Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

How to use tomatoes in summer desserts, from spiced cakes to refreshing granitas

Tomatoes are frequently enjoyed in a collection of savory dishes, from salads and sandwiches to pizzas and pastas.

But did you know that summer’s most popular garden harvest can also be showcased in desserts? That’s right, desserts! After all, tomatoes are fruits, even though they are mistakenly regarded as vegetables.

Related

The real star of FX’s “The Bear”? San Marzano tomatoes

The soft and fleshy texture of tomatoes incorporates well with cream, juices and alcohol when whipping up gelato, granita and cocktails, like a classic Bloody Mary. The fruit’s firm exterior is also akin to that of crisp apples, making them great additions in pies, tarts and spiced cakes. To top it all off, tomato’s signature saltiness beautifully compliments saccharine ingredients. 

Here at Salon Food, we’re excited to explore the sweeter side of tomatoes this season. To help us get started, we spoke with Kierin Baldwin, chef-instructor of Pastry & Baking Arts at the Institute of Culinary Education (ICE). Baldwin shares a few tips and tricks on how to confidently feature these edible berries (yes, tomatoes are berries!) in sweet treats:

The specific variety you use matters

Some tomatoes are sweet in taste while others are more savory. So, it’s really important to carefully choose tomatoes of the former kind when preparing them in desserts.  

Baldwin recommends using Sungold tomatoes, a popular variety of cherry tomatoes that tout a bright yellow-orange hue and an equally bright taste. Another great choice is Pineapple tomatoes, which are slightly acidic with a mild tropical sweetness to them. Brandywine tomatoes, a succulent heirloom cultivar known for its rich sweet flavor, is another fun option.  

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

Although most of these tomatoes are available at local supermarkets, Baldwin suggests getting them from your local farmer’s market, which oftentimes carry other unique varieties. Tomato vendors, who are experts on all things tomatoes, can also help you pick & choose specific cultivars based on your cooking and baking endeavors. And green markets may offer tomato samples, allowing you to taste them before buying. 

“Some grocery stores are going to have really great tomatoes in season. But a lot of stuff in the grocery store really has been refrigerated, where they are starting to lose some of the flavor they had in the beginning,” Baldwin says.

“Stuff that you’re getting at the farmer’s market are really fresh and full-flavored and ripe and very much in-season. Which isn’t to say that you can’t use tomato products that are from the grocery store. But those are going to be along the line of tomatoes that are more [appropriate for] savory uses.”

Embrace the umami

Unlike your sweet berries, cherries and peaches, tomatoes contain high amounts of glutamates, a specific kind of amino acid that is responsible for creating the fruit’s prominent umami flavors. Umami, which translates to “pleasant savory taste,” is why tomatoes are oftentimes considered unfit for desserts. But Baldwin begs to differ, saying the fruit’s savoriness is what makes it an unconventional yet key ingredient.

“You have to think about ways to…switch the flavors so that the fruit side of tomatoes is what people are getting before they get that sort of umami flavor,” she explains. “Which is not to say that umami is the flavor that can’t be in desserts. It’s just that you have to pick the right things to pair with it.”

Which brings us to the specific flavors that pair well with tomatoes

Strong savory spices, like garlic, oregano and chili powder, are not appropriate to use in tomato desserts. But cinnamon, allspice, nutmeg and ginger are, especially when baking a tomato spice cake, like this one from Food52.  

Other great pairings include cream, milk (cow’s milk or plant-based alternatives both work fine) and mascarpone cheese. Caramel also adds a nice touch to tomatoes, as seen in Chef Pierre Calmels’ tomato tarte tatin and Chef Alain Passard’s stuffed caramelized tomatoes. So does olive oil, vinegars, wine and, even, melted chocolate, which is a staple ingredient in an old-fashioned Campbell’s tomato soup cake.  

Aside from bruschetta, tomatoes and bread can be paired together to make sweet bread pudding or a rendition of summer pudding, with layers of sliced white bread and tomato compote. 

Tomatoes can also be mixed with, well, other fruits!

“What grows together, goes together,” Baldwin says. She recommends combining tomatoes with seasonal stone fruits — like nectarines, peaches, cherries and plums — or melons to make ice pops, sorbet and refreshing granitas.

Baking with tomatoes

Sweet green tomato pies, like this one from The Spruce Eats, is a great recipe for using unripe tomatoes in baked goods. Tomato flesh, however, is notoriously known for being slimy and wet. So, prior to prepping the pie’s crust, Baldwin suggests thickening the filling like you would when making fruit pies.

To start, macerate the tomatoes in sugar, cinnamon, lemon juice and cornstarch, then drain the excess juices in a separate bowl. Transfer the liquid to a pot over low heat and stir in additional amounts of cornstarch until the mixture becomes thick. Pour this mixture over the sugary tomatoes and quickly stir to incorporate. This will allow the tomatoes to continue releasing more juices while baking while, also, preventing the pie crust from becoming soggy.

Read more

about tomatoes

Roberts lobbied conservatives to save Roe — but leaked opinion made it “all but impossible”: report

When the U.S. Supreme Court voted, 5-4, to overturn Roe v. Wade with its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Chief Justice John Roberts was the only Republican dissenter. Roberts joined the other Republican-appointed justices in voting to uphold the restrictive Mississippi abortion law that was examined in Dobbs — that part of Dobbs was a 6-3 ruling — but he opposed overturning Roe. And according to CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic, Roberts tried unsuccessfully to get some of his fellow Republicans to join him in voting not to overturn Roe.

“Chief Justice John Roberts privately lobbied fellow conservatives to save the constitutional right to abortion down to the bitter end, but May’s unprecedented leak of a draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade made the effort all but impossible, multiple sources familiar with negotiations told CNN,” Biskupic reports. “It appears unlikely that Roberts’ best prospect — Justice Brett Kavanaugh — was ever close to switching his earlier vote, despite Roberts’ attempts that continued through the final weeks of the session. New details obtained by CNN provide insight into the high-stakes internal abortion-rights drama that intensified in late April when justices first learned the draft opinion would soon be published. Serious conflicts over the fate of the 1973 Roe were then accompanied by tensions over an investigation into the source of the leak that included obtaining cell phone data from law clerks and some permanent Court employees.”

In 2018, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a pro-choice Republican, drew a great deal of criticism from abortion rights defenders when she announced that she would be voting to confirm Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Collins insisted that Kavanaugh considered Roe v. Wade “settled law,” but in Dobbs, Kavanaugh ultimately joined four other Republican-appointed justices in voting to overturn Roe: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Donald Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York City has argued that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch should be impeached because they lied about their position on Roe during their Senate confirmation hearings. According to AOC, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch “lied under oath” about where they stood on Roe.

Biskupic explains, “Multiple sources told CNN that Roberts’ overtures this spring, particularly to Kavanaugh, raised fears among conservatives and hope among liberals that the chief could change the outcome in the most closely watched case in decades. Once the draft was published by Politico, conservatives pressed their colleagues to try to hasten release of the final decision, lest anything suddenly threaten their majority. Roberts’ persuasive efforts, difficult even from the start, were thwarted by the sudden public nature of the state of play. He can usually work in private, seeking and offering concessions, without anyone beyond the Court knowing how he or other individual justices have voted or what they may be writing. Kavanaugh had indicated, during December oral arguments, that he wanted to overturn Roe, and CNN learned that he voted that way in a private justices’ conference session soon afterward. But the 2018 appointee of former President Donald Trump, who had been confirmed by the Senate only after expressing respect for Roe, has wavered in the past and been open to Roberts’ persuasion.”

