor, watched the former consul’s appearance at the True Montenegro press conference. Filipovic took to social media, posting commentary, media reports and photos that Djukic had put on Facebook.

One photo showed the former consul in a black T-shirt emblazoned with the word “Russian,” his arm around Alexander Zaldostanov, leader of the pro-Kremlin motorcycle gang known as the Night Wolves. The U.S. Treasury Department had previously sanctioned Zaldostanov, whose nickname is “The Surgeon,” accusing him of leading an organization that recruited fighters and committed crimes during the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea. He could not be reached for comment.

In another photo, Djukic brandished a machine gun in front of a wall of rifles, rockets and other military paraphernalia.

“He’s everywhere,” Filipovic said in a recent interview in a Budva coffee shop overlooking the Adriatic Sea. “It’s sharp power that masquerades as soft power. It’s not the power of attraction. It’s the power of coercion.”

Russia’s Reach in Denver

Nearly 6,000 miles away in Colorado, the last remaining honorary consul for Russia in the United States lost her post in March as Russian forces invaded Ukraine.

“Colorado is … severing diplomatic ties with Russia,” Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, wrote in a letter to the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., seeking the decertification of honorary consul Deborah Palmieri. “Should at some point the regime change in Russia to one that honors global order … Colorado will reconsider.”

The State Department subsequently withdrew recognition of Palmieri’s consular status, the governor’s office said. The State Department did not respond to questions about Palmieri or the governor’s request.

Russia has nominated a series of American citizens as honorary consuls on U.S. soil. They included the founder of a Russian art museum in Minnesota, the president of a Russian trading firm in Puerto Rico and the former president of St. Petersburg College in Florida, who in 2007 penned a newspaper column titled “Putin and Me.”

“Their definition of ‘democracy’ is different than ours,” Carl Kuttler Jr. wrote, calling Putin “perceptive,” “detail oriented” and a “muscular man” with “an amazing intellect.”

In an interview, Kuttler, who is no longer an honorary consul, said his work included trade, education and helping Americans with adoptions and that he “never was asked to participate in anything but the most ethical of ventures.”

In 2016, the State Department revoked the status of all but one of the Russian-appointed consuls in the United States after reports that Russian intelligence officers were harassing U.S. diplomats in Moscow. Only Palmieri stayed on.

Before she was appointed consul in 2007, Palmieri publicly supported Putin, writing in a publication for the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce that he was achieving democracy “at his own pace.”

As consul, she worked out of a downtown Denver rowhouse, with photos of the Kremlin and Red Square in the dining room, and promoted the Deb Palmieri Russia Institute, a provider of training to businesses seeking to enter the Russian market. Her website, which is no longer active, noted that she has worked with hundreds of U.S. and Russian companies, including Aeroflot, Russia’s state airline.

After Russia sent troops into Crimea in 2014, Colorado lawyer Olena Ruth, who was born in Kyiv, organized a rally in support of Ukraine and marched with scores of others to the consulate.

“She was just ignoring the Ukrainian question,” Ruth said in a recent interview. “Nobody wanted to have her presence here.”

Three years later, Palmieri was among a group of Americans who toured annexed Crimea, visiting a local university and a museum and posing for photos. On her website, Palmieri described the trip as a “fact-finding visit.”

“She was a participant in the trip?” said Rusty Butler, a retired college administrator and former honorary consul for Russia in Utah, when told about the 2017 visit by reporters. “I can’t wrap my head around seeing myself in that role.”

Palmieri, whose website included an undated picture of herself greeting Putin, has kept a low profile since she lost the consul post and did not respond to emails and calls seeking comment.

A retired Colorado federal bankruptcy judge, Sid Brooks, who once helped train Russian judges about independent judiciaries, said he knew Palmieri from events at the consulate. Brooks said he stepped back from his own work in Russia in recent years because of Putin’s policies.

“I don’t know what triggered the [removal] of Deb Palmieri as honorary consul, but as far as I’m concerned, that’s just fine,” Brooks said. “I always thought it was a little bit curious that [as consul] she seemed to continue her efforts to promote exchanges.”

“Intelligence Bases”

In North Macedonia, another fragile Balkan democracy, honorary consul Sergej Samsonenko became one of the most visible promoters of the Kremlin.

A Russian-born entrepreneur who made millions as the founder of an international sports betting company, Samsonenko built a four-star hotel in the capital that he called Hotel Russia and helped fund a landmark Russian Orthodox church that, according to local media, an archbishop described as a “part of the Russian soul on Macedonian soil.”

In 2016, Samsonenko was named honorary consul for Russia. He set up his consulate in Bitola, an ancient trading hub near the Greek border that had served as a cultural and political junction under the Ottoman Empire, earning the nickname “City of Consuls.”

In 2017, a North Macedonian intelligence report found that the consulate offices in Bitola and in the lakeside city of Ohrid represented “intelligence bases” used by Russia as part of an alleged propaganda campaign aimed at creating conflict in the Balkans and isolating countries like North Macedonia from the West.

“Performing intelligence activities from diplomatic consular missions is a widely used method of the Russian Federation … from which they are collecting, processing, analyzing and distributing information,” noted the report, first obtained by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

The report also described Samsonenko’s financing of the Russian church, saying “religious influence [of the Russian Federation] is an important segment of the Russian strategy.”

North Macedonia joined NATO in 2020. This past summer, the government withdrew its approval of Samsonenko’s honorary consul position.

Samsonenko declined to comment to ProPublica and ICIJ beyond dismissing reports about him as “lies and slander.” He has previously denied using his diplomatic status to support Russian intelligence operations.

“I am not a political person, I am an honorary consul of Russia and I should support the politics of my home country,” Samsonenko told the Macedonidan magazine Fokus in 2019.

He added, “Of everything written about me … one of the many lies [is] that there is a spy center in Bitola, in my consulate.”

A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson previously called Samsonenko’s dismissal “yet another politically charged gesture.”

Lingering Divisions

In early fall, four years after Djukic lost his honorary consul post in Montenegro, red and white election posters promoting the True Montenegro political party that he co-founded lined a busy mountain pass connecting the capital to Budva.

Filipovic, the former deputy mayor, said he fears that pro-Russian interests will drive his country of birth back to the Kremlin. In September, authorities expelled six Russian diplomats in Montenegro who were suspected of espionage.

Filipovic said he blames Djukic and others for helping to fuel the unrest that has roiled the country.

“The honorary consul position gave him stature. It gave him a position in society,” Filipovic said. “He was an agent of Russian influence.”

Djukic has regularly posted on social media, sharing photos and comments about his love for Putin, Russian religious orthodoxy and his former position as honorary consul.

In July, he reposted a pro-Russia video that circulated on social media. “Beautiful women. … No cancel culture. … Economy that can withstand thousands of sanctions,” the narrator proclaimed. “Time to move to Russia.”

A few days later, Djukic also posted a red and white image of the Kremlin and “First Honorary Consul of the Russian Federation in Montenegro” written above it in Russian.

In his post, he included three words: “JOY. JOY. JOY.”

“He had his hand on my throat”: Herschel Walker’s ex alleges years of abuse in first TV interview

They were together for five years and she experienced a lot of abuse. Speaking to Vaughn Hillyard, Cheryl Parsa explained that she came forward to the Daily Beast last week because she felt like there was fraud being perpetrated against the American people by Georgia Senate Candidate Herschel Walker.

In her first on-camera interview just 48 hours before the election, she talked about her relationship with Walker.

“I believe the deception now is on the American people,” said Parsa. “And I have to say what I know. I have to tell the Herschel I know.”

She isn’t the only one to describe a violent relationship. Walker’s ex-wife, Sidney Grossman, spoke out in 2008 about a moment he put a gun to her head and told her, “I’m going to blow your f*cking brains out.”

“He said, ‘You want to see a man? I’ll show you a man,'” Parsa recalled, as Walker pressed his forehead against hers while she was against the wall. His saliva dripped all over her face as he spat at her because he was talking with such force. “He had his hand on my throat, my chest, and then he leaned back to throw a punch, and luckily I was able to avoid that. And the punch landed on the wall instead of me.”

Georgia voters have not had a problem with an abusive man who came one trigger away from murder.

After initially supporting him, Walker’s son, Christian, had a very public breakup in which he revealed that Walker had “threatened to kill us.”

Hillyard noted that Walker’s own book reveals he has a kind of multiple personality problem called “dissociative identity disorder.”

“I never really thought I would be in this situation today. Who would have ever thought he would be running for Senate? And I feel compelled to come forward,” said Parsa. “But it was the women. It was for me because I had lived in silence for so long, carrying the shame of what I allowed.”

See the interview below or the video here:

Hunter Biden’s laptop: The right’s pseudo-scandal industry hopes for another big win

Donald Trump and his fellow traveler Elon Musk had a good weekend — if you judge such things on their terms. They both managed to accomplish something you would not have thought was possible: distract attention from their open association with Nazis and white supremacists. You have to hand it to them; that takes skill.

After a couple of weeks facing off an avalanche of criticism, Musk made a sharp pivot by releasing internal company documents pertaining to Twitter’s decision last summer to briefly delete tweets relating to the now-infamous New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s laptop. At least momentarily, that shifted the conversation from Musk’s relationships with the numerous unsavory characters with whom he interacts on Twitter to a long thread he commissioned from journalist Matt Taibbi, supposedly revealing, at least according to Musk, that Joe Biden had defiled the First Amendment.

He did no such thing, of course. First of all, this went down during the 2020 campaign and Biden wasn’t president at the time. As a presidential candidate, he had a perfect right to appeal to a private company not to publish salacious material about his family, following Twitter’s own rules. (For an excellent analysis of the substance of the documents, I recommend this one from Nicholas Grossman.)

Nonetheless, the ensuing brouhaha on the right was overwhelming. This will give you a taste of the hysteria:

Then Donald Trump said, “Hold my Diet Coke.” His response to the “revelations” came shortly thereafter:

Nobody’s talking about his fascist dinner parties now, are they? Now they’re talking about how he’s still agitating for a coup. But that’s a subject Trump seems to think appeals to a wide swath of the GOP base, and in this case he may be correct. The Hunter Biden laptop story has become an obsession on the right and this latest installment has them in the throes of ecstasy. They don’t care about the Constitution. They care about the juicy dirt on that laptop and they want the whole country talking about it. This is a patented Republican scandal.

There are certainly unsavory aspects of Hunter Biden’s ignominious personal and professional career, which I wrote about in detail years ago. There is no clear evidence of any illegal and the chronology doesn’t work when it comes to allegations that Biden took corrupt action on behalf of his son as vice president. There is nothing there other than a man making money by trading on his family name, which you might think would be an embarrassing issue for a family that literally sells its name to the highest bidder.

The right has attempted to turn Joe Biden’s care and concern for a son who was going through a major life crisis, which included substance abuse, wild partying and a range of self-destructive behavior, into a corruption scandal. No one can possibly read the emails from father to son that have been extracted from Hunter Biden’s laptop and see anything but compassion and love. In fact, I’m sure Republicans understand that: What they are really trying to do is push Joe Biden to break down and cry in public.

Seriously: It’s an old ratfucking trick from the Nixon years whose dastardly crew famously goaded Sen. Edmund Muskie, the Democratic frontrunner early in the 1972 campaign, into getting emotional over a fake letter impugning his wife. I have no doubt that the right-wing dirty tricksters of today are believing their own propaganda that Biden is a feeble old man who is overly sentimental about his family, and they think they can push him into doing the same thing.

We are a long way from 1972 and I suspect that even if Biden did cry about his son, the country would feel kinship with him, not disdain. There is hardly a family in America that is not touched by similar trauma.


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


But mostly what the Hunter Biden laptop “scandal” is about is the dirty pictures. Sex scandals are where the dirty tricksters and ratfuckers of the GOP really shine. Think about 1987, when a picture of Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado, Democratic heir apparent at the time, with a woman who wasn’t his wife derailed his presidential ambitions. There is evidence, which emerged many years after the fact, that Hart was set up by none other than Lee Atwater, the Republican Party’s most notorious political operative of the 1980s.

Bill Clinton was known to be a womanizer before he ever ran for president, and offered an irresistible target for the right in that respect. And did they ever. The GOP’s sex-scandal industry of the 1990s produced nonstop prurient rumors so relentless and over the top that by the time Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was revealed, the public was disgusted with the president’s behavior — but even more repulsed by the sanctimonious gossips who could not stop chattering about it like a bunch of horny teenagers.

Hunter Biden’s laptop has the right in the throes of ecstasy. They don’t care about Trump crapping on the Constitution. They care about the dirty pictures on that laptop, and want the whole country talking about them.

Years later, when Hillary Clinton ran for president, the right’s hit men tried it again with a whisper campaign about her and her assistant Huma Abedin. They had long since planted rumors that Hillary was a closeted lesbian who was only with Bill to power her ruthless ambition. (Why do you think they wanted so desperately to get hold of all those personal emails?)

The mainstream media has always jumped right into these scandal stories with enthusiasm — and if they hadn’t done so, it’s unlikely such narratives would have gained traction with the broader public. For instance, the New York Times actually published a front-page story headlined “Huma Abedin, a Clinton Aide, Is Back in Spotlight as Republicans Seize on Emails” in 2015, which began with this suggestive lead:

Among the trove of emails released from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state was this instruction to a trusted aide who needed to brief her on a matter that could not wait: “Just knock on the door to the bedroom if it’s closed,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in November 2009 to Huma Abedin, then her deputy chief of staff.

The Times wasn’t the only publication pushing this line.

The pseudo-scandal surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop is yet another chance for right-wingers to embarrass and harass their political enemies by talking incessantly about their sex lives. They the laptop — which, by the way, has been handled by so many people with dubious intentions that it can’t be authenticated — would be their October surprise, somethinjg like Anthony Weiner’s laptop back in 2016, which arguably cost Hillary Clinton the presidential election. They seem to be trying to convince people that pictures of Hunter Biden with lots of drugs and various different women would have shocked people into voting for Donald Trump over Hunter’s dad, which is patently ridiculous. They are delicately choosing not to mention that he’s the guy who has been accused by dozens of women of sexual assault and who paid off a porn actress during his 2016 campaign.

I don’t know if conservatives really believe that the laptop would have turned the tide or they just get off on sharing naked pictures of the president’s son and talking about his problems. But they expected the media to jump on that story and for the most part it didn’t, largely because of all the hacking and ratfucking and foreign interference on the Republicans’ behalf that had gone on during the 2016 campaign. I wish I were confident that the national media has finally learned its lesson about right-wing scandal-mongering in general, but that may be too much to hope for. 

We’ll just have to see how the press and pundits handle it when House Republicans hold their inevitable “investigative” hearings on Hunter’s laptop. Will that make it “news” that political reporters simply have to cover? Will they harangue the president day in and day out, to see if he’ll break down and cry? It looks like we’re going to find out.

“Centrist” Republican still willing to support Trump after he calls to terminate the Constitution

A top House Republican on Sunday told ABC News that former President Donald Trump’s call to terminate the Constitution is not a deal-breaker in the 2024 election.

Trump made the statement on Truth Social after the release of internal Twitter emails about the company’s decision to ban a New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

“So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION?” Trump wrote. “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

Republican lawmakers have stayed largely silent on the statement, according to the Washington Post, but Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, the chairman of the centrist Republican Governance Group, told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that he would still be willing to support Trump in the 2024 election if he wins the GOP nomination.

“It’s early. I think there’s going to be a lot of people in the primary … [but] I will support whoever the Republican nominee is,” he said, adding that he did not think Trump will win because there are “a lot of other good quality candidates out there.”

“That’s a remarkable statement,” Stephanopoulos replied. “You just said you’d support a candidate who’s come out for suspending the Constitution.”