Abortion rights defenders feared the worst in the Dobbs case. And their fears were confirmed on May 2, when Politico published Alito’s leaked majority draft opinion in Dobbs — one in which he declared that Roe had been wrongly decided by the Burger Court back in 1973. Then, on June 24, the Court announced its final decision in Dobbs, overturning Roe after 49 years, setting off massive protests all over the United States.

“The final decision flouted the Court’s traditional adherence to judicial restraint and precedent,” Biskupic observes. “Polls show public approval of the Court falling significantly, as the decision has been regarded as a product of politics rather than neutral decision-making. Roberts’ efforts directed toward Kavanaugh and to a lesser extent newest conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett were anticipated. Some anti-abortion advocates and conservative movement figures had feared that Roberts would sway either Kavanaugh or Barrett from the draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that was an all-out rejection of Roe and women’s privacy rights.”

Dawn of the apocalypse: Existential crisis for our species is right here, right now

The past week has seen record-breaking heat waves across Europe. Wildfires have ripped through Spain, Portugal and France. London’s fire brigade experienced its busiest day since World War II. The U.K. saw its hottest day on record, reaching 40.3° Celsius, or 104.5° Fahrenheit. In China, more than a dozen cities issued the “highest possible heat warning” this weekend with over 900 million people in China enduring a scorching heat wave along with severe flooding and landslides across large swathes of southern China. Dozens of people have died. Millions of Chinese have been displaced. Economic losses run into the billions of yuan. Droughts, which have destroyed crops, killed livestock and forced many to flee their homes, are creating a potential famine in the Horn of Africa. More than 100 million people in the United States are under heat alerts in more than two dozen states with temperatures in the mid-to-upper 90s and low 100s. Wildfires have destroyed thousands of acres in California. More than 73 percent of New Mexico is suffering from an “extreme” or “severe” drought. Thousands of people had to flee from a fast-moving brush fire near Yosemite National Park on Saturday and 2,000 homes and businesses lost power. 

It is not as if we were not warned. It is not as if we lacked scientific evidence. It is not as if we could not see the steady ecological degeneration and species extinction. And yet, we did not act. The result will be mass death with victims dwarfing the murderous rampages of fascism, Stalinism and Mao Zedong’s China combined. The desperate response is to burn more coal, especially with the soaring cost of natural gas and oil, and extend the life of nuclear power plants to sustain the economy and produce cool air. It is a self-defeating response. Joe Biden has approved more new oil drilling permits than Donald Trump. Once the power outages begin, as in India, the heat waves will exact a grim toll. 

Related

What is “ecofascism” — and what does it have to do with the Buffalo shooting?

“Half of humanity is in the danger zone, from floods, droughts, extreme storms and wildfires,” UN Secretary General António Guterres told ministers from 40 countries meeting to discuss the climate crisis on July 18. “No nation is immune. Yet we continue to feed our fossil fuel addiction.”

“We have a choice,” he added. “Collective action or collective suicide.”

The Anthropocene Age — the age of humans, which has caused extinctions of plant and animal species and the pollution of the soil, air and oceans — is accelerating. Sea levels are rising three times faster than predicted. The Arctic ice is vanishing at rates that were unforeseen. Even if we stop carbon emissions today — we have already reached 419 parts per million — carbon dioxide concentrations will continue to climb to as high as 550 ppm because of heat trapped in the oceans. Global temperatures, even in the most optimistic of scenarios, will rise for at least another century. This assumes we confront this crisis. The earth is becoming inhospitable to most life.

The average global temperature has risen by about 1.1 degrees Celsius (1.9 Fahrenheit) since 1880. We are approaching a tipping point of 2 degrees Celsius when the biosphere will become so degraded nothing can save us. 

The ruling class for decades denied the reality of the climate crisis or acknowledged the crisis and did nothing. We sleepwalked into catastrophe: heat waves, droughts, declining crop yields, the melting of the polar ice caps.

The ruling class for decades denied the reality of the climate crisis or acknowledged the crisis and did nothing. We sleepwalked into catastrophe. Record heat waves. Monster droughts. Shifts in rainfall patterns. Declining crop yields. The melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers resulting in sea level rise. Flooding. Wildfires. Pandemics. The breakdown of supply chains. Mass migrations. Expanding deserts. The acidification of the oceans that extinguishes sea life, the food source for billions of people. Feedback loops will see one environmental catastrophe worsen another environmental catastrophe. The breakdown will be nonlinear. These are the harbingers of the future. 

Social coercion and the rule of law will disintegrate. This is taking place in many parts of the global south. A ruthless security and surveillance apparatus, along with heavily militarized police, will turn industrial nations into climate fortresses to keep out refugees and prevent uprisings by an increasingly desperate public. The ruling oligarchs will retreat to protected compounds where they will have access to services and amenities, including food, water and medical care, denied to the rest of us. 

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

Voting, lobbying, petitioning, donating to environmental lobby groups, divestment campaigns and protesting to force the global ruling class to address the climate catastrophe proved no more effective than scrofula victims’ superstitious appeals to Henry VIII to cure them with a royal touch. In 1900 the burning of fossil fuel — mostly coal — produced about 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. That number had risen threefold by 1950. Today the level is 20 times higher than the 1900 figure. During the last 60 years the increase in CO2 was an estimated 100 times faster than what the earth experienced during the transition from the last ice age. 

The last time the earth’s temperature rose 4 degrees Celsius, the polar ice caps did not exist and the seas were hundreds of feet above their current levels. 

You can watch my two-part interview with Roger Hallam, the co-founder of the resistance group Extinction Rebellion, on the climate emergency here and here.

There are three mathematical models for the future: a massive die-off of perhaps 70 percent of the human population and then an uneasy stabilization; extinction of humans and most other species; an immediate and radical reconfiguration of human society to protect the biosphere. This third scenario is dependent on an immediate halt to the production and consumption of fossil fuels, converting to a plant-based diet to end the animal agriculture industry — almost as large a contributor to greenhouse gases as the fossil fuel industry — greening the deserts and restoring rainforests. 

We knew for decades what harnessing a hundred million years of sunlight stored in the form of coal and petroleum would do to the climate. As early as the 1930s, British engineer Guy Stewart Callendar suggested that increased CO2 was warming the planet. In the late 1970s into the 1980s, scientists at companies such as Exxon and Shell determined that the burning of fossil fuels was contributing to rising global temperature. 

“[T]here is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little could be done to correct the situation in the short term,” a 1982 internal briefing for Exxon’s management noted.

NASA’s Dr. James Hansen told the U.S. Senate in 1988 that the buildup of CO2 and other gases was behind the rise in heat. 

But by 1989 Exxon, Shell and other fossil fuel corporations decided the risks to their profits from major curbs in fossil fuel extraction and consumption was unacceptable. They invested in heavy lobbying and funding of faux research and propaganda campaigns to discredit the science on the climate emergency.