“Well, you know, he says a lot of things,” Joyce said, adding, “I can’t be really chasing every one of these crazy statements that come from any of these candidates.”

“You can’t come out against someone who’s for suspending the Constitution?” the host pressed.

“He says a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that it’s ever going to happen. So you got to [separate] fact from fantasy — and fantasy is that we’re going to suspend the Constitution and go backwards. We’re moving forward,” Joyce replied.

Most Republicans have stayed silent on the matter, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who previously said that Republicans would read every word of the Constitution aloud when the party takes control of the chamber in January.

Some Trump loyalists tried to play cleanup without going on the record. One anonymous Republican operative close to Trump told the Washington Post that the statement “did not literally advocate or call for terminating the Constitution.”


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


“He’s making a comparison of the unprecedented nature of Big Tech meddling in the 2020 election to benefit Joe Biden with the unprecedented act of terminating the Constitution,” the operative said.

Some Republicans did go further in condemning the former president’s statement, including Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, who told CBS News he “absolutely” disagrees with the statement.

“I, first of all, vehemently disagree with the statement that Trump has made,” he said. “Trump has made 1,000 statements in which I disagree.”

Trump’s Republican critics also slammed the statement.

“No honest person can now deny that Trump is an enemy of the Constitution,” tweeted Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.

“With the former President calling to throw aside the constitution, not a single conservative can legitimately support him, and not a single supporter can be called a conservative,” wrote Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill. “This is insane. Trump hates the constitution.”

The White House also issued a statement condemning the former president’s remarks.

“Attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is anathema to the soul of our nation and should be universally condemned,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates told The Washington Post, adding that “you cannot only love America when you win.”

Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe said that Trump was “openly shrieking in desperation that anything that stands in the way of his becoming all-powerful ought to be swept away.”

“It’s a distinctive statement. It sort of says the quiet part out loud — that he has no reverence for the country, for anything other than himself,” Tribe told the Post. “This is like saying, ‘You want to see an insurrection? I’ll show you an insurrection. I’ll just tear the whole thing up.'”

Kanye West’s road to Trump’s dinner table was paved by GOP and Fox News hype

In the immediate aftermath of reports that Donald Trump had dinner with two notable antisemitic political figures — Nick Fuentes of America First and Ye (formerly Kanye West) — a simple excuse was floated to mitigate the backlash: It wasn’t Trump’s fault — he was sandbagged! 

“Our dinner meeting was intended to be Kanye and me only, but he arrived with a guest whom I had never met and knew nothing about,” Trump said in a statement in which he also notably did not condemn Fuentes’s antisemitism, racism or misogyny

“I don’t think anybody should be spending any time with Nick Fuentes,” GOP House leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy said. He then falsely claimed Trump condemned Fuentes and that Trump “didn’t know who he was.”


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


The idea that Trump had no idea who was coming to dinner was bolstered by NBC News reporting that featured Milo Yiannopolous, who has a long history as a professional troll, as a main source. The Trump campaign then announced the 76-year-old would-be leader of the free world would be assigned a full-time handler to avoid any repeat occurrences. 

There is no way to know for sure how much Trump knew about Fuentes before the dinner, though there is reason to assume he could have been briefed about the 24-year-old who has publicly praised Hitler. Still, the underlying assumptions are obvious enough: Fuentes is impossible to defend, but Trump’s proud association with Ye is a non-issue. 

For a hot minute, pitting Ye against Fuentes seemed to be working. The questions journalists were asking and the headlines about the issue focused mainly on the question of how much Trump knew about Fuentes. The question of Trump’s relationship with Ye — who had been banned from pre-Elon Musk Twitter for declaring “death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE” — was mostly falling to the wayside. 

Then Ye, who shares Trump’s tendency to seek attention when the conversation isn’t about him, went on Infowars to tell Alex Jones, “I like Hitler” and “we got to stop dissing the Nazis all the time.” In case that wasn’t clear enough for the folks in the balcony, Ye tweeted a swastika, causing Musk to surprise many by rescinding Ye’s reinstatement. 

Republican leaders now want to throw the Ye problem in Trump’s lap. Trump is going to pretend he had no idea how unhinged Ye was prior to this overt Nazism. But this blame-shifting is distorting what should otherwise be seen as a clear timeline: Even before Trump had Ye over for the now-notorious dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Republican leadership and conservative media had made Ye a cause célèbre. They did this after Ye displayed strong warning signs that he held fascistic beliefs beyond even what the mainstream GOP is willing to tolerate in the era of Trump. If Trump thought he could get away with spinning Ye as an acceptable member of polite society, it’s in large part because Fox News and other prominent conservatives had suggested it first. 


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


In early October, Fox News and the GOP were working in tandem to turn Ye into the latest poster child for their claims that “woke mobs” are a threat to “free speech.” Ye had been ramping up his flirtation with far-right politics for years, as demonstrated by his open admiration for Trump. In early October, Ye escalated his right wing trolling dramatically. At the Paris Fashion Show on October 3, Ye and his friend, far-right pundit Candace Owens, paraded in front of cameras with “White Lives Matter” t-shirts, an unsubtle dig at the Black Lives Matter movement. The bait was irresistible for the right wing press and the GOP, who got straight to work portraying Ye as an innocent victim of “cancel culture.” As Media Matters reported, for the next four days, “Fox News dedicated more than two and a half hours of largely fawning coverage” to Ye.

On October 6, the GOP House Judiciary committee tweeted, “Kanye. Elon. Trump.” The tweet was deleted on December 1, after Ye praised Hiter. It had stayed up for nearly two months after Ye made his “death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE” threat.

The most important Fox News coverage was an hour-long Tucker Carlson interview with Ye that aired on October 7, in which Carlson claimed the “enemies of his ideas dismissed West, as they have for years, as mentally ill,” and suggested that the “elite” were trying to silence a brave truth-teller. 

As the Daily Beast later reported, however, Fox News edited out chunks of the interview revealing some of Ye’s weirder and more bigoted ideas. Vice News obtained clips that were not aired, including “numerous antisemitic sentiments from Ye” and “a strange and lengthy digression about ‘fake children’ he claimed were planted in his house.” Among the cut comments: “I prefer my kids knew Hanukkah than Kwanzaa. At least it will come with some financial engineering.”

As Matt Gertz of Media Matters wrote, “Carlson clearly hoped to use his interview with Kanye West (now known as Ye) to advance his own political agenda.”


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


There are plenty of figures on the right to converse with who are much more disciplined than Ye and far less likely to talk about Jewish conspiracies and fake children. Carlson interviews plenty of them! But why he gave a whole hour of airtime to Ye isn’t particularly mysterious. Ye was a huge get for Carlson. So huge that Carlson, along with other prominent conservatives, was willing to overlook the political danger of promoting someone as erratic as he has appeared to be for some time now. 

Why were they so eager to publicly embrace Ye? First and most unavoidable reason: Ye is Black, which is useful for those who wish to muddy the waters around the question of whether Trumpism is racist. Using people who have marginalized identities as spokespeople for bigoted ideas is a long-standing trick of the right: Anti-feminist women, for instance, or Black critics of affirmative action, like Justice Clarence Thomas. There’s also a divide-and-conquer aspect, in which the right tries to pit marginalized groups against each other. Carlson is particularly good at that, which is why he interviews women who claim to be feminists and use the platform to attack trans rights. 

Criticism of Ye can also be spun as a “gotcha” on the left. Frequently, conservative media coverage of hip hop centers on the notion that it’s a “liberal” threat to MAGA America. The discourse around hip hop often harps on Black artists who use the “N-word”, stokes racialized resentment of rappers for “driving in Mercedes-Benzs,” and hyperventilates over lyrics that celebrate sexual freedom. Against this background, liberal rejection of Ye gets reframed as “hypocrisy,” even if that claim doesn’t stand up to rational examination. 

Ye is still one of the most famous people in the country, which allows him to reach audiences Republican politicians and TV news channel hosts can’t otherwise. Ye’s willingness to team up with right wing media and the GOP created a temptation so potent that conservative leaders ignored the dramatic red flags warning them it would likely backfire. Now the expected GOP presidential nominee in 2024 has kicked off his campaign by having dinner with a man who complains that Hitler is an unfortunate victim of cancel culture. Other prominent conservatives may want to blame Trump alone for that recklessness, but this history shows they were just as eager to make the same mistake. 

GOP silence on Trump’s call to cancel Constitution shows “full embrace of fascism,” warns House Dem

Repeating his thoroughly disproven claim that the 2020 election was stolen, former President Donald Trump called Saturday for discarding the U.S. Constitution to overturn his defeat.

In response, pro-democracy advocates argued that Trump’s comments, other recent actions and the refusal of GOP lawmakers to denounce them are reflective of the Republican Party’s growing support for right-wing authoritarianism.

In a viral post on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote:

So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

As CNN reported, “Trump’s post came after the release of internal Twitter emails showing deliberation in 2020 over a New York Post story about material found on Hunter Biden’s laptop.”

“Employees on Twitter’s legal, policy, and communications teams debated — and at times disagreed — over whether to restrict the article under the company’s hacked materials policy,” the news outlet noted. “The debate took place weeks before the 2020 election, when Joe Biden, Hunter Biden’s father, was running against then-President Trump.”

The administration of President Biden, who defeated Trump by more than seven million votes and 74 Electoral College votes, quickly responded. In a statement rebuking Trump, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said:

The American Constitution is a sacrosanct document that for over 200 years has guaranteed that freedom and the rule of law prevail in our great country. The Constitution brings the American people together — regardless of party — and elected leaders swear to uphold it. It’s the ultimate monument to all of the Americans who have given their lives to defeat self-serving despots that abused their power and trampled on fundamental rights. Attacking the Constitution and all it stands for is anathema to the soul of our nation, and should be universally condemned. You cannot only love America when you win.

By contrast, Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, told ABC’s “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that Trump’s post conveying his support for overthrowing the Constitution was not a deal-breaker. The twice-impeached president officially launched his 2024 campaign last month.

“I will support whoever the Republican nominee is,” said Joyce, chair of the influential Republican Governance Group.


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


When Stephanopoulos expressed disbelief that he would “support a candidate who’s come out for suspending the Constitution,” Joyce said: “He says a lot of things. … I can’t be really chasing every one of these crazy statements that come out about from any of these candidates at the moment.”

Pushing back again, Stephanopoulos asked, “You can’t come out against someone who’s for suspending the Constitution?”

Joyce responded: “He says a lot of things … but that doesn’t mean that it’s ever going to happen. So you got to [separate] fact from fantasy — and fantasy is that we’re going to suspend the Constitution and go backward.”

“Last week the leader of the Republican Party had dinner with a Nazi leader and a man who called Adolf Hitler ‘great.’ Yesterday Trump called for throwing out the Constitution and making himself dictator.”

Joyce’s remarks are symptomatic of Republican lawmakers’ refusal to censure Trump, who remains the de facto leader of the party even after his backing of election deniers weakened the GOP’s midterm performance and despite his increasingly open penchant for autocracy and bigotry.

“Last week the leader of the Republican Party had dinner with a Nazi leader and a man who called Adolf Hitler ‘great,'” Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., tweeted on Sunday, referring to Trump’s recent meeting with white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and antisemitic rapper Kanye West.

“Yesterday Trump called for throwing out the Constitution and making himself dictator,” Pascrell added. “Republicans’ full embrace of fascism is the story.”

Just days ago, Trump reiterated his support for the far-right insurrectionists who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, saying in a video played during a fundraiser that “people have been treated unconstitutionally in my opinion and very, very unfairly, and we’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

Trump claimed earlier this year that he was “financially supporting” some Jan. 6 defendants and said that if elected, he would “look very, very favorably” at full pardons for those being prosecuted. More than 950 people have been charged so far, including two leaders of the far-right Oath Keepers militia who were convicted last week of seditious conspiracy. In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s failed coup, 147 congressional Republicans voted to reverse Biden’s victory.

In an essay published Saturday, historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote that Trump’s social media post “seems to reflect desperation from the former president as his political star fades and the many legal suits proceeding against him get closer and closer to their end dates.”

“But the real story here is not Trump’s panic about his fading relevance and his legal exposure,” the Boston College professor argued. “It’s that Trump remains the presumptive presidential nominee for the Republican Party in 2024. The leader of the Republican Party has just called for the overthrow of our fundamental law and the installation of a dictator.”

“Republicans, so far, are silent on Trump’s profound attack on the Constitution, the basis of our democratic government,” she added. “That is the story, and it is Earth-shattering.”

It’s time for a Christmas truce in Ukraine — and real peace talks

As the war in Ukraine has dragged on for nine months and a cold winter is setting in, people all over the world are calling for a Christmas truce, harkening back to the inspirational Christmas Truce of 1914. In the midst of World War I, warring soldiers put down their guns and celebrated the holiday together in the no-man’s land between their trenches.This spontaneous reconciliation and fraternization has been, over the years, a symbol of hope and courage. 

Here are eight reasons why this holiday season too offers the potential for peace and a chance to move the conflict in Ukraine from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

1. The first, and most urgent reason, is the incredible daily death and suffering in Ukraine, and the chance to save millions more Ukrainians from being forced to leave their homes, their belongings and the conscripted menfolk they may never see again. 

With Russia’s bombing of key infrastructure, millions of people in Ukraine currently have no heat, electricity or water as temperatures drop below freezing. The CEO of Ukraine’s largest electric corporation has urged millions more Ukrainians to leave the country, ostensibly for just a few months, to reduce demand on the war-damaged power network. 

The war has wiped out at least 35% of the country’s economy, according to Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal. The only way to halt the meltdown of the economy and the suffering of the Ukrainian people is to end the war. 

2. Neither side can achieve a decisive military victory, and with its recent military gains, Ukraine is in a good negotiating position.

It has become clear that U.S. and NATO military leaders do not believe, and possibly have never believed, that their publicly stated goal of helping Ukraine to recover Crimea and all of Donbas by force is militarily achievable.

In fact, Ukraine’s military chief of staff warned President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in April 2021 — 10 months before the Russian invasion — that such a goal would not be achievable without “unacceptable” levels of civilian and military casualties, leading him to call off plans for an escalation of the civil war in eastern Ukraine at that time. 

Joe Biden’s top military adviser, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Economic Club of New York on Nov. 9, “There has to be a mutual recognition that military victory is probably, in the true sense of the word, not achievable through military means.” 

French and German military reviews of Ukraine’s position are reportedly more pessimistic than U.S. ones, assessing that the current appearance of military parity between the two sides will be short-lived. This adds weight to Milley’s assessment, and suggests this could well be the best chance Ukraine will get to negotiate from a position of relative strength.

3. U.S. government officials, especially in the Republican Party, are starting to balk at the prospect of continuing this enormous level of military and economic support. Having taken control of the House, Republicans are promising more scrutiny of Ukraine aid. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, who is likely to become speaker of the House next month, warned that Republicans would not write a “blank check” for Ukraine. This reflects the growing opposition at the base of the Republican Party, with a Wall Street Journal November poll showing that 48% of Republicans say the U.S. is doing too much to help Ukraine, up from 6% in March. 

4. The war is causing upheavals in Europe. Sanctions on Russian energy have sent inflation in Europe skyrocketing and caused a devastating squeeze on energy supplies that is crippling the manufacturing sector. Europeans are increasingly feeling what German media call Kriegsmudigkeit. That translates as “war weariness,” but that is not an entirely accurate characterization of the growing popular sentiment in Europe. “War wisdom” may describe it better. 