Christian Parenti, in his book “Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence,” quotes from “The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change,” a 2007 report produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Center for a New American Security. R. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, writes in the report’s final section:

In a world that sees two meter sea level rise, with continued flooding ahead, it will take extraordinary effort for the United States, or indeed any country, to look beyond its own salvation. All of the ways in which human beings have dealt with natural disasters in the past…could come together in one conflagration: rage at government’s inability to deal with the abrupt and unpredictable crises; religious fervor, perhaps even a dramatic rise in millennial end-of-day cults; hostility and violence towards migrants and minority groups, at a time of demographic change and increased global migration; intra-and interstate conflict over resources, particularly food and fresh water. Altruism and generosity would likely be blunted.

The profits from fossil fuels, and the lifestyle the burning of fossil fuels afforded to the privileged on the planet, overrode a rational response. The failure is homicidal.

Clive Hamilton, in his “Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change,” describes a dark relief that comes from accepting that “catastrophic climate change is virtually certain.”

“But accepting intellectually is not the same as accepting emotionally the possibility that the world as we know it is headed for a horrible end,” Hamilton writes. “It’s the same with our own deaths; we all ‘accept’ that we will die, but it is only when death is imminent that we confront the true meaning of our mortality.”

Environmental campaigners woefully misread the global ruling class, believing it could be pressured or convinced to carry out the reconfigurations needed to halt our descent into climate hell.

Environmental campaigners, from The Sierra Club to 350.org, woefully misread the global ruling class, believing they could be pressured or convinced to carry out the seismic reconfigurations to halt the descent into a climate hell. These environmental organizations believed in empowering people through hope, even if the hope was based on a lie. They were unable or unwilling to speak the truth. These climate “Pollyannas,” as Hamilton calls them, “adopt the same tactic as doom-mongers, but in reverse. Instead of taking a very small risk of disaster and exaggerating it, they take a very high risk of disaster and minimize it.”

Humans have inhabited cities and states for 6,000 years, “a mere 0.2 percent of the two and a half million years since our first ancestor sharpened a stone,” the anthropologist Ronald Wright notes in “A Short History of Progress.” The myriad of civilizations built over these 6,000 years have all decayed and collapsed, most through a thoughtless depletion of the natural resources that sustained them. 

The latest iteration of global civilization was dominated by Europeans, who used industrial warfare and genocide to control much of the planet. Europeans and Euro-Americans launched a 500-year-long global rampage of conquering, plundering, looting, exploiting and polluting the earth, as well as killing the indigenous communities — the caretakers of the environment for thousands of years — that stood in the way. The mania for ceaseless economic expansion and exploitation, accelerated by the Industrial Revolution two and a half centuries ago, has become a curse, a death sentence. 

Anthropologists, including Joseph Tainter in “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” Charles L. Redman in “Human Impact on Ancient Environments” and Ronald Wright in “A Short History of Progress,” have laid out the familiar patterns that lead to systems breakdown. Civilizations, as Tainter writes, are “fragile, impermanent things.” Collapse, he writes, “is a recurrent feature of human societies.”

This time the whole planet will go down. There will, with this final collapse, be no new lands left to exploit, no new peoples to subjugate or new civilizations to replace the old. We will have used up the world’s resources, leaving the planet as desolate as the final days of a denuded Easter Island.

Collapse comes throughout human history to complex societies not long after they reach their period of greatest magnificence and prosperity. 

“One of the most pathetic aspects of human history is that every civilization expresses itself most pretentiously, compounds its partial and universal values most convincingly, and claims immortality for its finite existence at the very moment when the decay which leads to death has already begun,” the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr writes in “Beyond Tragedy: Essays on the Christian Interpretation of Tragedy.”

The very things that cause societies to prosper in the short run, especially new ways to exploit the environment such as the invention of irrigation or use of fossil fuels, lead to disaster in the long run. This is what Wright calls the “progress trap.” 

“We have set in motion an industrial machine of such complexity and such dependence on expansion,” Wright notes, “that we do not know how to make do with less or move to a steady state in terms of our demands on nature.”

The U.S. military, intent on dominating the globe, is the single largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases, according to a report from Brown University. This is the same military that has designated global warming a “threat multiplier” and “an accelerant of instability or conflict.”

The powerlessness felt by many will unleash further collective delusions, such as belief in a god who will come back to earth and save us.

The powerlessness many will feel in the face of ecological and economic chaos will unleash further collective delusions, such as fundamentalist beliefs in a god or gods who will come back to earth and save us. The Christian right provides a haven for this magical thinking. Crisis cults spread rapidly among Native American societies in the later part of the 19th century as the buffalo herds and the remaining tribes faced extermination. The Ghost Dance held out the hope that all the horrors of white civilization — the railroads, the murderous cavalry units, the timber merchants, the mine speculators, the hated tribal agencies, the barbed wire, the machine guns, even the white man himself — would disappear. Our psychological hard-wiring is no different.

The greatest existential crisis of our time is to at once be willing to accept the bleakness before us and to resist. The global ruling class has forfeited its legitimacy and credibility. It must be replaced. This will require sustained mass civil disobedience, such as those mounted by Extinction Rebellion, to drive the global rulers from power. Once the rulers see us as a real threat they will become vicious, even barbaric, in their efforts to cling to their positions of privilege and power. We may not succeed in halting the death march, but let those who come after us, especially our children, say we tried.

Read more

about the planetary climate crisis

JD Vance suggests women should stay in “violent” marriages because divorce makes kids “unhappy”

J.D. Vance, the Ohio Republican Party’s nominee for the United States Senate, cast doubt last year about whether it was ever right for people to seek a divorce, even if their marriage was marred by violence.

As Vice News reports, Vance discussed his views on divorce while talking at the Pacifica Christian High School in Southern California last September, where he claimed that allowing people to obtain easy divorces had harmed generations of American children.

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term,'” Vance said.

Vance then expressed skepticism that this was the case, and argued that the result of sanctioning easy divorces has been “a lot of very, very real family dysfunction that’s making our kids unhappy.”

Vice News asked Vance whether he really believed that people should be made to stay in violent marriages — and he responded by attacking the publication for asking.

“I reject the premise of your bogus question,” he said. “As anyone who studies these issues knows: domestic violence has skyrocketed in recent years, and is much higher among non-married couples. That’s the ‘trick’ I reference: that domestic violence would somehow go down if progressives got what they want, when in fact modern society’s war on families has made our domestic violence situation much worse. Any fair person would recognize I was criticizing the progressive frame on this issue, not embracing it.”

Democratic staffers arrested after staging sit-in outside of Chuck Schumer’s office

Six congressional staffers were arrested on Monday after a group of more than a dozen Democratic staffers organized a climate demonstration at the office of Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who they argued has not done enough to address the impact of global warming. 

At least seventeen Hill staffers hoisted signs that read “Climate Action Now, Chuck” and “Our Farms Are Flooding” while singing the song “Solidarity Forever” by Utah Phillips. Numerous aides also publicized the sit-in over Twitter. Among them were Aria Kovalovich, a staffer on the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment, and Saul Levin, an adviser to Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo.