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


People have had many months to consider the arguments for a long, escalating war with no clear endgame — a war that is sinking their economies into recession — and more of them than ever now tell pollsters they would support renewed efforts to find a diplomatic solution. That includes 55% in Germany, 49% in Italy, 70% in Romania and 92% in Hungary. 

5. Most of the world is calling for negotiations. We heard this at the 2022 UN General Assembly, where one after another, 66 world leaders, representing a majority of the world’s population, eloquently spoke out for peace talks. Philip Pierre, prime minister of Saint Lucia, was one of them, pleading with Russia, Ukraine and the Western powers “to immediately end the conflict in Ukraine, by undertaking immediate negotiations to permanently settle all disputes in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.”

French and German military reviews of Ukraine’s position are more pessimistic than U.S. ones. This could be the best chance Ukraine will get to negotiate from a position of relative strength.

As the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, told the General Assembly, “We are fully aware of the complexities of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the international and global dimension to this crisis. However, we still call for an immediate ceasefire and a peaceful settlement, because this is ultimately what will happen regardless of how long this conflict will go on for. Perpetuating the crisis will not change this result. It will only increase the number of casualties, and it will increase the disastrous repercussions on Europe, Russia and the global economy.”

6. The war in Ukraine, like all wars, is catastrophic for the environment. Attacks and explosions are reducing all kinds of infrastructure — railways, electrical grids, apartment buildings, oil depots — to charred rubble, filling the air with pollutants and blanketing cities with toxic waste that contaminates rivers and groundwater. 

The sabotage of Russia’s underwater Nord Stream pipelines supplying Russian gas to Germany led to what may have been the largest release of methane gas emissions ever recorded, amounting to the annual emissions of a million cars. The shelling of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, including Zaporizhzhia, the largest in Europe, has raised legitimate fears of deadly radiation spreading throughout Ukraine and beyond.

Meanwhile, U.S. and Western sanctions on Russian energy have triggered a bonanza for the fossil fuel industry, giving them a new justification to increase their dirty energy exploration and production and keep the world firmly on course for climate catastrophe. 

7. The war has a devastating economic impact on countries across the world. The leaders of the world’s largest economies, the Group of 20, said in a declaration at the end of their November summit in Bali that the Ukraine war “is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy — constraining growth, increasing inflation, disrupting supply chains, heightening energy and food insecurity and elevating financial stability risks.”

Our long-standing failure to invest the relatively small proportion of our resources required to eradicate poverty and hunger on our otherwise rich and abundant planet already condemns millions of our brothers and sisters to squalor, misery and early deaths. 

Now this is compounded by the climate crisis, as entire communities are washed away by flood waters, burned out by wildfires or starved by multi-year droughts and famines. International cooperation has never been more urgently needed to confront problems that no country can solve on its own. Yet wealthy nations still prefer to put their money into weapons and war instead of adequately addressing the climate crisis, poverty or hunger. 

8. The last reason, which dramatically reinforces all the other reasons, is the danger of nuclear war. Even if our leaders had rational reasons to favor an open-ended, ever-escalating war over a negotiated peace in Ukraine — and there are certainly powerful interests in the weapons and fossil fuel industries that would profit from that — the existential danger this could lead to absolutely must tip the balance in favor of peace.

We recently saw how close we are to a much wider war when a single stray Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile landed in Poland and killed two people. President Zelenskyy refused to believe it was not a Russian missile. If Poland had taken the same position, it could have invoked NATO’s mutual defense agreement and triggered a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. 

If another predictable incident like that leads NATO to attack Russia, it can only be a matter of time before Russia sees the use of nuclear weapons as its only option in the face of overwhelming military force.

For these reasons and more, we join the faith-based leaders around the world who are calling for a Christmas Truce, declaring that the holiday season presents “a much-needed opportunity to recognize our compassion for one another. Together, we are convinced that the cycle of destruction, suffering and death can be overcome.”

Herschel Walker supporter equates Obama with the devil during event

There was a significant moment of contrast at the small Herschel Walker bus stop rally on Sunday. While Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) were speaking, the former was cracking bad jokes about former President Barack Obama, who held a rally in Georgia for Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) over the weekend.

Walker has been miffed about the Obama rally that drew thousands ahead of the November election, and it’s been just as bad in the past few days after Obama came for the runoff.

While stumping for Walker and trashing Obama, Kennedy rambled on until a voice from the audience shouted out his opinion that worshipping at the altar of Obama would be akin to worshipping at “the altar of the devil.” Kennedy ignored it and went on.

It was a contrast to who the GOP was just 14 years ago when an anti-Obama town hall attendee called the man about to become the first Black president an “Arab.”

“No ma’am, he’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is all about,” McCain said to applause.

At the time, the Associated Press called it a “reflection of [McCain’s] thinking that partisans should disagree without demonizing each other.” Things have changed a lot in the GOP since then.

Walker has never said whether or not he believes Obama is a citizen.

Watch below:

Trump reportedly paid off debt to company linked to North Korea while in office

There is a “chance” Donald Trump didn’t break the law by hiding debt from his 2016 presidential campaign’s financial disclosure reports, according to Forbes.

Documents obtained by the outlet show that the then-candidate failed to disclose $19.8 million in debt to Daewoo, a South Korean company with a history of ties to North Korea.

“There is a chance that Trump’s omission may have been legal,” the report said, noting that Trump may have used a loophole in the law.

“Although officials have to list personal loans on their financial disclosures, the law does not require them to include loans to their companies, unless they are personally liable for the loans. The Trump Organization documents do not specify whether the former president, who owned 100% of the entities responsible for the debt, personally guaranteed the liability, leaving it unclear whether he broke the law or merely took advantage of a loophole.”

Forbes also pointed out that Trump may have hidden the debt because Daewoo, at one time, “was the only South Korean company permitted to operate a business inside [North Korea].”

The documents, which were disclosed after being obtained by New York Attorney General Letitia James, said that Trump quickly eliminated the debt after taking office.

“Daewoo was bought out of its position on July 5, 2017,” one document explained.

 

Why the re-release of iconic porn film “Deep Throat” fizzled

In 1972, “Deep Throat,” a feature-length porn film directed by Gerard Damiano, was hailed for moving pornography into the mainstream and beginning a golden age of theatrical porn.

To mark the 50th anniversary of its release, a restored high-resolution version was released earlier this year. Yet outside of a few screenings in New York City, most U.S. theaters expressed little interest in showing the film.

As the editor of the essay collection “Pornography: Film and Culture,” I’m not surprised by the relatively muted fanfare to the re-release.

To me, it’s a sign of how much pornography has changed during the past 50 years.

“Stag” shorts in “smokers”

Film pornography has a long underground history, going back to “stag” shorts in the silent film era, which for decades were screened in “smokers” – named after the all-male audience that gathered to watch the films together and smoke cigars.

In the late 1960s, pornography moved into theaters in porn districts in cities like New York, and these places remained male-dominated settings. The films initially were feature length and while they lacked traditional narratives, many of them had various forms of narrative structure. The 1970 documentary “Sexual Freedom in Denmark,” for example, used educating the public about Denmark’s liberal censorship laws and red light districts as a pretext to screen explicit scenes featuring hardcore sex.

Films such as “He & She,” also released in 1970, featured a young, attractive heterosexual couple. Similarly, this film fashioned itself as instructive in the tradition of marriage manual books but used erotic hardcore pornography to teach the ins and outs of various sexual techniques.

Many other films with now-forgotten titles from the 1970s featured different couples simply having sex. But even those productions often had a loose narrative structure.

The rise of “porno chic”

“Deep Throat,” which stars pornographic actress Linda Lovelace, tells the story of a woman whose clitoris is in her throat. Because it was a feature film centered on female sexual pleasure, porn started being seen as somewhat respectable.

When “Deep Throat” premiered in New York in 1972, the response was enthusiastic, giving rise to the term “porno chic.” Movie stars, theater directors and composers embraced the film. Critic Roger Ebert, though he panned the film, called it “the first stag film to see with a date.”

The norm in pornography had been for viewers to simply enter and leave the theater whenever they wished. Starting times were not even listed in newspapers. With “Deep Throat,” however, couples stood in line waiting for the next showing to start. This was, for many couples, their first foray into porn theater districts.

The film is said to have ushered in porn’s golden age, and classics such as “Behind the Green Door” (1972), “The Opening of Misty Beethoven” (1976) and “Barbara Broadcast” (1977) soon followed. These films had comparatively big budgets and told stories with central characters. The production values were high, with good lighting, composition and editing.

The home viewing experience

But by early 1980s, theatrical porn had fallen by the wayside, and home video porn took off.

Homes created comfortable viewing environments for women who felt alienated from – and threatened by – the so-called theater “raincoat crowd” that one female porn film performer described as “isolated men masturbating under their coats.” Now women – and men who were also turned off by the movie theater atmosphere – could watch those same movies from the comfort of their living rooms.

The rise of digital, streaming porn further upended the industry. Feature-length films were replaced by low-budget, comparatively short videos, with no narrative. They often centered on kinks or simple sexual fantasies – feet fetish videos or skimpy narrative premises such as sex between realtors and their clients.

Sometimes longer versions are available for pay, but these often simply feature extended sex scenes rather than plot or character development. Streaming porn on the internet effectively ended the production and exhibition of features. Porn theaters and video stores – where customers could watch porn films in private viewing booths – have become relics of a bygone era.

The re-release lands with a thud

The response to the re-release of “Deep Throat” was so muted that very few people probably even know that 2022 is the 50th anniversary of the film’s initial release. Movie theaters didn’t show it and most of the media didn’t cover it. A high-resolution restored DVD is unavailable, nor is it streaming.

Although he acknowledged today’s appetite for digital porn, the son of director Gerard Damiano, Gerard Jr., seemed to pin the blame on Americans’ puritanical approach to sex.

Americans are “very skittish about talking about anything that has to do with sex,” he told The Guardian. “People today are so afraid of anything sexual because they don’t know what to do . . . There’s not a lot of sex positivity and we’re hoping to reintroduce that with this film.”

In a separate interview with the New York Post, he noted, “Europe is much more receptive to us. We couldn’t find a U.S. venue that was comfortable showing the film.”

But in my view, saying Americans are skittish about sex doesn’t explain the box office failure of the re-release of “Deep Throat.” The current porn industry was neither built on skittishness nor fear of sex. A quick visit to Pornhub disabuses that notion.

Pornography is a genre much like others with a complex and changing history. It is not one fixed thing: It is not always dangerous, evil trash; nor does watching porn make people sexual perverts or worse. While such serious issues as sex trafficking and sexual abuse have arisen in the porn industry, similar problems have also plagued Hollywood involving high-profile figures such as Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby.

The re-release of “Deep Throat” may have ultimately collided with the #MeToo movement. In her highly publicized memoir, lead actress Linda Lovelace described being physically abused at home by her husband, who worked as a production manager on the film. She also wrote about feeling coerced on set while shooting the sex scenes.

That aspect of the film’s legacy – more than any sort of squeamishness towards sex – could have also contributed to the reluctance of theaters to screen it.

Peter Lehman, Emeritus Professor, Film and Media Studies in English, Arizona State University

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

‘Y’all,’ that most Southern of Southernisms, is going mainstream – and it’s about time

Southern Living magazine once described “y’all” as “the quintessential Southern pronoun.” It’s as iconically Southern as sweet tea and grits.

While “y’all” is considered slang, it’s a useful word nonetheless. The English language doesn’t have a good second person plural pronoun; “you” can be both singular and plural, but it’s sometimes awkward to use as a plural. It’s almost like there’s a pronoun missing. “Y’all” fills that second person plural slot – as does “you guys,” “youse,” “you-uns” and a few others.

I’m interested in “y’all” because I was born in North Carolina and grew up saying it. I still do, probably a couple dozen times a day, usually without intention or even awareness. As a historian who has researched the early history of the word, I’m also interested in how the word’s use has changed over the years.

Like something a “hillbilly redneck” would say

“Y’all” might serve an important function, but it has acquired negative connotations.

Back in 1886, The New York Times ran a piece titled “Odd Southernisms” that described “y’all” as “one of the most ridiculous of all the Southernisms.”

That perception has persisted. Like the Southern dialect in general, the use of “y’all” has often been seen as vulgar, low-class, uncultured and uneducated. As someone noted in Urban Dictionary, “Whoever uses [y’all] sounds like a hillbilly redneck.”

In a more recent New York Times essay, writer Maud Newton said that she associated the word with her father, who “defended slavery, demanded the subservience of women and adhered to ‘spare the rod and spoil the child.'” He also demanded that his children say “y’all” rather than “you guys.” She grew up hating the word.

At a time when many Americans are calling for the removal of Confederate monuments and opposing the Lost Cause mythology, “y’all,” with its Southern overtones, might make some people uncomfortable – a misguided reaction, perhaps, but one that has been felt by both those who hear it and those who say it.

Imagine “y’all” with a British accent

The word has not always had such negative connotations.

The etymology of “y’all” is murky. Some linguists trace it back to the Scots-Irish phrase “ye aw”; others suggest an African American origin, perhaps from the Igbo word for “you” brought over by Nigerian-born enslaved people. According to the “Oxford English Dictionary,” the word first appeared in print in 1856, and all of its examples are sources connected to the American South. Michael Montgomery, a noted linguist, said that early use of the word “is unknown in the British Isles.”

But recently I used some of the new digital literary databases to search for older uses of the word, and I found over a dozen examples. They were all in dramatic or poetic works dating back to the 17th century and published in London. The earliest “y’all” that I uncovered was in William Lisle’s “The Faire Æthiopian,” published in 1631 – “and this y’all know is true.”

My examples push “y’all” back 225 years before the citation in the “Oxford English Dictionary,” and they show that the word appeared first in England rather than the United States.

I think it’s important to point out that it originated in a more formal context than what’s commonly assumed. There are none of the class or cultural connotations of the later American examples.

I should also note that there is almost a centurylong gap between the last known usage of this British version of “y’all” and the first known usage of the American version. Scholars may well decide that these versions of “y’all” are essentially two different words.

Still, there it is, in an English poem written in 1631.

“Y’all means all”

Ironically, at the same time that some people have shied away from using “y’all,” the word seems to have grown in popularity. An article on exactly this topic, published in the Journal of English Linguistics in 2000, was titled “The Nationalization of a Southernism“; based on scientific polling, the authors suggested that “y’all” will soon be seen as an American, rather than Southern, word.

There might be several reasons for this. One is that African American use of the word in music and other forms of popular culture has made it more familiar – and, therefore, acceptable – to those who didn’t grow up with it.

Second, “you guys,” another common alternative for the second-person plural pronoun, is losing support because of its sexist connotations. Are females included in you guys? How about those who identify as non-binary?

Maud Newton eventually came to embrace “y’all.” When she moved to Tallahassee, Florida, after law school, she found that “in grocery stores and coffee shops, on the street and in the library, everyone – Black and white, queer and straight, working-class and wealthy – used y’all, and soon I did, too.”

“Y’all means all” – that’s a wonderful phrase that seems to be popping up everywhere, from T-shirts and book titles to memes and music. A song written by Miranda Lambert for Netflix’s “Queer Eye” beautifully captures the spirit of the phrase:

You can be born in Tyler, Texas, Raised with the Bible Belt; If you’re torn between the Y’s and X’s, You ain’t gotta play with the hand you’re dealt . . . Honey, y’all means all.

David B. Parker, Professor of History, Kennesaw State University

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

BMI is not an accurate measurement of one’s health. Why are we still using it?

I arrived at my doctor’s appointment on the Monday morning after an indulgent Thanksgiving weekend and did exactly what you’d expect. I went to the restroom to urinate. I took off my shoes and my cardigan; I took my keys and phone out of my pockets. Only then did I step on the scale. I know, intellectually, that my weight tells only a very small part of the story of my health. I know that my BMI — a measurement arrived at by dividing one’s weight by the square of one’s height — is a wildly unreliable tool. It doesn’t reveal my fitness, my muscle mass, my strength, or my cholesterol levels.

There’s a pretty good chance you, too, have tried to remove a few ounces before a doctor’s office weigh-in. The scale always seems to be a test, one in which the smaller the number, the better the score. Why are we still putting ourselves through this? And what if I told my doctor I didn’t want to do it any more?


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


The body mass index can be fine as a shorthand assessment, a calculation involving a person’s weight and the square of height. First developed nearly two hundred years ago by Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet, it was intended a tool for determining weight trends based on larger population samples. It was not supposed to be a medical tool for individuals, and it was devised — stop me if you’ve heard this one before — pretty much with white European males in mind. It’s safe to assume Quetelet probably wasn’t thinking when he came up with his, “Hey, will this thing serve people of different races, ages and genders, for generations to come?”

As a recent Guardian feature by Donna Lu notes, it doesn’t. “The metric overestimates obesity in African-Americans,” she says, while “for Asians, the health risks linked to obesity occur at a lower BMI.” So the fact that at this stage in history, the CDC’s adult BMI calculator offers a “healthy” weight range without any variables for ethnicity, gender or weight distribution, is absurd. 

The mainstreaming of BMI took off in the 1970’s, when American physiologist Ancel Keys began promoting it as a reasonably reliable and easy means of estimating body fat, and by extension, potential health risks. But Keys was a researcher. Like Quetelet, he was looking at groups and trends, not your personal medical chart. Earlier this year, the Obesity Medicine Association declared that “There are several disadvantages to using the calculation to determine obesity…. Much work remains to be done to produce more accurate BMI guidelines that can be applied to more people globally as well as nationally in the United States.”

So if you — or your health practitioner — are operating on the idea that the number of pounds you’re carrying or your BMI number are an automatic indicator of any underlying conditions or just your value as a human being, they are not. And instead of being useful, if poorly interpreted, those numbers can set you up for problems.

At the International Congress on Obesity in Melbourne this fall, attendees explored how “Judgements based solely on weight metrics like BMI, and unrealistic weight goals, can unintentionally lead to poorer health outcomes,” noting that “Declaring ‘a normal weight range’ can fuel weight bias and stigma, demotivate patients and promote eating disorders.” It can also discourage patients from getting a true picture of their health.

“I have had clients who don’t go for their regular checkup because they’re embarrassed about their weight.”

“The tougher parts come in when the doctor doesn’t know how to talk to you about your weight, or you don’t know how to talk to the doctor about emotional reasons for eating,” says Bonnie Taub-Dix, RDN, creator of BetterThanDieting.com and author of “Read It Before You Eat It – Taking You from Label to Table.” “I have had clients who don’t go for their regular checkup because they’re embarrassed about their weight, and they want to wait until they lose weight to go to the doctor.”

I understand that apprehension. I don’t own a scale and I avert my eyes at the doctor’s office, but I’ve still had nurses loudly and excitedly blurt how much my weight has changed since the last time. And I suspect that for many of us, that doctor’s scale represents the intersection of perceived self-image and actual physical health. 

Rather than thinking of the scale as being a primary resource for how we are assessed and how we assess ourselves, we need to look at the big picture — and pull in other metrics. “I don’t want this to sound trite,” says Taub-Dix, “but I think clothing is better than BMI. If you wore something last winter and now it’s tight, there’s a message there.” Taub-Dix clarifies that she is not talking about “trying to squeeze into your wedding gown or jeans your wore in high school,” but just a “realistic” year-to-year change; our bodies innately change as we get older. “Clothing that fit you when you looked and felt your best is a great guide to give you a message about your body,” she continues. It’s also helpful to consider where clothes fit as well as how — if your pants legs and sleeves are getting tight, it might be from working out more. If it’s the waistband, that can be a warning sign. 

“Waist circumference is a more insightful measure of an individual’s health than BMI because it tells us about the amount of fat surrounding essential organs,” says Dr. Anita Lwanga, an internist in Watertown, New York. “The more fat one has surrounding their vital organs, the higher their risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, fatty liver disease, hypertension, and mortality. BMI doesn’t differentiate between weight due to fat or muscle. Waist circumference is adjusted for an individual’s gender, whereas BMI is not.” 

There are other indicators to pay attention to as well. “I think the body mass index is a good baseline indicator for obesity in general,” says Sarah Lutz, a nurse practitioner at University of Michigan Health-West. “We do know that diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol are related to obesity.” (It’s also linked to a high risk for certain kinds of cancer.) But she adds, “There is some genetic component to high cholesterol, high blood pressure. Those things aren’t modifiable, but weight typically is.”

“Not every medical visit requires a weight.”

It’s estimated that nearly 30 million Americans will have an eating disorder in their lifetime. Plenty more struggle with the stress, anxiety and baggage of body image and the quantification that the scale brings. Dr. Katherine Hill, a pediatrician and eating disorders doctor and VP of Medical Affairs at Equip, offers some advice. “If being weighed is triggering or makes a patient uncomfortable, they should feel empowered to speak up and share this with their medical provider,” she says. “While there are some medical conditions that do require a weight to be taken, not every medical visit requires a weight. If a weight is needed information for the medical provider, patients can request to be weighed backwards to avoid seeing their weight number and request that the number is kept hidden. Many doctors and medical providers are supportive of these requests, especially if they help patients feel more comfortable and less triggered.” And Bonnie Taub-Dix says, “I think that you need to know yourself. If you’re going to weigh yourself on a scale you need to know what it really means. It’s one measure that is giving you information about your body weight, but it’s only one measure.”

Numbers by themselves don’t mean much without deeper context and compassionate follow-up. Sarah Lutz says, “I think blood pressure and cholesterol levels are additional good indicators for overall health — and then having a conversation with patients. Are you exercising? What does your diet look like? What is your alcohol use? Those are all things that I like to have conversations with my patients about.” She says, “I saw 17 patients today, and I don’t know what one of them weighed. I don’t care about that number. I care more that we’re keeping them healthy.”

That’s a sane approach to what can be a deeply sensitive issue. And when I head with unease toward the scale in my doctor’s office, I try to remember a visit when I was in treatment for cancer, and a fellow patient getting his vitals taken near me. “You’ve gained five pounds,” I heard the nurse tell him from the other side of a curtain. “Yeah,” he replied. “Life is good.”

Making an almost-perfect Boulevardier is just the beginning

If you’ve flown all day — nearly missing your final connection — en route to your first work trip since 2019, and someone hands you a blessedly strong stirred cocktail, you accept it without question. Only after that first sip dispenses its customary balm, erasing the claustrophobic grime of economy travel, can you focus your attention on what’s in the glass

I was, technically, drinking a Boulevardier. A Negroni with bourbon standing in for the gin, the traditional version also contains Italian red bitter liqueur and Italian sweet vermouth. But wait. This one tasted woodsy and herbaceous; there was minerality and mintiness (and licorice, perhaps?) beneath the dry, smoky single-malt whiskey, whose ratio slightly overtook the other two components. This was the Ballervardier, a bold iteration from the whimsical minds behind 40-year-old craft distiller St. George Spirits, which I sipped on a mild September evening at the distillery’s sprawling headquarters in an old airplane hangar in Alameda, Ca. 

Was this the drinkable version of the boldly patterned, green floor-length dress I had on? I wondered, thankfully not out loud. 

Vice president and head distiller Dave Smith later told me he likes batching this singular cocktail, whose beguiling component parts speak to the terroir and cultural melting pot of California’s Bay Area. “We keep it on hand for home or to bring to friends’ homes as an alternative to wine,” he said, adding that he’ll adjust the whiskey ratio down slightly for a gentler vermouth than his ideal Campano. “Like lasagna, the cocktail gets even better when the ingredients have been allowed time to marry.” 

Aside from its ingredient deck, this brash, sultry creature shared precious few similarities with the first Boulevardier I ever tasted, some years back in a pretty hotel bar I can’t remember the name of. More explicitly Negroni-esque, that bittersweet aperitivo comprised equal parts vanilla-scented bourbon; bitter, viscous Campari; and cocoa- and marmalade-tinged sweet vermouth. And like my denim vest, jeans and t-shirt combo that day — an impeccable choice for the 75-degree high — the three worked in harmony. 

Now that the leaves have withered, the temps slip noticeably with the setting sun, and blazers and sweaters have overtaken the t-shirts in my closet, the standard-issue Boulevardier no longer satisfies. Perhaps it’s time to go a little heavier-handed on the whiskey — a 1.5:.75:.75-ounce-ounce ratio, to be exact — as New York City bartender Harrison Snow prefers his Boulevardiers. 

“Skewing more whiskey-forward, I see it more as a Manhattan riff than a Negroni riff,” said Snow, who’s co-owner at Lower East Side cocktail bar Lullaby. “When you allow a little more space for the bourbon or rye to speak and come to the forefront, I think the cocktail has so much potential to be this amazingly velvety, kind of thick, luxurious cocktail — served up in a frosty, elegant Nick & Nora glass.”

“So, like the velvet jumpsuit of cocktails?” I ventured, to which he graciously replied, “Sure.”

Indeed, what makes the Boulevardier so customizable is its bourbon base. As the Negroni’s status has swelled over the past decade, “we’ve seen so, so many bartenders try to make variations infusing Campari with this or gin with that,” Snow said. “They’re always good, but it’s rare that I drink one and I’m like, I’d prefer this over a traditional Negroni.”

Barfolk can’t help but incrementally tinker with cocktail specs, disassembling and piecing together these intricate flavor puzzles. Maybe they start blending vermouths until they realize that not one but four achieve the right balance in a Boulevardier. Perhaps they try dry vermouth instead of sweet and rye whiskey rather than bourbon, yielding a still-potent, lighter-handed Old Pal. Or they add two dashes of chocolate bitters to the standard version, creating a Left Hand cocktail. What if they ditch the whiskey altogether in favor of aged rum, then build the rest as is — finishing with a few drops of warmly spiced mole bitters? Well, then that’s a Right Hand. 

Theoretically, this means you don’t even have to like a Boulevardier to enjoy one — putting you in the same category as Leslie Krockenberger, creative drink lead at Maker’s Mark in Loretto, Ky. When she first started tweaking the Boulevardier, she played with measures. But she soon found that “a more delicate and soft wheated bourbon in a standard Boulevardier measure of equal parts, just can’t stand up to the ‘bold and bitter beast’ that is Campari, even in the small measure that it occurs.” 


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


Not satisfied to, say, split the bourbon base with tequila and mezcal, add a few coffee beans and dust in grated tonka bean, Krockenberger’s epiphany only really arrived when she started toying with the remaining components. Like Snow, she prefers blending vermouths — favoring a mix of Cocchi Torino and Carpano “to highlight the flavor profile of our bourbon, and also give it some structure and grip.” Or she’ll replace the vermouth altogether with white port. 

This month, she’s upping the ante at the Maker’s distillery with a Boulevardier featuring cacao nib-infused Campari, and swapping the traditional vermouth for Cocchi Barolo Chinato, an aromatized wine infused with quinine bark, rhubarb, ginger, cardamom and cacao. As she notes, the sexy winter sipper “still maintains its cocktail familial integrity, but (it’s) perhaps a bit more interesting, and dare I say it, palatable!”

In short, you may find you’re sipping a Boulevardier more often than you realize. All you have to do is focus your attention on what’s in the glass after that first, invigorating sip. Fortunately, like smart denim layering and a well-tailored blazer, you’ll always be in style with this cocktail in hand. 

I, for one, plan on drinking Snow’s whiskey-heavy iteration below as long as these dark, wintry days remain. I’ve renamed it the Velvet Jumpsuit, though thankfully not out loud.

Harrison Snow’s (almost) perfect Boulevardier
Yields
1 cocktail
Prep Time
5 minutes
Cook Time
0 minutes

Ingredients

1.5 ounces bottled-in-bond whiskey, like Evan Williams

¾ ounce sweet vermouth, like Cinzano 1757 or Martini Rosso (or try a blend of vermouths, such as Carpano Antica and Cocchi Torino)

¾ ounce Italian red bitter liqueur, like Campari

Orange peel twist




 

 

Directions

  1. Stir all ingredients with ice, and strain into a chilled Nick & Nora glass (or rocks glass with ice, if preferred). Drape the orange peel over the rim of the glass, and serve.

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.




 

Failing at croquembouche helped me overcome bullying

When I was a freshman in high school, I was nearly pushed down the stairs, startled by pop-up jocks from behind doors and called homophobic slurs. The day before Christmas break was one of the best school days of the year for most kids, second only to the last day of school. Every teacher would show movies while hungry teenagers ate every holiday treat in sight. I, however, couldn’t get out of bed. Just the thought of those checkered halls made me sick. So, I told my mom I wasn’t feeling well, faked a cough for good measure, crept back into bed, my duvet wrapped around me like a boa constrictor, and cried. I had never felt like I entirely fit in, but I had never been bullied like this. So, I tried to think of things that made me happy, like baking cookies with my mom and trying new recipes from my first cookbook, “Flour” by Joanne Chang.

Eventually, I got myself out of bed and scanned through my mom’s recent issue of Food Network magazine. I was enchanted by the colors and textures of weeknight dinners and garnished cakes. I came across a 2-page spread about how to make a croquembouche. It looked at me like a pâtissier Uncle Sam, demanding me to put on an apron and go to war. I read about choux pastry, wet caramel, and how to wrap your pastry tower with spun sugar. I pictured a 7-foot version in the living room instead of my family’s Christmas tree and, without a second thought, gathered flour, sugar, butter, eggs, and vanilla. I tied my barely-worn “I want chocolate and I want it now” apron around my waist and got to work.

I started by carefully reading the magazine page and diligently measuring ingredients in little bowls, as if I was the host of a cooking show. I tilted my head as I whisked water and butter in a saucepan, pouring in flour through a parchment paper taco. I stirred the dough with Herculean effort, then lined up six brown eggs in the curve of the cutting board. I added the eggs too quickly and spooned gloopy mounds of pale gold batter onto baking sheets. My flour-flaked fingers pressed a timer as I squatted impatiently in front of the glowing box. I hoped that if I stared intensely enough, they would miraculously rise into golden ornaments, but just as they climbed, they began to fall.

Nevertheless, I carried on with the pastry cream, waiting impatiently for the eggs to thicken into custard. I cooked sugar and water over a bright red coil and watched my first caramel begin to bubble. It felt like it would never cook, so I tended to my burning choux amoebas. Still, I carried on. I sloppily piped the cream into the cooled pastries with a cut-corner sandwich bag. I dipped them in the hardening brown goo with the scalding pan resting on a flowery potholder, one at a time, singeing my fingertips and waving my hand in pain. Soon, I had a homely 3-foot tree on the dining table, just as the sun started to set. The kitchen was covered in flour, batter, egg shells, and caramel drips, and I studied my creation like a masterpiece. Normally, I would have cared that my croquembouche didn’t resemble the perfect magazine picture, but I felt proud of the work I had done.

When my parents came home, their eyes widened at the chaos in the kitchen, and then calmed when they saw me smiling. Their wilting, exhausted child had been brought back to life. None of us cared that the caramel was burnt, or that the pastry cream gushed out of the profiteroles like raw egg yolks. We wallowed in the joy and nearly fell over trying to pull them apart.

While I wasn’t physically sick that day, staying home was what I needed. Even for just one day, the weight of adolescence fell from my shoulders. I went hours without thinking of what path to take at the bell ring to avoid being jumped. And, for the first time, I imagined a life beyond being a 14-year-old outcast. My problems didn’t magically disappear after conquering the croquembouche, but it taught me that I’m perfectly capable of climbing mountains, no matter how crooked or burnt they may be.