This week, 165 Hill employees signed onto an open letter demanding that President Biden and Schumer “take ambitious, assertive action before the end of July to address the climate crisis.”

“Every day that you do not act, the climate crisis spirals further out of control… In the coming days you must execute a multi-pronged approach at the executive and legislative levels to secure our future and cement your legacy,” the letter read. “First, it is imperative that you immediately declare a climate emergency and end fossil fuel extraction on federal lands. Then, and most importantly, you must intervene in stalled Senate negotiations.”

RELATED: Human garbage is a plentiful but dangerous source of food for polar bears finding it harder to hunt

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

Staffers received public support from House Democrats like Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Ro Khanna of California, both of whom saw staffers arrested on Monday, according to Axios. 

The demonstration comes after climate negotiations between top Democrats and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a conservative Democrat notorious for torpedoing much of Biden’s agenda, fell through. Manchin, who has made a personal fortune off of the coal investments, specifically said he could not support more spending on clean energy with inflation at 9.1%. 

The move outraged both progressives, with global warming at the top of many Americans’ minds amid the sweltering heat wave that is tearing across much of the South and Northeast. 

President Biden has vowed to take decisive action on climate change despite Manchin’s latest blow to his agenda, saying that “the opportunity to create jobs and build a clean energy future is too important to relent.”

Many Democrats in Congress have urged Biden to declare a national emergency in response to the rising temperatures across the globe. The move would allow the president to ratchet up clean energy manufacturing and roll out more weatherized infrastructure. 

RELATED: Joe Manchin has made $5.2M from his coal company — and gets big donations from fossil-fuel industry

“GOP hypocrisy”: Republican attends gay son’s wedding days after voting against gay marriage

Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., attended his gay son’s wedding just three days after he and about 75% of the House Republican caucus voted against a bill that would codify same-sex marriage protections.

Thompson’s son told NBC News on Monday that he “married the love of [his] life” on Friday and that his “father was there” to look on.

Gawker first reported Thompson was scheduled to attend the wedding last week, accusing the Republican of “hypocrisy.”

“Can you imagine voting against your own child?” tweeted former Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass.

Thompson’s office confirmed that he was in attendance and supported his son’s nuptials.

“Congressman and Mrs. Thompson were thrilled to attend and celebrate their son’s marriage on Friday night as he began this new chapter in his life,” Thompson press secretary Maddison Stone told NBC, adding that the family is “very happy” to welcome his partner “into their family.”

Related

No, same-sex marriage is not “settled”: The GOP base demands more anti-LGBTQ extremism

Thompson, a western Pennsylvania congressman who was elected in 2008, was one of 126 House Republicans who backed a failed federal lawsuit seeking to overturn former President Donald Trump’s election loss. He was one of 157 Republicans to vote against a bill that would codify same-sex marriage after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas urged the court to reconsider its earlier ruling that effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Stone dismissed the bill as a Democratic “messaging stunt.”

“This bill was nothing more than an election-year messaging stunt for Democrats in Congress who have failed to address historic inflation and out of control prices at gas pumps and grocery stores,” Stone told the Centre Daily Times last week.

The bill ultimately passed the House with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in support. It’s unclear if the bill can muster enough Republican votes to pass the Senate. Five Republicans have said they would vote for the bill, including retiring Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who changed his view on same-sex marriage after his son came out as gay in 2013.

“It’s a change of heart from the position of a father,” Portman said at the time. “I think we should be allowing gay couples the joy and stability of marriage.”

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

Portman, who long held that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, supported an Ohio referendum to legalize same-sex marriage after his son “allowed me to think about this issue from a new perspective, and that’s as a dad who loves his son a lot.”

“Will … came to Jane and me and announced that he was gay, that it was not a choice. It was who he is and he had been that way since he could remember,” Portman said at the time. “Jane and I were both surprised, very surprised, but also very supportive of him. Our reaction was not about policy or positions. It was about him as a son and letting him know we were 110 percent supportive of him.”

Support for same-sex marriage rights has risen to 71% from 27% back in 1996, according to Gallup. But the Republican Party has largely rejected the shift, describing marriage as only between a man and a woman in its most recent party platform. Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel was even forced to apologize to conservatives after the party announced an outreach initiative targeting LGBTQ voters.

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who feuded with her gay sister over her longstanding opposition to gay marriage, told CNN on Sunday that her “initial opposition 10 years ago to same-sex marriage was wrong.”

“Freedom means freedom for everybody,” Cheney said, adding that “given the decision that we saw from the Supreme Court and the suggestion that the additional rulings could be at risk … means that we have got to step up and make sure that we’re providing protections.”

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who is gay, called out the vast majority of House Republicans who voted against the same-sex marriage bill.

“I don’t understand how such a majority of House Republicans voted no on our marriage as recently as Tuesday,” he told CNN, “hours after I was in a room with a lot of them talking about transportation policy … only for them to go around the corner and say that my marriage doesn’t deserve to continue.”

Read more

the GOP culture war

Post-‘Roe,’ people are seeking permanent sterilizations — and some are being turned away

HELENA, Mont. — A handful of people recently gathered in the shade of a large pine tree for a going-away party of sorts. Their friend, Dani Marietti, was going to have her fallopian tubes removed, a decision she made after a leaked draft of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion was published in May.

The small group kicked off the “sterilization shower” for the 25-year-old by laying out chalk-written signs that said “See Ya Later Ovulater” and “I got 99 problems but tubes ain’t one.” And they munched on cookies that had abortion-rights slogans, such as “My Body, My Choice,” written on them in frosting.

“Cheers to Dani and her choice to get sterilized,” Kristina McGee-Kompel said.

Marietti is a full-time graduate student in Helena working toward becoming a therapist. She doesn’t want kids to get in the way of her career, she said. She had considered permanent sterilization before, but the possibility that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade pushed her to seek out an OB-GYN who would help her with a permanent method of contraception.

“‘I want to do this as soon as possible,'” she recalled telling the doctor.

“I always knew I didn’t want children, and of course when you say that as a younger person, everyone is like, ‘Oh, you’ll change your mind,’ or, ‘Just wait until you find the one,'” she said. “I always kind of ignored that.”

Abortion is still legal in Montana, but whether it will remain so is unclear. State Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, has asked the Montana Supreme Court to overturn its 1999 decision that said the state constitution’s right to privacy includes the right to end a pregnancy.

The uncertainty around abortion access in Montana and other states where abortion is now or could become illegal, plus the fear of future legal fights over long-term contraception, has seemingly spurred a rise in the number of people seeking surgical sterilization, according to reports from doctors. That includes Marietti, who is having a salpingectomy, a procedure in which the fallopian tubes are removed instead of tied, as in tubal ligation, which can be reversible.

How many people sought permanent sterilization after the fall of Roe won’t become clear until next year, said Megan Kavanaugh, a researcher for the Guttmacher Institute, which gathers data related to reproductive health care across the U.S. and supports abortion rights.

But anecdotal reports indicate that more people have been undergoing permanent birth control procedures since the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which struck down Roe. Dr. Kavita Arora, who chairs the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ ethics committee, said providers across the country are beginning to see an influx of patients into their operating rooms.

The North Carolina OB-GYN recounted what one of her patients said just before a recent surgery. “She wanted to have autonomous control over her body, and this was her way of ensuring she was the person who got to make the decisions,” Arora said.

In Montana, Dr. Marilee Simons, an OB-GYN at Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital, said more adults in their 20s and 30s without children have come to the hospital for sterilization consultations. Many are women who already practice birth control, she said. “They are still worried about an unintended pregnancy and what that might mean in the future,” she said.

Most are asking to have their tubes removed to permanently prevent pregnancy. A smaller number of people are asking for hysterectomies, which surgically remove part or all of the uterus. To meet demand, Bozeman Deaconess has dedicated at least one provider to work with these patients multiple days a week.

Planned Parenthood of Montana President and CEO Martha Fuller said clinics statewide have seen an “unprecedented” increase in patients asking to be sterilized, including requests for vasectomies.

But some people seeking sterilization procedures across the U.S. are being turned away. Arora said some patients who don’t have children and are in their childbearing years are reporting difficulties finding providers willing to sterilize them.

Those providers’ reluctance may stem from studies and data that suggest the risk of regret for patients who are sterilized at age 30 or younger is high. Other studies had mixed results and found that some women feel less regret over time, Arora said.

Arora said she makes sure her patients understand the implications of any sterilization procedure, especially irreversible options. She also asks whether patients are being pressured into asking for the procedure. “I honestly believe my job is not to be a gatekeeper, but to empower and uplift those goals and wishes, especially after good, shared decision-making and informed consent,” she said.

Some patients who have been denied sterilizations have turned to therapists like Barbara DeBree, who has a private practice in Helena and writes letters to providers attesting that the patients have thought through their decisions. Other mental health care providers say they’re also fielding requests for letters of support, DeBree said.

“This is not a quick decision for them,” she said, referring to the patients asking for letters.

Providers’ ethical worries about future regrets aren’t the only barriers that patients seeking sterilization procedures may face. Cost and insurance coverage can also be issues.

Helena resident Alex Wright, 23, doesn’t plan to have children and wants to be sterilized. She plans to schedule a consultation to see whether her provider will perform the procedure. She said that if her regular provider won’t do it, she will seek out someone from online lists of providers willing to perform the procedure on younger people.

“That’s only helpful if I can get the financial assistance to get it taken care of through those people,” she said, referring to her insurance coverage.

Wright said her insurance company estimates she’ll pay about $4,000 out-of-pocket if she goes with an in-network provider. Using an out-of-network doctor could cost substantially more.

Although some people are seeking permanent procedures in reaction to the Dobbs decision, others are doing so because they believe the Supreme Court will continue upending reproductive health norms. Kavanaugh, the researcher at Guttmacher, said Justice Clarence Thomas opened that door by suggesting in his concurring opinion in Dobbs that other precedents should be revisited, including the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision that says banning contraceptives violates a married couple’s right to privacy.

“I think we are anticipating that there’s going to be some attacks on contraception,” Kavanaugh said.

That’s what worries Shandel Buckalew, of Billings, Montana, who wants a full hysterectomy. The 31-year-old said her doctor thinks she has endometriosis, a painful condition in which tissue that normally grows inside the uterus grows on other parts of the reproductive organs. Buckalew hasn’t undergone the full range of testing that can be required for a diagnosis because she doesn’t have health insurance and can’t afford it.

“Even though I have an IUD, the amount of cramps and the pain I go through — oh, I get so sick,” she said.

She hopes a hysterectomy would alleviate that pain, in addition to providing permanent birth control because she doesn’t want kids. But her lack of health insurance makes the procedure unaffordable.

She’s trying to get health insurance before her intrauterine device expires in two years because she fears the reproductive health care landscape could shift dramatically. She described feeling terrified and angry.

“It feels like my life doesn’t matter,” she said.

This story is part of a partnership that includes Montana Public Radio, Yellowstone Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Why the midterms look so bleak for Democrats: Joe Biden

Mainstream political pundits gain wealth and clout by speculating about elections — who’s up, who’s down, who’s raising the most campaign cash (but almost never from whom, of course). Now they’re looking ahead to the congressional midterm elections just three months away. 

The liberal and centrist pundits at CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times and the Washington Post seem to agree on two obvious truths about the Nov. 8 elections. 

  1. Republicans are very likely to win big — taking over the U.S. House, and probably the Senate. 
  2. Republicans in Congress have never been as extreme as they are now, and they’re out of touch philosophically with most voters. 

It’s not hard to see the contradiction in those two “truths”: If Republicans are so out of touch with voters, why will they be winning big with those same voters?  

Related

How in God’s name are the Democrats still losing — even after Jan. 6 hearings and Roe?

It’s obvious that something must be flawed in this scenario. If genuine progressives were more prominent among the pundit elite, they might point out the flaw by identifying the huge albatross around the Democrats’ neck: Joe Biden.   

If voters’ attention this November were focused not on Biden, but on Republican extremism, Democrats would likely win big. In recent months, the unpopular Republican ideology has been on full display — even to voters who are only halfway paying attention — including the GOP’s efforts to do all these things:

  • end reproductive freedom nationwide. 
  • block gun-safety legislation. 
  • deny global warming (even as our country is literally burning up). 
  • refuse and resist all criticism of Donald Trump’s attack on democracy and the peaceful transfer of power. 

Admittedly, voters are also focused on other issues, according to polls. Those primarily include the economy and inflation, which are global problems and largely beyond Biden’s control, although he has failed to effectively challenge corporate profiteering and price-gouging, or even rising pharmaceutical prices.

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

In hopes of avoiding a disaster for Democrats this November, some progressives are joining the #DontRunJoe campaign that I helped initiate with RootsAction.org. Our hope is that Biden will announce — very soon — that he won’t seek to be the 2024 Democratic nominee which could shift voters’ focus in the upcoming elections to party versus party, Democrats versus Republicans. This argument was made last month in a guest Newsweek column by a former U.S. ambassador appointed by Barack Obama.

The regular pundits who dominate liberal corporate media (in which I include PBS and NPR) know full well that Biden is a weak president, that he’s a “gaffe-machine,” that he’s proven to be incapable of using the presidential bully pulpit to get legislation through even his own party. They worry about his age. But they’ve been tied to him and have protected him since early 2016, when he emerged as the only candidate capable of stopping Bernie Sanders’ rise. These pundits approve of Biden ideologically: He’s a go-slow, “moderate” incrementalist, like they are.   

If sanity is to come to the political process before the potential disaster that awaits in November, it won’t come from Democratic leaders or pundits.  

It will have to be progressives and activist Democrats urging Biden to announce that he won’t run again, while acknowledging that we’re grateful for his defeat of Trump in 2020 (which we worked hard in swing states to make happen). Progressives also need to keep demanding more executive orders from Biden in the coming months that materially improve peoples’ lives, beginning with student debt cancellation. 

Such actions could point to a brighter future for progressives and Democrats who understand that the party in power in Washington has to deliver for working people. And soon. It would especially energize Democratic-leaning voters under 30; a recent poll found that 94% of them want a nominee other than Biden in 2024.  

In the fast-approaching November elections, Republicans have a number of inherent advantages, thanks to their gerrymandered congressional maps and voter suppression tactics, and the historical pattern in midterms that favors the party not currently in the White House — as well as an undemocratic Senate that grants excessive power to low-population states that increasingly trend conservative.