Ben & Jerry’s owner may launch ice cream made from cow-free dairy

For many — those who are lactose intolerant, those who are vegan, those who (for whatever reasons) do not consume dairy milk — Ben & Jerry’s has been a reliable stalwart when it comes to producing non-dairy desserts, most of which are primarily made with almond milk. 

While the grocery store freezer shelves are now replete with non-dairy products (ice cream, sorbet, sherbet, frozen yogurt and the like), many customers remain loyal to Ben & Jerry’s, especially as their non-dairy oeuvre seems to grow quite often.

Soon enough, though, there may be a new type of product on shelves with Ben & Jerry’s emblazoned across its packaging.

As TIME reported last month, Unilever (a British company which lists Ben & Jerry’s as one of their brands) is looking to produce dairy ice creams that actually utilize milk that isn’t derived from cows whatsoever. This would mean that the ice creams and frozen desserts wouldn’t be branded dairy-free, since they would contain this lab-created “milk,” but they could potentially be consumed by those who might have lactose allergies or are personally or morally against consuming any sort of cow-derived dairy. 

TIME notes that this would be developed in a “process called precision fermentation that uses substances like yeast and fungi to produce milk proteins in a vat.” Andy Sztehlo who runs Unilever’s ice cream research and development team, notes that the “product could be available in about a year,” meaning that you might have your hands on some dairy-but-not-from-cows ice cream before you know it. 

This process, often called “lab-grown milk,” has been practiced by other companies, but no “major food companies” have produced any particular products with said milk, including any other ice cream brand.

Companies like Perfect Day, for example, create “animal-free milk … using whey protein made by microflora, not cows,” as noted by their website. Also on their website, the company reports “97% less greenhouse gras emissions, 99% less blue water consumption and 60% less nonrenewable energy use” when “compared to whey proteins found in traditional milk.” Clearly, those numbers add up. 

Milena Bojovic at The Conversation states that “synthetic milk is touted as having the same taste, look and feel as normal dairy milk,” which is a sharp contrast to some plant-based “meats.” The report also acknowledged that Australia is at the forefront of much of the lab-grown milk or synthetic milk production and goals for the future.

One concern that Bojovic raises, though, is that if synthetic milk production does “take off” at some point down the road, this may considerably and adversely affect or even displace much of the laborers currently working in the dairy industry at large. 

At the same time, if the Unilever lab-grown milk foray is successful, this could signal a shift for Ben & Jerry’s, ice cream companies and dairy on the whole, especially when considering that it would considerably reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, this would help limit the amount of water that’s necessary for dairy farming and, of course — ostensibly result in a bunch of happier cows. 


 

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

 


In addition, TIME states that “mimicking the structure of milk protein in the lab is difficult because milk contains lots of different kinds of proteins.” Furthermore, particular ice cream variations, flavors and iterations must also be considered; perhaps the lab-grown milk is excellent in a vanilla-flavored ice cream, but has an unappealing flavor when combined with chocolate and cookie pieces. It’ll be fascinating to see what is to come. 

Back in May, Unilever noted that “by using regenerative agricultural practices to tackle cow burps and managing manure, Ben & Jerry’s is aiming to cut greenhouse gases from its dairy farm suppliers to half industry standards by 2024.” This endeavor may be yet another attempt at reducing the company’s carbon footprint at large.

If the bulk of their ice cream were to be produced in this manner, ice cream (and dairy itself) could move into a different direction altogether: one which would place an onus on animal welfare and environmental sustainability above all — while still tasting just as delicious. 

How “The White Lotus” blurs the cinematic meaning of gaze through the lens of Valentina

The White Lotus” envisions Sicily as a feast for the eyes . . . which are everywhere. Every room has a sculpture bearing witness to acts meant to be kept secret. The paintings on the walls judge the living; one makes a character cross herself before she exits its sightline. 

Then there are the men taking in the view – leering, gawking, evaluating a woman’s worth by her sensual appeal.

Sabrina Impacciatore’s dictatorial resort manager Valentina acknowledges all of this by managing every detail of how the property looks and her staff behaves. But she’s hardest and most exacting on herself. What Valentina’s guests see reflects her stewardship’s effectiveness. How her employees and the people of Taormina see her is a measurement of the respect she wields. 

Valentina’s gruffness is a rough mosaic combining her wish to have her orders followed and her desire to be left alone. Understandably, she’s hardest on her male subordinates and customers. The man who provides her morning coffee gets her; the man who bothers her while she’s efficiently consuming it does not. 

The imposing shield Valentina slams between herself and the world is partly a matter of survival, partly to ensure she gets her way. But it doesn’t take much to weaken it – simply a few kind words acknowledging that her front is neither impenetrable nor opaque.  

The resort’s concierge Isabella (Eleonora Romandini) is the first to crack it open by acknowledging her punishing work ethic. “I think you work too hard,” she tells Valentina, “but I admire you. I love how you handle everyone, especially the men.” 

When gaze is referenced in cinematic terms, what’s actually being discussed is power and control.

Valentina is visibly stunned by this kindness. It’s the part where Isabella tells her, “I want to be like you” that awakens something unfamiliar in the strict manager, which doesn’t augur a great outcome for Isabella’s co-worker Rocco (Federico Ferrante) . . . or Isabella, for that matter.
Examining the gendered gaze in TV and film isn’t a routine feature of most analysis, unless a series makes it a central feature, as “White Lotus” creator Mike White has done.

When gaze is referenced in cinematic terms, what’s actually being discussed is power and control, and who the director favors with it. In this season White artfully plays both sides, although the men are constantly failing to notice what the people around them want or understand how they’re perceived. 

The three generations of Di Grasso men provide the most tangible example of this, with the 20-something Albie (Adam DiMarco) expressing near-perpetual shame at the examples of retrograde masculine ignorance displayed by his flatulent grandfather Bert (F. Murry Abraham) and his Hollywood producer father Dominic (Michael Imperioli). Bert is the mascot for the everyday misogyny that was acceptable until “a few years ago,” while Dominic is a sex addict who can’t stop cheating on his wife or disappointing his son and yet declares he’s a feminist.

The White LotusHaley Lu Richardson in “The White Lotus” (Photograph by Fabio Lovino/HBO)

Albie, however, moves through life smugly impressed by how enlightened and considerate he is of women. Clutching those principles trusses up his passionate side, preventing him from asserting himself with the girl with whom he’s smitten, a personal assistant named Portia (Haley Lu Richardson). She appreciates his niceness for a time until an edgier option comes along in the form of a British rogue named Jack (Leo Woodall).

Men like best bro millionaires Cameron (Theo James) and Ethan (Will Sharpe) are so busy eyeing each other as competition that they don’t notice much about what their wives Daphne (Meghann Fahy) and Harper (Aubrey Plaza) want or need from them. 

Somehow that’s slightly better than what’s happening to Jennifer Coolidge’s Tanya, who is so desperate for attention after her husband abandoned her that she allows a sketchy yet charming gay local, Quentin (Tom Hollander), to scoop her up as a diversion.

The White LotusMeghann Fahy and Aubrey Plaza “The White Lotus” (Photograph by Courtesy of HBO)

Valentina tolerates some of these guests and looks down on most of them. But she shares a common desire with these women in that all simply want to be seen. 

The second season of “The White Lotus” is loaded with sex and tremors intimating the danger and tragedy looming ahead, but there’s something else floating beneath the bitter shell of introversion that defines some characters and the egocentrism driving others. Let’s call it longing.

White writes this appetite as neither a virtue nor a flaw, but something of which to be wary. Harper yearns for understanding, mainly from Ethan, but when she tries and fails to get Ethan’s attention for morning sex to break the porn addiction that’s suffocated their sex life her mood sprouts thorns. And when he violates her trust, she transforms into a sower of chaos.

Daphne knows Cameron only sees what he wants to see, which is that women are objects. She uses that as psychological camouflage to get what she wants out of their marriage, mainly his money. 

So what if Cameron cheats on her, as he does with Lucia (Simona Tabasco), a sex worker who drags her best friend Mia (Beatrice Grannò) in her mess? “If anything ever did happen,” she tells Harper, “you just do what you have to do to make yourself feel better about it.”

Valentina’s motives lead us back to the way this show interprets gaze.

Tanya wraps up her self-worth in unrealistic images; her Italian dream means dressing like Monica Vitti but it doesn’t win her the worship she desires from her husband Greg (Jon Gries) her husband. Instead of this inspiring her to treat her assistant Portia better, it makes her treat her like a device that vanishes and materializes on demand. At her lowest point, Tanya crawls into bed and orders the burnt-out Portia to keep watch as she sleeps.

The White LotusSabrina Impacciatore on “The White Lotus” (Photograph by Courtesy of HBO)

Valentina nicknames Tanya the crazy lady. And yet, the most innocent, work-appropriate exchange with Isabella erupts into a crush blinding her to reason and propriety. She showers Isabella with gifts and moves her work friend Rocco to work beachside – for Isabella’s sake, she claims, but obviously to reduce the competition. 

An observant Mia sees what’s going on and turns Valentina’s attraction to her advantage, flirting her way into Valentina’s graces by letting the manager know Mia knows she’s gay. She sees something Valentina keeps hidden and uses this astuteness to angle for a job singing in the hotel lounge.

“Let’s help each other,” Mia whispers. “You say you like women . . . Help a woman, then.”


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


Valentina does, although her motivation for doing so leads us back to the way this show interprets gaze. Valentina has the power to give those she favors or desires what they want, as long as she wants to do so and with the expectation or hope of an erotic reward . . . which, in cinema, is a stratagem typically assigned to sleazy male characters. 

Another way to view this, as “The White Lotus” reminds us, is that the show’s exhibitions of vainglory and egotism are neither inherently masculine nor feminine. Every character is some flavor of self-serving.

What moves Valentina away from her rigidity is the validation offered by people who notice her efforts and strain, and who might provide better companionship than the stray kittens she lunches with behind a building. For her, the right glance loosens the stopper holding back her need to be appreciated and adored. In a place like The White Lotus, where locking eyes with a stranger can be a steep gamble, fulfilling that desire is as likely to satiate as poison. 

“The White Lotus” airs Sundays at 9 p.m. on HBO. 

The cost of wildfires is rising. But by how much?

With wildfires growing more intense and frequent, the United States is burning through funds in an attempt to manage the costly blazes. In the last decade, the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service — the two federal agencies most often involved in wildfire preparedness, suppression, and recovery — have nearly doubled their combined spending, according to data collected by The Pew Charitable Trusts. 

But wildfire management is not just a federal funding issue. States, localities, tribes, and in some cases, nonprofits and private property owners all share the burden, depending on the task at hand and the circumstances surrounding an actual fire. And according to a new report from Pew, there is not enough data readily available about how much fires are costing states. 

“As fires have grown, so has public spending on wildfire management,” said Pew, a non-partisan research group. 

States lack a uniform tracking system for wildfire management spending, including comprehensive costs incurred before, during and after fires. Without this intel, they must make less-than-informed decisions about how best to budget for fire risk. They may be unable to determine return on investment for long-term wildfire mitigation efforts or fail to allocate enough money to fire suppression. 

As costs associated with wildfire management increase, many states have had to pull from their general funds — those collected from state taxes and fees and intended for general operations — in order to deal with blazes. 

In Washington state, for example, annual average spending on wildfire suppression has nearly tripled in the course of a decade. The average tally reached up to $83 million for the period between 2015 and 2019, according to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Over a third of Washington’s spending on wildfire suppression came from the state’s general operations fund.

“That is inherently detracting from other priorities that the state could put that funding towards,” said Colin Foard, an author of the report and manager of the fiscal federalism initiative at Pew.

The entity responsible for paying for a fire largely depends on who owns the land where the fire starts; if a fire begins on federal land, the federal government is responsible for suppressing the ensuing flames. But because fires do not stop burning neatly along property lines, a single blaze can incur costs for nearly every level of government. More often than not, states are the ones to front the necessary funds.

There are hundreds of cooperative agreements between local, state and federal governments around wildfire cost sharing and federal grant money and emergency funds also play a role in determining the final balance sheet. As a result, getting to the bottom of who owes what can take months to years.

Tracking and reporting these costs is critical, Foard said, but it is also impossible to know states’ full wildfire costs at any given moment. For example, a state could be incurring costs from a fire burning in the present, while also waiting on federal reimbursements associated with a fire from the previous year. At the same time, that state could also be in the process of paying the federal government back for costs associated with a different wildfire. 

“You have so many different activities happening concurrently,” Foard said. Without insight into the total wildfire management costs (and changes in those costs), states are flying blind when making budget decisions for the following year. 

Four of the six states Pew studied use previous years’ wildfire suppression costs as their baseline for making future wildfire management appropriations. But fire suppression is only one part of wildfire management and does not reflect the price tags associated with preparation, mitigation and recovery activities. 

“Almost every state Pew studied experienced fire seasons in recent years where appropriations proved insufficient,” the report’s authors wrote.They found that in 2019, Washington state needed $80.5 million in additional funds for wildfire management beyond the state’s historical average spending; earlier this year, the Florida legislature approved over $90 million in additional funds for wildfire management. 

Part of the problem, the Pew authors argue, is that states are using a reactive approach to budgeting and are not taking into account the increasing risk of wildfires. If officials were able to to understand changes in spending over time, they might be better able to plan for increases still to come. 

“The demand for this type of information is growing,” Foard said, particularly among policymakers facing increasing wildfire costs. “[They are] seeing the communities that they represent being affected by fires and wanting to think about solutions to start to address those rising risks.”

Fixing foster care wouldn’t actually be that hard — or that expensive

“Mom hits as often as she hugs, and I’d rather have neither than both,” writes David Ambroz in his 2022 memoir, “A Place Called Home.” Ambroz, a child welfare advocate, spent years of his youth homeless and in foster care. He describes walking unseen among New York City tourists “still warm from wherever they got their last hot chocolates,” hunkering down with his mother and siblings “in the colorless crevices of the city [as] gray people fading to nothing.”

Ambroz retells small kindnesses during those years — moments that communicated, “You matter. We care.” But they were too small, too few, and too far between. He writes: “My family is a car accident on the side of the highway. Passersby slow down long enough to gape but do nothing or very little to provide life-saving aid. America watches its children suffer in poverty, shaking our heads in sadness, and driving onward thinking it’s someone else’s job to help those poor folks.” He makes a convincing argument that it is not someone else’s job. 

Ambroz’s tale is, sadly, not unusual. At any moment, over 400,000 kids are in foster care, a number which is both under- and over-inclusive. Some children suffer ongoing abuse without being identified by the system. On the flip side, some are torn from their parents for the crime of being poor. University of Pennsylvania law professor and sociologist Dorothy Roberts says the bulk of investigations and removals penalize parents for poverty, and some families are impacted more than others. In “Torn Apart: How the Child Welfare System Destroys Black Families — and How Abolition Can Build a Safer World,” Roberts argues for dismantling the “multi-billion-dollar apparatus” and building something new to take its place.

“How do we live in this rich country where millions of children live in poverty! How is that even possible?”

Ambroz doesn’t go that far, instead suggesting a grab bag of reforms building upon the ones included in 2014’s Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act. That piece of legislation allowed for, among other things, kids in foster care to participate in contact sports and sleepovers without judicial permission. Many of Ambroz’s proposals are similarly both common sense and outside-the-box, like building dorms near community colleges where foster youth who have just aged out of the system get priority.