A change of direction is needed from Democrats, and quickly. Bumbling onward with Biden might appeal to short-sighted liberal pundits who are afraid of serious progressive change. But it’s a recipe for the kind of disaster that could one day make Jan. 6, 2021, look like a garden party.  

Read more

on the Democrats’ plight and the coming midterms

Justice Alito’s bad theology: Abortion foes don’t have “morality” on their side

In the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito placed the question of abortion morality at the center of abortion politics and unleashed the literal tyranny of a profoundly patriarchal “personhood” theology upon female Americans.  (We use “female” here to refer specifically to those with female reproductive capacity, who may identify across the gender spectrum.) Regaining political liberty means, in part, fighting this culture war. But first we have to understand it.

In his opinion in the Dobbs case, Alito writes: “What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion is different because it destroys what Roe termed ‘potential life’ and what the law challenged in this case calls ‘an unborn human being.’ None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion.”

Related

What the anti-abortion movement wants next — and how we can respond

Morality has thus become the reigning justification for the state to infringe upon the liberty of female Americans and to subjugate their reproductive labor to its power. An interrogation of this morality, however, reveals that it is underpinned by a theology that both erases and assumes the subjugation of female gestational labor in procreation to patriarchy. We must shatter this male-dominant moral logic and foreground female personhood and agency in order for every American to be equally free.

According to Alito, moral concern for “an unborn human being” apparently exempts pregnant people from the right to “liberty” otherwise guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. In other words, the supposed immorality of abortion is weighty enough to restrict bodily autonomy for all pregnant people in this country and to terrorize potentially pregnant females more broadly. This logic implies that pregnant people also lack 13th Amendment protection from “involuntary servitude,” contrary to the strong argument made by legal scholar Michele Goodwin in a recent New York Times op-ed. Consequently, the court has now granted permission to states to force pregnant people to gestate against their will.

To be clear, the 13th and 14th Amendments are specifically about bodily autonomy and freedom from forced labor. They were created after the Civil War in an attempt to end slavery for good, and forced reproduction was correctly understood as a dimension of slavery. But Justice Alito asserts that abortion morality puts pregnant bodies in a “different” category with fewer rights. What, exactly, is the logic here?

The theological premise of the anti-abortion argument is that male fertilization equals procreation. The fundamental labor of female gestation, in this view, does not matter. 

At its heart, the theological premise of the anti-abortion argument is that male fertilization essentially equals procreation of a “life” that has equal moral and legal standing to a pregnant person, prior to any female gestation. In effect, this argument holds that the enormous female gestation labor over time, which is literally fundamental to the procreation of a viable “new life,” can be ignored as a necessary precursor to the very existence of that life. On a practical level, this amounts to claiming that a habitable house exists at the stage of an architectural drawing, prior to any material labor by the general contractor and the construction workers who literally build it.

Abortion opponents draw upon the biblical story of creation found in the book of Genesis (chapters 1-3) to ostensibly ground their theology in tradition. But Genesis narrates that multiple participants labor at God’s direction to create various forms of life through a material process over time, which actually contradicts a theology claiming that male fertilization equals instant-procreation. The real political value is the story’s presumption of a male God’s dominance and appropriation of others’ labor for “His” ends. Using this frame, abortion opponents insert a “sovereign” God into the wombs of pregnant people — exactly at the moment of male fertilization. From that point, the colonization of the female body and female labor becomes not only morally acceptable, but necessary.

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

According to the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2015 statement on the “Sanctity of Human Life,” all “human life is formed by God in His image” and “God alone is the Author of life [who] alone numbers our days, from conception to natural death.” Similarly, the Assemblies of God 2010 statement on the “Sanctity of Human Life” asserts that God is the creator, sustainer and sovereign of all life, and that a fetus in the womb is already a “person” created by God. Therefore, “when people set themselves up as God to determine if a life is worth living — whether before or after birth — they are usurping the sovereignty of the Creator.” Further, paraphrasing assertions by the late Cardinal John O’Connor, the longtime Roman Catholic archbishop of New York, those who dare to claim the moral authority to abort are living into (or repeating) the original sin of Eve and Adam, lusting for power and enacting a diabolical, selfish autonomy.

Abortion opponents must aggressively insist upon this “insta-life” figment of the patriarchal imagination in order to support the claim that “abortion is murder.” Otherwise, there is no adequate moral grounding for the legal domination of pregnant people. This slogan then fuels the zeal for abortion bans, which result in the conscription of the entirety of female reproductive capacity from the outset of pregnancy. 

It is past time to recognize and critically examine this male-centered theological obstacle, which erodes trust in and respect for the autonomous personhood and moral agency of pregnant people. Prior to external viability there is no gestated, separate “unborn human being” to justify sufficient moral concern that core constitutional rights should be stripped away. Beyond viability, people almost never seek abortions unless there are grave health matters at stake, which even Justice Alito acknowledges may be acceptable.

Those who would subject pregnant Americans to tyranny and degrade them through the involuntary servitude of forced gestation may win some short-term political “victories.” But people of good faith and ethics should emphatically refuse their deceptive, inauthentic abortion morality and mobilize politically to manifest a fully inclusive “liberty and justice for all.” 

Read more

about the post-Roe fight for abortion rights

Big Oil was quick to jack up gas prices at the pump but slow to drop them: report

Over the past four months, Big Oil has rushed to raise gasoline prices — sometimes charging far more at the pump than the increased cost of oil would warrant— a nd dawdled to lower them when crude’s valuation declined, according to a new analysis released Monday by the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US.

Accountable.US acknowledges that the cost of oil plays an important role in determining the price of retail gas. But to understand why prices at the pump have outpaced the escalating cost of crude and why, when the cost of crude has fallen temporarily during the last 12 weeks, savings have very slowly — and only partially — been passed on to consumers, the group says to look no further than fossil fuel corporations’ desire to maximize profit margins.

Related

Ali Velshi on the coming recession — and why Joe Biden can’t stop it

“For months, oil and gas companies have price gouged consumers, squeezing record-breaking profits out of Americans and forcing many into dire financial straits,” Jordan Schreiber, director of Energy and Environment at Accountable.US, said in a statement.

“When the price of crude oil increased, consumers were immediately forced to shoulder the high cost and more,” said Schreiber. “Now, as crude oil prices fall, the industry needlessly drags its feet by lowering gas prices at a significantly slower rate than when they increased.”

In its report, Accountable.US contrasted fluctuations in oil spot prices and retail gas prices.

Changes in oil spot prices and retail gas prices from 4/22/22 to 7/11/22 (Source: Accountable.US)

When the cost of crude has risen, Big Oil has been quick to lift gas prices.

Sometimes, price hikes at the pump have closely resembled changes in the crude market. For instance, a 3.73% increase in oil spot prices from April 29 to May 6 was mirrored by a 3.34% increase in retail gas prices from May 2 to May 9.

In other cases, price hikes at the pump have exceeded climbing oil costs, such as when a 2.64% uptick in the price of crude from May 27 to June 3 was accompanied by a 5.29% increase in the price of gas from May 30 to June 6.