Ambroz calls his mother “my curse,” but writes, “I will never stop loving her…. Every time I walk away from this woman, it’s the worst day of my life.” In home after institution after home, he is mistreated. Only in his late teens does Ambroz find a foster home where he learns “what it’s like to give and receive a less complicated love.” He deserved emotional and physical safety years before he got it, and his mother deserved tangible support and mental health services she was never effectively offered. 

I gave Ambroz a call to figure out where we, as individuals and as a nation, can start doing better for those in the foster care system. Our exchange has been edited for length and clarity.

Since I delve into the autobiographical in articles, I often end up talking to someone who knows much more about my life than I do about theirs. But today that script is flipped. When I read the scene with you in a bathroom filled with bloody gauze, as a mom, I desperately wanted to rupture the space-time continuum and carry you out of there.

I feel like I published my diary. I’ve been doing these talks with small groups of foster kids, like when a nonprofit reaches out, and we do Zooms. These young people share, and it washes over you — all their stories, pain and hope. Foster care is a receptacle for all of the other failures in our society. So when kids are separated inhumanely at the border from their families, those kids end up in foster care. The kids of families addicted to opioid drugs end up in foster care. Foster care is going to be the receptacle for unwanted children as the result of the Dobbs decision. And like, how do we live in this rich country where millions of children live in poverty! How is that even possible?

Let’s talk about possible. Tell me more about this dorm idea.

A third of the homeless of Los Angeles County and San Francisco, etc. are former foster kids. Only 50% of them are graduating from high school. They might still receive money each month from the state, but they don’t have first and last month’s rent saved up. They don’t have a leasing history. No one will rent to them. We do this weird thing in foster care in this country: We get them right to the finish line and then we just say, “Sorry!” And we’re shocked that they perpetuate the same cycle of poverty and violence. What if we instead emancipated them into a two-year vocational transfer or another type of degree? The public owns the land the colleges sit on. I worked at L.A. City College, and they have tens of acres of flat parking above a subway station. With just five of these dorms in the state of California, no foster youth would be homeless. It’s doable and financially feasible. And if we remove a third of the homelessness pipeline, we can focus more attention on the two-thirds of that problem that’s more intractable.

“We also need more foster families. Upper income, middle class-ish people don’t tend to foster.”

How can average citizens support a project like this? 

Bond measures. Bond measures can give billions of dollars to community colleges. Kids don’t vote, kids don’t have political power, and they need us. 

One of the ideas you mention is encouraging more people to foster by guaranteeing their foster kids and their biological children get a free ride at a public university.

Foster parents, everything I say is in respect and honoring people who foster today. They are opening their homes, and shame on the rest of us for not doing anything. We need to, first and foremost, support current foster parents better. But we also need more foster families. Upper income, middle class-ish people don’t tend to foster. I had a lot of foster homes, and I did not experience wealth in any of those placements. That’s anecdotal, but we ignore anecdote at our own peril. Right now, this is not a wealthy person’s game. Higher income kids don’t end up in foster care, both because they have safety nets and because we don’t scrutinize or pathologize their families as much. (My sister says, “When you shake an apple tree, apples will fall.”) And higher income adults don’t help provide foster care. What is holding them back and what could push them forward? Their three main concerns in life are healthcare, retirement, and paying for a college education for their children. We are talking about a small number of people we need to join this force. Let’s make foster parents federal employees with postal worker-like benefits. And we could scale it. Some of the hardest placements are kids with disabilities, older children, young women with babies, and formerly incarcerated kids. They deserve to be fostered well. Incentivize that. Use incentives to get more people from a diverse background in the mix and all the resources and political power that comes with them.

Let’s back up for a second to the number of people we need to foster. 

“Roughly speaking, 700,000 foster children will pass through the system each year, 400,000 at any given moment.”

What I would like to see happen is to increase by a quarter the number of foster homes we have, to have people ready, willing, and able when the need arises. The National Foster Parent Association and the Child Welfare League of America have really robust information on this stuff, but the number thing is tricky because there’s not really good data on how many foster homes there are on a state-by-state basis. The numbers range wildly. So I tend to be vague, not to be annoying but because it’s run county-by-county. It is, data-wise, a little bit of a disaster. 

Give me some back-of-the-envelope math.

Today, roughly speaking, 700,000 foster children will pass through the system each year, 400,000 at any given moment. So we don’t need a million foster homes. A quarter would mean about 100,000 new homes. Then social workers like my sister aren’t spending half the day calling all over to try and find a placement. She can actually do foster care, not work as a public Airbnb. Having more people ready, willing, able, trained, certified, and background checked would be phenomenal.

And then you’ve said the other piece of the equation is reducing the need for homes?

Yes. In our lifetime, the foster system could be one tenth of how big it is now. Roughly speaking, two-thirds of kids entering foster care, it’s from neglect. Neglect has a lot to do with poverty. We can reduce the need by preserving bio families with some really simple interventions. If folks are poor, make them less poor. Our poverty programs in this country are kind of like you are drowning off the side of a boat, and someone comes along, pulls you out, and you’re able to breathe for a second, and you think, “Oh they are going to pull me into a lifeboat,” but then they drop you. And then another program comes along and does the same thing, but you never get the hell out of the water. 

This sounds a lot like that one Christmas you had at a church.

Yeah, I got shit for that. If you remember, the comment in the book is, “Thank you for the Christmas gifts, but I’d like to not be homeless.”

I loved that line. Okay, so we were talking about reducing the need for foster care … 

We need to harness the awesome power of the state to break up families, which it should have but should use judiciously. If we are going to help kids, we have to help their families. We just changed the law so that federal foster care money, Title IV-E money, can be used to preserve families, not just after you take families apart. If we can support bio families and those providing care for their kin, and give them what they need to make sure kids have food and stability, think about what that would mean! That’s hundreds of thousands of stories a year that don’t become what happened to them or their families. Most foster children will be reunited with their family. Foster care is not an adoption pipeline; it is temporary care. For that we need foster parents on the bench ready to go, and we have figured that out, we just haven’t applied it to this issue.

Do you mean like doctors being on call? The National Guard?

Absolutely. We have to think about foster parenting as a service to our country. They are like FEMA. The system we need is achievable. When you close your eyes and think about your own children, what does that foster home look like that you want to put your kid in? Do the foster parents have savings? Do they have a safe outdoor place to play? Do they read national newspapers? Do they have a college degree? If you close your eyes, do you think of the current foster system as a place where you’d put your kid? If not, let’s go create that system.

Your story seems like such good PR for kids in foster care. We get a window inside this smart, sensitive, conscientious kid, and I don’t think that’s how people usually conceptualize children in foster care.

PR is absolutely part of the solution. I thought a lot about breast cancer, and I don’t have a degree or anything in this, but breast cancer went from an issue that half the species thought wasn’t their problem, that was depressing, to where it is today. People think “cure” and they rally around women. The public does not want to be involved in an impossible fight. So I co-founded a nonprofit called FosterMore to help foster care go through that same transformation from dark to pink. [Editor’s note: Neither Ambroz nor Salon endorses “pinkwashing.”] FosterMore works with the entertainment industry, the Television Academy Foundation, the Writers Guild of America, and the Producers Guild. We are constantly in dialogue with Hollywood — just like GLAAD, just like the Anti-Defamation League — about representations of foster care and adoption in TV and film. Why do people think about fostering and wonder if this kid is going to kill my bio kid? Because of Hollywood. I want them to think Coco Chanel, Steve Jobs, Marilyn Monroe, Leo Tolstoy, Harry Potter, all foster kids. The other goal is to lower the perceived barrier to doing something. Not everyone can foster, so what else can we ask folks to do? FosterMore is doing a campaign called Donate Your Small Talk. Next time you start a Zoom or get in an elevator and someone asks you how your weekend went or how your kids are, instead of wasting those moments, talk about foster care.

What else? 

“California passed a law which gave [foster kids] preferential registration at public colleges. You know what happened? Our retention rate went through the roof. And it was free!”

FosterMore is also using media partnerships and social media to micro-target people using big data to recruit them into becoming foster parents. Another thing is creating the Foster Friendly Workplace Certification. ViacomCBS has implemented it. There are some simple, free policy changes you can make as an employer to ensure you are supporting foster parents. For example, if you get a foster kid and you have to go to court, are you penalized? If you want to bond with a foster baby that gets put in your placement, do you get to take family bonding leave? We can do this. We can get companies thinking about foster families, not as something over there, but as something here. And if corporations care they are going to change the way they lobby. Then there’s the National Scholarship Fund for Foster Youth, which has raised I think close to six million dollars. Every time people hear the words “foster kid,” I want them to think about education, just like they think “cure” about cancer. 

It seems like you’re trying to give people an on-ramp to where caring can feel manageable, for it to feel like I can do something without fundamentally changing my life. 

Confronted with so much to do and care about, we all start with the phrase in our head, “I can’t because ….” What if all of us started with the phrase, “I can’t, but what I can do is ….” We sent a person to the moon, and yet today we are proud when we fill a pothole. What happened to our country? Where is that belief in our collective ability to do big things? It starts with that individual capacity to say, “I can.” So I’m not asking everyone to foster. What I’m asking is for people to do something. And there are lots of places along the way to help. You know why foster kids drop out of college? Usually it’s super small budget problems. A car repair, whatever. And they drop out because they can’t get the courses they need to qualify for financial aid, because the intro classes are full. California passed a law which gave them preferential registration at public colleges. Get your state to do it. Because you know what happened? Our retention rate went through the roof. And it was free!  

What can we learn from other countries? From other points in history? 

I’m gonna say something that’s absolutely true and at first blush seems contradictory to what I’ve said so far: We have the best foster care system in human history right now. We have the most equitable, the most transparent, the most successful in terms of outcomes. It is a lifeboat with holes that need patching, but it’s the best shot of not drowning kids have ever had. Do other countries do it better? In some ways, sure, absolutely. Overseas, informal foster care — where you live with your kin, your grandparent, your cousin — is much more supported. We are just starting to do that. Kids are often better off with their biological family. Not always, but often. But the reality is we have this unique country of ours and a lot of the stuff that’s overseas, it’s not a sapling that will grow in our field. We have Feeding America. There, government makes sure people are fed. We have debt forgiveness. They have free college. 

Okay, so what other saplings will grow here?

We have young women in foster care having babies. We burden young women, in my opinion as a gay man, with taking a pill every day, and yet they’re in unstable homes, on the move, with parents who may or may not support that. So, how do we decrease the barrier? Well, we counsel them and give them information and access to long-lasting birth control. We know from a pilot program that that works to substantially reduce teen births. 

What solutions have we not touched on yet? 

We haven’t talked about a concept underpinning foster care. We have this bifurcated, duality of reality. In our head we think, “Oh, people should do it for love,” and yet, we know we have to pay them. It’s not that love is not an important ingredient, but you can’t manufacture love, and you should start with professionalizing the work. I don’t want my doctor to love me. I want them to heal me. When we pair kids with homes right now, we’re sort of doing arranged marriages.

I love that analogy, did you just come up with that?

“Thirty percent of the kids in foster care, roughly, identify as queer. That’s nearly triple the percentage as represented in the general population.”

That? Yeah, just now. What I usually talk about is Tinder. Foster parents and foster children don’t have the ability to swipe right or left, and if they do it’s more on the parent’s side. And all the sudden we’re thrusting people who have fundamentally different values and capabilities and expectations into a closed environment that is the most intimate environment, and then we’re like, “and by the way we’re going to under-resource you.” We’re giving you this kid but not the therapy they need. And we do that kind of shotgun wedding, and then the kids churn through homes. So why don’t we just acknowledge what it is, which is a job and a service both. Soldiers are paid, and yet we still honor them. 

Some of the kids who have the most churn in the system identify as LGBTQ.

Thirty percent of the kids in foster care, roughly, identify as queer. That’s nearly triple the percentage as represented in the general population. Why is that, and what are we doing to support them in care? It’s really important that we wrestle with that. I think queer kids in care and queer kids in delinquency are still having a brutal go of it, and I think we could do much better. Part of that is having queer people step up and do more to advocate, to foster, to adopt, to care, to mentor, because we need to take care of our own. But we also need to call on the better angels of other people and demand care and treatment and support services for our kids.

In terms of services, what’s the mental health piece of this? 

There are people like my mother who for 80 years has been trapped in a prison in her own mind constructed from a mental illness-induced fear that she fundamentally believes. I had to fight to get her services so she didn’t cycle through ERs or call in bomb threats, which was her wont. If my mom had cancer, God forbid, we would be empathetic. But because my mom is mentally ill, and because she did what she did to me, people say the most awful things about her. She needed care. And foster kids need quality mental health care. They have a higher rate of PTSD than veterans. Where is our moonshot for mental health? Do you know who the largest provider of mental health care in LA County is? 

No.

It’s the County Sheriff. That’s not okay.

That reminds me of how in your book there are best practices that were known and yet not implemented. You wrote about a representative of the system asking you, in front of your mother, “David, does your mother hurt you?” You wrote, “If she finds out I betrayed her, she really will kill me.” So you lied, and the abuse continued.

Pull back the lens for a minute. What was that social worker experiencing that day? How many kids did she interview? How much paperwork did she have to do? We give people impossible jobs and then when they mess up, we gasp and throw stones. I don’t blame that social worker. Was it terrible? Absolutely. Should she have done that? No, absolutely not. But instead of focusing on her we should all look in the mirror and say, why did she do that? Social workers have too many kids. We have created a system and these actors are responding to the incentives we’ve created, and this is what happens. We should fix the system.

So decreased caseload is part of that. What about increased pay? 

Absolutely. The churn rate for social workers leaving the field is incredible. We need to do real loan forgiveness without having to fill out 75 pieces of paper. How about we help them buy homes with interest-free loans and down payment assistance? Let’s have the biological kids of social workers go to college for free too, after five years of quality service. The funds are there, the ideas are there, we just kind of need Moses to lead us out of this desert.

Are you Moses?

Oh, dear God, no. I am just one of those people who gets to hold the mirror up because I have lived this life that tried to kill me, and that gives me the privilege to say to you, “Let’s go.” I believe in the goodness of us as a default. We are a good people, we are a good country, and despite my life which has tried to teach me otherwise, I truly believe that. 

Here’s what makes a winning farmers’ market

For the past 14 summers, the American Farmland Trust and National Farmers’ Market Coalition have asked farmers’ market fans from all over the country to vote for their markets as part of the America’s Farmers Market Celebration. Each year, the top five markets with the most votes earn prize money to support their programming — and a place of pride in their communities.

This year’s five winners beat out more than 2,000 markets nationwide. They come from the Midwest, the Northwest, the Mid-Atlantic and New England. Some have been around for more than 40 years, others for less than half that. Two are affiliated with or run by city governments, while the others sprung up via grassroots efforts from local citizens.

But all of them are doing something right — a lot of things, in fact. We spoke with folks from the five prizewinning markets about the reasons they think their customers flocked to the web to show their support.

Focus on local food

To keep shoppers coming back every week, farmers’ markets have to offer something people can’t get at their local supermarket: fresh, seasonal food from nearby farms, often sold by the person who raised, harvested, or made it. This year’s winning markets ensure that local farmers make up around half, if not more, of their vendors.

At the Columbia Farmers’ Market in Missouri — this year’s second-place winner, and 2021’s champion — the market’s bylaws ensure that 80% of vendors are agricultural producers. “We really focus on the ‘farmers’ part of the farmers’ market. Not all markets do that,” says manager Corrina Smith.

Rather than bringing on new vendors to sell value-added products (like jam, sauce and jerky), Smith encourages farmers to make and sell their own. She sees this as a win-win for shoppers, who can find more of what they need in one place, and for vendors, who can increase revenue with new products. “We want them to be successful,” she says. “We’re always trying to come up with new ways to help them grow their businesses.”