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

Meanwhile, when the cost of crude has fallen, Big Oil has been slow to act — if it has done so at all — and gas prices have either continued to soar or declined only slightly from one week to the next.

A 1.12% decrease in oil spot prices from April 22 to April 29 was accompanied by a 1.76% increase in retail gas prices from April 25 to May 2. An even more egregious example occurred when the cost of crude declined by 1.58% from May 6 to May 13 and the price of gas surged by 3.68% from May 9 to May 16.

Even when the industry has lowered retail gas prices, it has failed to do so at a rate commensurate with the falling cost of crude.

A 3.3% decline in oil spot prices from June 10 to June 17 yielded a 0.8% decrease in prices at the pump from June 13 to June 20. A week later, a 7.37% decrease in the cost of crude was accompanied by just a 1.72% drop in the price of gas. A 6.89% fall in the cost of oil from July 1 to July 8 was accompanied by a 2.56% decline in gas prices.

“Our analysis demonstrates that corporate greed drives artificially high prices at the pump,” said Schreiber. “The longer Big Oil’s predatory pricing scheme persists, the graver the cost to American consumers and the country’s economic health.”

In March, congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, introduced the bicameral Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax.

Under the proposed Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax, U.S. households could receive quarterly gas-price rebates totaling as much as $45 billion a year.

According to polling data released soon after the legislation was unveiled, 80% of U.S. voters — including 73% of Republicans — support the measure, which would hit large fossil fuel companies with a per-barrel tax equal to 50% of the difference between the current price of a barrel of oil and the average price per barrel between 2015 and 2019. An estimated $45 billion in annual revenue would be redistributed to U.S. households in the form of quarterly rebates.

Dozens of progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers have been urging President Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to support the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax, which Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has said could help Democrats avoid “big losses” in November’s crucial midterms.

But Khanna and Whitehouse’s proposal faces long odds given the GOP’s desire to capitalize on voters’ mounting anger at the state of the economy. Not only is it unlikely that at least 10 Senate Republicans would support advancing debate on the bill, as required due to the filibuster, but it remains unclear whether right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia would vote for it.

Read more

on the politics of inflation

“We failed”: Gay Republicans who fought for acceptance in Texas GOP see little progress

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

In June 1998, a group of gay and lesbian conservatives, pushing for greater representation at the Texas Republican Party convention in Fort Worth, found themselves in a frightening clash with members of their own party.

Members of the Log Cabin Republicans were protesting at the gathering of party faithful after a state GOP official made offensive comments comparing the group to the Ku Klux Klan and pedophiles. The group was also protesting the rejection of their request to host a booth at the convention — the second time in a row they’d been denied — where they hoped to share information about their organization.

Counterprotesters surrounded the Log Cabin members, wielding signs with homophobic slurs and phrases like “The Gay Life = AIDS Then Hell.” They pushed and spat and shoved their fingers in the faces of the gay Republicans.

Richard Tafel, the former executive director of the national Log Cabin Republicans which bills itself as the “nation’s largest Republican organization dedicated to representing LGBT conservatives and allies,” attended the Texas convention that year and recalls thinking he was in serious danger as they advocated for respect from members of their own party.

“We’re here to draw the line,” Tafel declared at the protest. “No more hatred, no more hatred in the name of God. And we won’t be silenced.”

A counterprotester threw a sign at his face.

“It was a tornado of emotion, volatile and dangerous, ready to touch down and sweep us all away at any moment. I was afraid for my own safety and that of others,” wrote Dale Carpenter, a former president of Log Cabin Republicans of Texas, in a newsletter later that year.

Ultimately, no one was injured that day. But it was a vivid display of homophobia within the party.

More than two decades later, this year’s Texas Republican convention made headlines again for its attitudes toward LGBTQ people. The party adopted a platform in June at its convention in Houston declaring that “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.” That party position comes after similar language had been stripped from the platform just four years earlier, representing a backward step for Log Cabin members who have for years been fighting for acceptance within their ranks.

Gay Republicans who have fought for acceptance within the Texas GOP over the past three decades told The Texas Tribune progress has been excruciatingly slow. Many of them have left the party, even as the number of Log Cabin Republicans in Texas continues to grow.

“I do not believe that we made any progress. In fact, I think the party got worse,” Carpenter, who is no longer involved in party politics, said of his time as the state’s Log Cabin president.

Since the group’s inception in 1989, the Log Cabin Republicans of Texas have been denied a booth at the state convention. And this year’s convention was no different. Booths are granted to all sorts of conservative interest groups, advocating for issues related to gun rights, anti-abortion issues and freedom from vaccines. A booth, in many ways, is symbolic of a seat at the table.

“Getting a booth also became a signal of party approval,” Carpenter said. “You have ‘arrived’ and are accepted in the GOP.”

Beyond the official state party, which often represents the most hardline members and belief systems, mainstream conservatives in Texas have turned their attention in recent months toward anti-LGBTQ initiatives, oftentimes in the form of legislation related to school sports, curriculum and library books that address sexuality and gender identity.

Gov. Greg Abbott issued an order this year equating allowing minors to receive transgender care with child abuse. The Legislature also passed a bill last year banning transgender children from playing on public school sports teams that align with their gender identity.

And conservatives nationwide are taking aim at same-sex marriage. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz said on his podcast last week that he believes the U.S. Supreme Court was “clearly wrong” when it legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. A majority of U.S. House Republicans last week voted against protecting the right to same-sex marriage. Only one Texas Republican voted for the measure.

State legislatures across the country have proposed more than 300 anti-LGBTQ bills this year, many of which target transgender youth.

“​​It saddens me that in a state where our biggest issues are infrastructure, development and education, we have child poverty everywhere, school shootings that are happening, that we’re so focused on issues trying to limit the access to opportunities for trans youth,” said Christopher Busby, a former Log Cabin member who left the party in 2016.

The Texas GOP declined to comment for this story and referred all questions to the party platform. The Tribune reached out to prominent Texas Republican leaders for comment on the state party’s latest anti-LGBTQ platform plank. Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan declined to comment. Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn did not answer when asked about the party platform, instead deflecting to discuss the congressional action this week on marriage equality. Cruz said the party platform “is not rhetoric or language that I use” and that “the decisions of consenting adults concerning matters of sexuality are choices for individuals to make.”

All of them attended the convention with the exception of Abbott, who held a reception associated with the event.

Current Log Cabin members in Texas have admonished the party for the language in its platform. But they emphasize the party apparatus is not representative of all or even most Republicans, while pointing to incremental gains they’ve made within the state party.

“There are over 270 planks in the GOP platform,” said Michael Cargill, the president of the Austin Log Cabin chapter who recently resigned as acting chair of the state organization for reasons he said are unrelated to the recent platform. “There are only four planks that we disagree on.”

Notably, the Log Cabin Republicans of Texas, which included about 350 dues-paying members in 2021, endorsed the Legislature’s bill targeting trans youth playing school sports. That position represents what earlier members describe as a shift within the group and a schism between current and former Log Cabin members.

Carpenter recalled that in the ’90s, the primary mission was to achieve acceptance of gay members within the state party. But after decades of nearly stagnant progress on that front, he thinks the group has shifted toward prioritizing common ground.