Kelly Plunkett, manager of the Monroe Farmers’ Market in Connecticut, 2022’s fifth-place winner, agrees. “Stay focused on being traditional,” she says. “When you start bringing in food trucks and more crafters than farmers, it loses the connection to what a farmers’ market looks like.”

Help farmers feel supported

Markets that strive to meet their communities’ needs will always have a better chance of success. But there’s no market without vendors — and a market must be financially worth it for a farmer to spend the time, labor and gas money to attend.

“This is their livelihood,” says Kristina Stanley, who manages this year’s champion, the Overland Park Farmers’ Market, in her role as recreation supervisor for the city of Overland Park, Kansas. “The money they make on market days determines how they feed their families, pay their bills and put clothes on their kids’ backs.” She’s found that investing in promotion and community engagement pays off for the market’s 90 vendors, creating a positive feedback loop that keeps vendors happy and customers coming back.

Making sure that a market is set up to support farmers with bustling business and easy load-in is a good start. Giving vendors a voice in decision-making or a role in market leadership is another way to ensure the market will work for them.

At Idaho’s Nampa Farmers’ Market, which came in third in this year’s contest, manager Jeralynne Bobinski is in charge of the vendors as a whole but answers to their representatives on the board. “It’s sort of a cool checks and balances system. That’s important, because we’ve had some really good success as far as dialoguing and getting people on board with what we’re doing,” she says.

Happy farmers mean happy customers — which makes it easier even for new agricultural businesses to thrive on market day. For Jason Riley of Druids Dream Acres in nearby Payette, Idaho, the opportunity to sell his family’s pasture-raised meats at the Nampa market has been a game-changer.

“There’s always people that are actually there to support their local businesses,”

says Riley, who quit his off-farm job working nights at a potato factory to go all-in on the farm enterprise in early 2022. Strong, consistent sales at the market gave his family the ability to purchase additional pigs and turkeys, the latter of which sold out quickly in anticipation of Thanksgiving. “The feeling is amazing, the layout’s awesome. It did miracles for us,” he says.

Give shoppers lots of variety

Part of what entices shoppers to support a market week after week and year after year is the right mix of vendors and products. That means going beyond fruit and veggie farmers to seek out diverse purveyors: growers of mushrooms and microgreens, cheesemakers, beekeepers, bakers and prepared food makers, flower farms and herbalists.

For Chris Cirkus, manager of the West Windsor Community Farmers’ Market, that means pulling from Central New Jersey’s rich agricultural community and incorporating local businesses that reflect the town’s diversity. In addition to apple orchards and vegetable farmers, shoppers can hit up vendors who specialize in mead, yak meat, empanadas, crêpes, Polish sausage and more.

“The vendors that participate in the West Windsor market are our curation of what we feel works here,” she says. “The vendors all really like each other, and it matters, because I strategically pair folks together when I do the layout each year.”

The result isn’t just happy vendors, but new, collaborative products for market patrons. “The fresh pasta guy is across from the vegan chocolatier, and now they’re working on a partnership to make a chocolate pasta,” Cirkus explains. “The local oats grower is working with the sourdough bread baker, and supplies him with oats and, and some different wheats. There’s this really great collaboration.”

Create a community hub that goes beyond retail

Anyone who has a favorite farmers’ market knows they’re much more than just places to shop. Markets spark social interactions between neighbors, bridge the urban-rural divide and serve as places to learn, connect, and relax. On any given week, shoppers can take in cooking demos, meet adoptable dogs, listen to live music, support a local cause or organization, or see a Bollywood dance performance.

At the Monroe market, “we hire talented musicians to perform for our customers each week and allow nonprofits like the Rotary, senior center, and high school groups to set up a booth and share information about their organization,” Plunkett says. “We also have a tasting tent, which samples two items each week from our vendors to allow customers to try something new.” The market even offers kids’ activities like scavenger hunts and blind tastings through their Market Minis program.

In Overland Park, Stanley and her team work with a dozen community partners in areas like food access, education, and sustainability to enhance the market’s vitality for its patrons. “People love this market and recognize the value we offer this community,” Stanley says. “The Overland Park Farmers’ Market is the focal point and heart of this vibrant and diverse neighborhood where all are welcome.”

Weaving a market into the fabric of a community takes time and investment — but as Cirkus has seen, getting your community excited about the market — and engaging dedicated volunteers to help keep it running — is key to its longevity and success on both sides of the market stall. “Finding community members who care about community is such an important piece of what makes a market vibrant,” she says. “You need people who love people. It’s not just about the food. It’s that combination of all of these magical pieces that intertwine that make a market vibrant.”

Reading Proust in wartime: A portrait of racism, nationalism and profound loss

During the war in Bosnia, I worked my way through the seven volumes of Marcel Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time.” The novel, populated with 400 characters, was not an escape from the war. The specter of death and the expiring world of La Belle Époque haunts Proust’s work. He wrote it as he was dying; in fact, Proust was making corrections to the manuscript the night before his death in his hermetically sealed, cork-lined bedroom in Paris. 

The novel was a lens that allowed me to reflect on the disintegration, delusions and mortality around me. Proust gave me the words to describe aspects of the human condition I knew instinctively, but had trouble articulating. He elucidates the conflicting ways we perceive reality, exacerbated in war, and how each of us comes to our own peculiar and self-serving truths. He explores the fragility of human goodness, the seduction and hollowness of power and social status, the inconstancy of the human heart and racism, especially antisemitism.

Those who see in his work a retreat from the world are poor readers of Proust. His power is his Freudian understanding of the subterranean forces that shape human existence. The novel is grounded in the bitter wisdom of Ecclesiastes: The beauty of youth, the allure of fame, wealth, success, power, along with literary and artistic brilliance, reap a horrendous toll on those beguiled by them, for they are transitory, and perish. 

I was in Croatia as Serb villages were being ethnically cleansed by the Croatian army. I watched an elderly veteran of the partisan war being pushed out of his home, which he would never again inhabit, in a wheelchair, bedecked with his World War II medals on his chest. The rise of ethnic nationalism had extinguished the old Yugoslavia and with it his status and place in society. 

The last volume of “In Search of Lost Time” is populated with the aged shells of once-great actors, writers and aristocrats, forgotten as the crowd flocked to new luminaries. The celebrated actor La Berma, a thinly disguised Sarah Bernhardt, too infirm to take to the stage, is ignored. The courtesan Odette de Crécy, the passion of Charles Swann, one of the central characters in the novel, was once a great beauty who entranced Paris but in senility is relegated to a corner of her daughter’s fashionable salon where she is a figure of ridicule.

She had become “infinitely pathetic; she, who had been unfaithful to Swann and to everybody, found now that the entire universe was unfaithful to her,” Proust writes of Odette.

War elucidates Proust’s great truths. Death, as in the novel, permeated my existence in Sarajevo, a besieged city being hit with hundreds of shells a day and under constant sniper fire.

The pedestals the powerful and the famous stand upon — and believe are immovable — disintegrate, leaving them like King Lear, naked on the heath. When Swann denounces the persecution of the Jewish army captain Alfred Dreyfus, wrongly accused of treason, he becomes a nonperson and, along with other “Dreyfusards,” is blacklisted. Émile Zola, France’s most famous novelist at the time, was forced into exile because he defended Dreyfus.

“For the instinct of imitation and absence of courage govern society and the mob alike,” Proust notes. “And we all of us laugh as a person whom we see being made fun of, though it does not prevent us from venerating him ten years later in a circle where he is admired.” 

War elucidates these Proustian truths. Death, as in the novel, permeated my existence in Sarajevo, a besieged city being hit with hundreds of shells a day and under constant sniper fire. Four to five people were dying daily, and perhaps another dozen or so were wounded. But even with death all around us, those desperately clinging to life sought to obscure its reality. Death was something that happened to someone else. 


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


This denial of death, and our impending mortality, is captured by Proust when Swann informs the Duke and Duchesse de Guermantes that he is ill and has only three or four months to live. On their way to a dinner party and not wanting to cope with the finality of death, the Duke and Duchesse dismiss the prognosis as fiction. Swann warily accepts that “their own social obligations took precedence over the death of a friend.”

“You, now, don’t let yourself be alarmed by the nonsense of those damned doctors,” the Duke tells him. “They’re fools. You’re as sound as a bell. You’ll bury us all!”

The death of the narrator’s grandmother, as well as the death of his lover Albertine, a version of Proust’s lover and chauffeur Alfred Agostinelli, who was killed  in a plane crash in 1914, exposes the mutations of the self. Marcel, the narrator, does not lament grief, for it retains the connections to those we have lost. He laments the day he no longer grieves, the day the self that was in love no longer exists. He writes:

I too still wept when I became once again for a moment the former friend of Albertine. But it was into a new personality that I was tending to change altogether. It is not because other people are dead that our affection for them fades; it is because we ourselves are dying. Albertine had no cause to reproach her friend. The man who was usurping his name was merely his heir. We can only be faithful to what we remember, and we remember only what we have known. My new self, while it grew up in the shadow of the old, had often heard the other speak of Albertine; through that other self, through the stories it gathered from it, it thought that it knew her, it found her lovable, it loved her; but it was only a love at second hand.

Inanimate objects carry within them a mystical force that can awaken these lost feelings of grief, joy and love. They return not by an act of will, but through involuntary memory. A smell, sight or a sound suddenly ignites what is buried and otherwise inaccessible, the most famous example being the dipping of the petite madeleine into the tea that evokes a sudden memory of Marcel’s childhood at Combray.

“I find the Celtic belief very reasonable, that the souls of those we have lost are held captive in some inferior creature, in an animal, in a plant, in some inanimate thing, effectively lost to us until the day, which for many never comes, when we happen to pass close to the tree, come into possession of the object that is their prison,” Proust writes. “Then they quiver, they call out to us, and as soon as we have recognized them, the spell is broken. Delivered by us, they have overcome death and they return to live with us.”

Imagination is a blessing and a curse. It can be self-destructive when we mistake it for reality. Swann’s infatuation with Odette is driven by her resemblance to the women painted in the Florentine Renaissance by Botticelli.

Art — literature, poetry, dance, theater, music, architecture, painting, sculpture — gives the fragments of our lives coherence. Art gives expression to the intangible, non-rational forces of love, beauty, grief, mortality and the search for meaning. Without art, without imagination, our collective and individual pasts are disparate, devoid of context. Art opens us to awe and mystery. Art is not, as the painter Elstir says in the novel, a reproduction of nature. It is the impression nature has on the artist. It wrestles with the transcendent.

Imagination, however, is a blessing and a curse. It can be self-destructive when we mistake what we imagine for reality. Swann’s infatuation with Odette, for example, is driven by her resemblance to the women painted in the Florentine Renaissance by Sandro Botticelli. It is the painting, the image, not Odette that Swann worships, a fact he eventually faces, amazed that he has courted a woman “who was not my type.” Marcel will come to a similar conclusion at the end of the novel, seeing the aristocratic elites who dazzled him in his youth as mediocrities, elevated to the status of demigods by his imagination.

At the same time, imagination is the fuel of art. Art, Proust reminds us, takes work — as in the fictional piece of music, the “Vinteuil Sonata,” which Swann associates with Odette. 

“Often one hears nothing when one listens for the first time to a piece of music that is at all complicated,” he writes. “For our memory, relatively to the complexity of the impressions which it has to face while we are listening, is infinitesimal, as brief as the memory of a man who in his sleep thinks of a thousand things and at once forgets them, or as that of a man in his second childhood who cannot recall a minute afterwards what one has just said to him.” 

It is, he writes, “the least precious parts that one at first perceives.” He goes on:

But, less disappointing than life, great works of art do not begin by giving us the best of themselves. … But when those first impressions have receded, there remains for our enjoyment some passage whose structure, too new and strange to offer anything but confusion to our mind, had made it indistinguishable and so preserved intact; and this, which we had passed every day without knowing it, which had held itself in reserve for us, which by the sheer power of its beauty had become invisible and remained unknown, this comes to us last of all. But we shall also relinquish it last. And we shall love it longer than the rest because we have taken longer to get to love it.

The external world of the five senses in Proust is always defeated by the inner world constructed by imagination. Nothing could be truer in war. Those in war work incessantly to make sense of the senseless. They form stories out of chaos. They seek meaning in meaninglessness. In a firefight you are only aware of what is happening a few feet around you. But once that firefight is over, two things happen. Those who emerge victorious from the firefight rifle through the pockets of the dead, examining the photos and documents on the bodies of those they killed. At the same time, they piece together a narrative of what happened. This narrative is largely a fiction, for only bits and pieces are available to be cobbled together to make a coherent whole. But without that narrative, the experience, like life itself, is not bearable.

Proust chronicles the poisonous effects of World War I on French society, embodied by the hostess Mme. Verdurin, who uses the war to elevate her social prestige while the suicidal tactics of French generals leads to six million casualties, including 1.4 million dead and 4.2 million wounded, along with numerous army mutinies. Generals and war ministers are celebrities. Artists are reviled or ignored, unless they produce wartime kitsch. Women adorn themselves in “rings or bracelets made out of fragments of exploded shells or copper bands from 75 millimeter ammunition.” The rich, bursting with patriotism, while sacrificing little, busy themselves with charities for the soldiers at the front, benefit performances and afternoon tea parties. Wartime clichés, amplified by the press, are mindlessly parroted by the public. “For the idiocy of the times caused people to pride themselves on using the expressions of the times,” Proust notes. The war eradicates the demarcation between civilians and the military. It degrades language and culture. It fuels a toxic nationalism. It ushers in the modern era of industrial war where nations turn their resources over to the military and, with it, outsized political and social power. The war, the backdrop of the final chapter, signals the end of La Belle Époque.

The public fell into line with the modernists of war, “after resisting the modernists of literature and art,” Proust writes, because it is “an accepted fashion to think like this and also because little minds are crushed, not by beauty, but by the hugeness of the action.”

Proust captures the disparity between the sensory world of war and the mythic version of war that plagues all conflicts, leading to a bitter alienation between those who experience war on the battlefield and those who celebrate it in safety. Those who imbibe the myth of war engage in an orgy of self-exaltation, not only because they believe they belong to a superior nation but because as members of that nation they are convinced that they are endowed with superior virtues. 

The flip side of nationalism is racism and chauvinism, for as we elevate ourselves we denigrate others, especially the enemy. Proust, when he writes about antisemitism, makes an important distinction between vice and crime, a distinction quoted at length by Hannah Arendt in “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” In the decadence of La Belle Époque, Jews were admitted to the great salons, until the Dreyfus affair. They were seen as exotic, albeit tainted with the vice of Jewishness. Vice is not an act of will but an inherent, psychological quality that cannot be chosen or rejected. “Punishment,” Proust writes, “is the right of the criminal” of which he is deprived if “judges assume and are more inclined to pardon murder in inverts [homosexuals] and treason in Jews for reasons derived from … racial predestination.”

Proust has a dark view of human nature. Those who carry out acts of charity and kindness almost always have ulterior or mixed motives. We betray people for bagatelles. We surrender our professed morality for self-advancement.

The difference between vice, which can never be removed, and crime, defines war, as it defined fascism a few years after the publication of Proust’s novel. Enemies embody evil not solely because of the acts they commit but because of their intrinsic nature. Eradicating evil, therefore, requires the eradication of all those infected with vice. The only way to survive is to renounce and hide your essence. 

Jews in France converted to Christianity. Homosexuals pretended to be heterosexual. Muslims and Croats in Serb-held Bosnia pretended to be Serbs. Serbs and Muslims in Croatia pretended to be Croats. These mutations, Proust warned, turn the blessed and the damned into caricatures easily manipulated by demagogues and the mob. The hostility to difference is an ominous step toward tyranny, either the petty tyranny of the ruling class or the larger tyranny of totalitarianism.

Proust has a dark view of human nature. Those who carry out acts of charity and kindness in the novel almost always have ulterior or, at best, mixed motives. We betray people for bagatelles. We surrender our professed morality for self-advancement. We are indifferent to human suffering. We attack the faults of others but succumb to the same faults if “sufficiently intoxicated by circumstances.”

But because Proust expects so little from us, he extends pity, compassion and forgiveness to even the most loathsome of his characters, as they fade away at the end of the novel in a danse macabre. Our inner life, he concludes, is finally unfathomable, for it is always in flux. As we age we become shells, faded masks identifiable only by our names. Human folly, however, is redeemed because of our childlike yearning for the impossibility of the eternal and the absolute in the face of the destructive maw of time. 

Proust reminds us of who we are and who we are to become. Lifting the veil on our pretensions, he calls us to see ourselves in our neighbor. By immortalizing his vanished world, Proust exposes, and makes sacred, the vanishing world around us. His perceptions were a balm, a deep comfort, in the madness of war, where the mob bays for blood, death strikes at random, delusion is mistaken for reality and the impermanence of existence is terrifyingly palpable.

Iran’s morality police may be disbanded, but Iranian women warn to look closer at motive

Iran’s attorney general, Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, announced over the weekend that the country will be moving forward with the decision to disband their “morality police,” which was tasked with enforcing strict Islamic dress code. 

This move comes in the wake of a young woman named Mahsa Amini being detained and killed in September for breaking said dress code by refusing to wear a hijab in public.

Following the death of Amini, whose non-government first name was Jîna, which means “life” in Kurdish, protests broke out in and outside of the Middle East as others took up her position of doing away with oppressive dress codes for women and there’s suspicion that the disbanding of the morality police is nothing more than an attempt to quiet protestors, leaving Iranian women fearful of what’s to come once attentions are diverted.

 “The morality police had nothing to do with the judiciary and have been shut down from where they were set up,” Montazeri said in his statement on the disbanding of morality police. As BBC‘s coverage highlights, “control of the force lies with the interior ministry.”

“Even the government saying the hijab is a personal choice is not enough,” one Iranian woman said to BBC. “People know Iran has no future with this government in power. We will see more people from different factions of Iranian society, moderate and traditional, coming out in support of women to get more of their rights back.”


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


“It’s disinformation that Islamic Republic of Iran has abolished its morality police. It’s a tactic to stop the uprising,” said Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad on Twitter. “Protesters are not facing guns and bullets to abolish morality police or forced hijab.They want to end Islamic regime.”

“No, morality police has not been abolished in Iran. This is a fake story cooked up by the regime to make you think everything is over,” said comedian and activist Chelsea Hart in her own tweet. “Western media is publishing propaganda with zero fact-checking. Dozens of people, including children, have now been executed in their silence.”

Put into further perspective by Aljazeera writer Maziar Motamedi, “the morality police were just one very visible tool of implementing mandatory hijab,” and “no senior official has seriously signaled in public that a major change in hijab laws could be implemented soon.”

Tell Will Smith: “Ziwe” will recoup your reputation in her Barbie dream house interrogation chamber

Will Smith is back on the publicity circuit, albeit on a select basis, to support his and Antoine Fuqua's contribution to this year's awards season contenders, "Emancipation."

Ordinarily, Smith would have engaged in a full media blitz to promote statue bait like this but that, ahem, Oscar-night event from eight months ago shifted the calculus on his entire career. For this reemergence, he's choosing his outlets and interviewers carefully, starting with Trevor Noah, to whom he gave his first late-night talk show interview since, you know, the thing.

Smith and Noah's exchange on the Nov. 28 episode of "The Daily Show" yielded precisely what one would expect from an actor doing his best to restore his good guy brand and a host whose stock-in-trade is his emotional intelligence. Noah is empathetic without defending what Smith did; Smith admits that it was a "horrific night" with "many nuances and complexities to it."

"But at the end of the day, I just . . . I lost it, you know?" Smith adds. "I was going through something that night, you know? You just never know what someone else is going through." 

Smith's "Daily Show" appearance reminds us of what fascinating theater the celebrity redemption interview can be, especially when the father of Hollywood's most apparently open and reputationally aware family engages in some version of it.

But if such theater is meant to serve both the audience and the tarnished star at center stage, then Smith should march himself straight into Ziwe Fumudoh's kingdom of rose-colored discomfort. Where Smith's "The Daily Show" appearance represents the quintessential understanding, friendly and smart interview, "Ziwe" offers something the megastar won't get anywhere else on his comeback tour: a crucible facilitated by a host who is smart, understanding, and playfully hostile.

 "Ziwe" is a satirical whirlwind of skits, field pieces, and politically pointed music videos but her notoriously uncomfortable celebrity interviews are the crown gems of every episode. Megyn Kelly declared last year that she finds "Ziwe" to be "grossly racist," primarily judging it on its premiere episode "55%," named for the percentage of white women who voted for Trump. If Kelly had any guts, she'd agree to a "Ziwe" sit-down too.

She doesn't of course, and even if she did, I doubt Fumudoh would take her up on it, since she use her platform to raise people she respects or expose the stupidity of those she doesn't but who are fundamentally harmless. Joel Kim Booster qualifies as the former, although he freely admits he doesn't have much expert insight to offer on tech, the title of the episode premiering Sunday, Dec. 4.

ZiweZiwe in ZIWE "Critical Race Theory" (Greg Endries/SHOWTIME)

Then again, Booster is more knowledgeable than NBA star and NFT-promoter Blake Griffin, who explains the term fungible to mean "it's fun but manageable."

A "Ziwe" interview is performance art. It can also be a trap.

However, nobody who watches "Ziwe" expects those stars in the hot seat to give insightful answers to the host's questions. As Fumudoh snaps at Amber Riley, "We're working together, we are creating an art piece, and I need clips." In service of that goal, she steers her line of questioning away from the titular topic and barrels toward topics full of dangers, toils and snares for each subject.

A "Ziwe" interview is performance art. It can also be a trap that bizarrely enough, works out for everybody.

Her most famous subjects know what they're walking into and agree to join her anyway, either to prove they're in on the gag or that they can take whatever she's serving and lob it back. Some are up to the task – repeat guest/offender Adam Pally is the king of this – but most only think they are. That's where Fumudoh works her conversational alchemy, dissolving showbiz fakery in a cauldron of cringe and pouring out the molten honesty, affording a view of the person behind the polish.

ZiweMichael Che and Ziwe in ZIWE, "Men!". (Francisco Roman/SHOWTIME)

There are people like Michael Che, who look like they'd rather be anywhere else and yet sits down across from Fumudoh anyway for an episode titled "Men."  What would possess him to do this? I have a few guesses, and so does she. Maybe Che thought he could turn the tables on her to his benefit. He fails, and magnificently.

When he asks her what the terms "marginalized" and "patronizing" mean, she replies, "Are you the head writer of 'Saturday Night Live'?" "Yeah," he responds, adding, "I don't read."

Then there are the likes of Charlamagne Tha God, who announces that he's a fan of Fumudoh's show during his appearance in the second season premiere.

"The first season I was like, 'How the hell is Ziwe going to get guests next season? And here go my dumb ass on Season 2," he announces. Perhaps he hopes that this will soften the host's probing approach; it does not. Fumudoh begins by asking Charlamagne the God to define CRT before sliding him, almost without him realizing it, into a line of questioning where she endeavors to make him answer for his misogynoir: "You've maligned Black women. So why do you hate Black women, exactly?"

There may be no better public gauge of Smith's authenticity than "Ziwe."

She knows whatever answer he'll provide isn't true, but that isn't why she's asking. In the Barbie dream house interrogation chamber that is "Ziwe," the payoff is in her guests' reactions to her questions. The squints, frowns and chair shifts don't mislead, although the production's bombardment of cable news-style chyrons either gleefully do or say the quiet part out loud.

"Don't pause it and put, 'He hates Black women,'" Charlamagne pleads, which is followed by the frame freezing and the unfurling of a banner that reads, "Charlamagne Hates Black Women."

ZiweCharlamagne tha God and Ziwe in ZIWE "Critical Race Theory". (Greg Endries/SHOWTIME)

Surely all of this makes some of you wonder whether my suggestion that Smith become one of Fumudoh's "iconic guests" is a joke. I assure you it isn't.

Smith is in a somewhat rare position in that whatever whiff of scandal still hangs around Smith hasn't permanently dented his popularity among his fans. He hasn't engaged in sexual misconduct and subsequently ruined his victims' reputation. He is not a racist or an antisemite. (Even if he were, look at Mel Gibson.) Chris Rock still has a thriving career.

Ergo, Smith doesn't need to profusely account for his mistake. Noah gets this. He's a respected, intellectually curious interviewer, which lends weight to his assertion that Smith's contrition is genuine.


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


But there may be no better public gauge of Smith's authenticity than "Ziwe," in fact, especially since regardless of what transpires, he'll either remind people that he can take being the object of a joke, or prove himself to be one of the rare folks who foils Fumudoh's efforts. "You are a class act," she sullenly admits to one such saint in an upcoming episode, "and that is not beneficial to me."

Adversarial conversations can serve the subject getting grilled, especially if the interviewee understands what the host is up to and is willing to take a few on the chin. And "Ziwe" is a forum in which the host offers her guests multiple opportunities to apologize for whatever sin they may have committed in the moment, and in a way that amplifies the artificiality of televised atonements. Some guests (mainly Chet Hanks) refuse to play along.

Those who do are invariably vindicated not because of what they say but how they present themselves in that act and throughout the rest of the conversation, which almost always includes a ridiculous quiz or a rigged game.

Thus if Smith's goal is to fully win back a disenchanted public, one of the savviest moves he can make is to offer Fumudoh – one of the many Black women Smith says he supports and defends – a chance to knock him around a little. Any talk show will give the superstar a platform to spout PR-approved bumper-sticker expressions like, "Love is a superpower." It takes a real one to submit to conversations that rely upon one's sense of humor and sharpness, accepting their believability won't be gauged by what they say but by how they act while saying it.

We'd show up for that. Would Will Smith? . . . Don't laugh, anything's possible.

New episodes of "Ziwe" air at 11 p.m. Sundays on Showtime and stream Fridays on demand for Showtime subscribers.

 

Does your immune system need a workout? The bad science behind “immunity debt,” explained

Viruses may seem all-powerful, given their practical invisibility and ability to take down human hosts, which are 10 million times larger than them. But all viruses have a weakness: they’re dependent on living things in order to reproduce and spread, which is why some experts debate if viruses like SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen that causes COVID, might not technically be alive.

When SARS-CoV-2 began spreading in force in early 2020, cities across the globe sheltered in place, trying to flatten the curve of rising cases. Many people stayed home for months and even years, until vaccines and drugs like Paxlovid became widespread. Even though the COVID pandemic is not over, we’re in a different stage in late 2022 — hence, many people are choosing to return to a 2019 style of living, including going to restaurants, and attending concerts, holiday parties, and other large gatherings.

The underlying idea behind “immunity debt” is that the immune system is a muscle that needs working out or it will become flabby and weak.

But when everyone locked down, a lot of other viruses died, too. Without human reservoirs to bounce to and from, we almost completely extinguished flu viruses in the United States. In fact, one strain of flu, the Yamagata lineage of influenza B viruses, may even be extinct at this point, thanks to COVID prevention measures like masking, closing schools and staying isolated.

In 2020, health agencies also saw a massive dip in another common respiratory illness caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). It’s a common childhood disease that resembles a cold, but can develop into pneumonia and in rare cases, can be fatal, especially in the very young and very old. RSV made a comeback in summer 2021 and again this year, but this time much earlier and with many more cases than the previous two years.

Flu is also making a major comeback in 2022. Probably thanks to relaxed COVID prevention measures, hospitals are experiencing a surge in flu and RSV cases. To make matters worse, COVID hasn’t really gone anywhere either and cases are now starting to rise again.

Some on social media are explaining this phenomenon — the surge in flu and RSV cases — as something called “immunity debt,” which is not a widely accepted scientific term and does a poor job of clarifying the underlying causes of this “tripledemic.” Others even argue that we should have never locked down from COVID in the first place, which is why we are so ill equipped to handle flu and RSV.

“By calling it a debt, there is the implicit argument that catching these viruses is part of our social contract … And that is somewhat brutish, archaic, and social Darwinist.”

The underlying idea behind “immunity debt” is that the immune system is a muscle that needs working out or it will become flabby and weak. If you don’t regularly expose yourself or your kids to viruses, bacteria and other pathogens, then the next time you get sick it will be especially bad.

This “immunity debt” rationalization has been used to argue against COVID protection measures like masking or even vaccinations. But some experts see it differently: the immune system is not a muscle — it’s far more complex than that — and they warn that framing this situation as “debt” can have serious consequences.

“By calling it a debt, there is the implicit argument that catching these viruses is part of our social contract. It’s a debt that must be paid to reengage into society,” Dr. Anthony Leonardi, an immunologist specializing in T cells and a master of public health student at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Salon. “And that is somewhat brutish, archaic, and social Darwinist.”

“The argument there is let your kids play in the dirt. Let them get exposed to microbes. It’s not ‘let them run around in a biohazard lab.'”

The term first appeared in scientific literature in August 2021, with authors in the journal Infectious Diseases Now arguing that “The longer these periods of ‘viral or bacterial low-exposure’ are, the greater the likelihood of future epidemics.”

The reality may not be so simple, and it conflates individual immunity with population level immunity. Dr. T. Ryan Gregory, an evolutionary and genome biologist at the University of Guelph in Canada, described the term immunity debt as “confusing” and a “distortion” of the hygiene hypothesis, a widely criticized concept that dates back to 1989, positing that childhood exposure to pathogens is necessary to prevent allergies, asthma or other conditions.

“The argument there is let your kids play in the dirt. Let them get exposed to microbes. It’s not ‘let them run around in a biohazard lab,'” Gregory told Salon. “Suggesting that unless you’re getting infected regularly with pathogenic viruses, your immune system will be weakened, just runs into a logical problem.”

Gregory cited a popular xkcd comic that succinctly describes the issue: The character White Hat says to Cueball, “See, it’s good to get infected, because it gives you immunity.” Cueball responds, “Why would I want immunity?”

“To protect you from getting inf…” White Hat replies. “…Wait.”


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


In other words, it’s smart to protect against certain illnesses, especially those as severe as COVID-19. Widespread COVID infections may also explain why other diseases are surging. While SARS-CoV-2 isn’t “airborne AIDS,” as some alarmists have described it, there is something unique that the virus does to damage immune memory. SARS- 2 can devastate the immune system, especially harming T cells, a type of white blood cell that helps the body recognize an infection, among many other functions.

Compared to 2018, “children up to the age of six months are seven times more likely to be hospitalized by RSV,” Leonardi said, which cannot be entirely explained by an immunity debt. “They’re only six months old. What could have happened is that COVID, in mild infections, it’ll wipe out, it’ll bring to the floor, the plasmacytoid dendritic cells that are responsible for secreting a lot of interferon alpha, which is responsible for dampening the severity of RSV and even preventing infection of RSV.”

All of this immunity stuff is very complex, but the response is relatively simple. Masking, paid sick leave, improved ventilation and keeping up to date on vaccines, including the COVID boosters, are all really effective at keeping multiple respiratory illnesses at bay.

“There’s no doubt that social distancing and mask wearing prevented a lot of RSV,” Leonardi said. “We can’t really do what China did. We can’t let the cure be worse than the disease. However, we know that if we can start filtering air and doing other things, we can tackle some of these viruses.”