“We asked ourselves from time to time, are you gay first and Republican second, or are you Republican first and gay second?” he said. “I think in recent years, the mission may have shifted to primarily promoting the Republican party among LGBT people to help win elections. Current leadership seems [to be] ‘Republican first.'”

“I sort of lost hope” 

In 1990, the GOP party platform called homosexuality “biologically and morally unsound” and compared same-sex relationships to “necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, or incest.”

Paul von Wupperfeld, a gay man who lived in Austin at the time, considered himself politically right of center and in favor of limited government. Gay Republicans were hard to come by back then — many had become disillusioned with the Republican Party due in part to President Ronald Reagan’s handling of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the 1980s.

Inspired by other Log Cabin chapters that had formed more than a decade earlier, von Wupperfeld and others thought they could change the Texas GOP. He would serve as the first president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Texas. Today, he considers the effort an utter failure.

“We failed to moderate the Republican party,” said von Wupperfeld, now a 56-year-old Democrat who has not voted Republican since 2000. “I’m glad we tried, and I think we did the right thing by trying. We’re actually going the other way, faster and faster.”

Early on, the group had glimmers of optimism. In 1990, the Travis County GOP Convention was opened by a gay men’s chorus. Some of the GOP groups in major cities showed support for the Log Cabin Republicans.

But for every step forward, there was another fall backward.

Republicans started emphasizing social issues as religious conservatives took over the party. The Travis County GOP added language in its 1994 platform opposing “homosexual education” in public schools, according to a news article published after the change. The Galveston County GOP called for all HIV patients to be quarantined, a decision Log Cabin members said was intended to target gay people, who were disproportionately affected by the virus. The Houston Post wrote in a 1994 article that “The GOP — particularly in Texas — has become increasingly socially conservative, with the Christian right in firm control of the party apparatus.”

The religious right movement was emboldened two years earlier in Houston. Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan gave a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention that would become known as “The Culture War Speech,” in which he warned that the nation was embroiled in a war “for the soul of America.”

“We stand with [President George H.W. Bush] against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women,” Buchanan said.

In 1995, von Wupperfeld had enough. He resigned as president of the statewide group.

“I didn’t believe it could succeed anymore,” von Wupperfeld said. “I sort of lost hope and got tired of the drama and the fighting internally and the fighting within the party.”

After von Wupperfeld left, Carpenter would take over the leadership role. He held the position for two years until 1997, until he too lost hope as his party was swallowed by social conservatives.

“We were just a few people in a few cities,” Carpenter said. “And we were up against thousands and thousands of very organized activists who really only cared about two things: abortion and homosexuality.”

The battle for a booth

The battle for a booth at the Texas Republican Party convention every two years has turned into a proxy war for acceptance within the state party.

To get a booth, a group submits an application to the party and then a committee of party officials votes on whether to approve the request. This year, Log Cabin came up short by one vote. Party chair Matt Rinaldi voted “present,” which meant he did not vote in favor or against, said Marco Roberts, the former state chair for Log Cabin who resigned in May.

Booths in the convention’s exhibit hall give interest groups and some elected officials a chance to meet with other politicians, delegates and members to advocate on issues. At this year’s convention, there were more than 75 booths at the exhibit hall, including ones for Texans for Vaccine Freedom and the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life.

“Log Cabin were primarily interested in getting their message out to convention delegates in the hopes of having influence on the party itself,” Carpenter said.

Efforts to get a booth began in the 1990s, and the group came especially close in 1996. Kelton Dillard, a longtime treasurer for the state organization, had submitted a check to the state party to register for a booth. It cleared. But the party chair revoked the approval because they said the group was advocating for the practice of sodomy, which was illegal at the time.

The group sued the party. Days before the convention, a district judge ruled in favor of Log Cabin, ordering the state party to give the group a booth and print its advertisement in the convention handbook.

But the Texas GOP appealed to the state Supreme Court. In a ruling the day before the convention was set to begin, the court ruled the group could not have a booth at the convention.

The associate justice of the state Supreme Court who delivered the opinion was Greg Abbott.

He wrote that the decision to deny the group a booth was “an internal party affair rather than an integral part of the election process” and the Log Cabin group could not “maintain its state constitutional claims against the Party.”

Busby, the former Log Cabin member who left in 2016, said the party’s repeated refusal to grant a booth is “disheartening.”

Busby became involved in GOP politics in Texas in the 2000s. He helped reestablish the Log Cabin Republicans of Houston — after it previously had gone defunct — then became a precinct chair in Harris County and was the president of Houston Young Republicans.

Busby left the Republican party largely because of former President Donald Trump, he said, but the state party’s stance on LGBTQ issues “didn’t help.”

“We are human, and humans have a need to feel welcomed into the social groups with which we identify,” said Busby, 33. “And for a long enough time you’re told you are not welcome, most people will hear those words and leave no matter how strongly they might want to identify with a group, no matter how strongly their values align. When you’re told you’re not part of the group, over and over again, eventually you reassign your identity values.”

Victories and losses

In more recent years, the Texas GOP has softened some of its homophobic language.

By 2012, the Texas GOP had abandoned a platform condemning sodomy. The Supreme Court had legalized sodomy nine years earlier, superceding Texas’ law banning it, which has still not been repealed.

In 2016, it removed its explicit endorsement of “reparative therapy,” a debunked and harmful treatment that claims to turn gay people straight, but still made a point of citing its availability “for self-motivated youth and adults.” The state party also retained the official position that said “homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible.”

Roberts, the first openly gay person on the Texas GOP platform committee, led the charge to remove the language in 2018. Texas Values, a conservative Christian organization, initially worked against him to preserve the plank.

Ultimately, the party delegates voted to soften the language while retaining the opposition to same-sex marriage — even as the U.S. Supreme Court had legalized gay marriage three years earlier.

It was seen as a win — a sign that the party was slowly but surely moving forward on the issue. That optimism evaporated this year.

The addition of the anti-LGBTQ language in this year’s platform caught many people off guard.

As the platform committee was wrapping up its work, Matt Patrick, the committee’s chairman, proposed an amendment to add the language that “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.” Patrick did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Houston resident Jason Vaughn, a member of the platform committee who is gay, immediately objected to the change.

“This is meant to be insulting language, it does nothing for policy,” Vaughn, 38, said to the committee.

Vaughn’s objections were unsuccessful. The committee approved the change 17-14.

Two days later, the entire floor of delegates voted on the platform. One member of the platform committee, David Gebhart, called to remove the language, saying the Texas GOP “is not the Westboro Baptist Church.” He was booed. The platform plank passed overwhelmingly.

Roberts, who is now the interim chair of the Texas Conservative Liberty Forum, said he thinks this year’s change happened because Log Cabin wasn’t as involved in the platform process.

But he also sees some Republicans hardening their anti-LGBTQ stances, as anti-trans rhetoric becomes mainstreamed in the Texas GOP.

“Some of the events that were very prominently featured in the news upset people, and gay people are associated with that, unfortunately, which is unfair, but it just is the case,” Roberts said.

Roberts is hopeful the party will remove the language at its next convention. Vaughn is less optimistic.

“There’s been a lot of progress if you get down with people actually having conversations,” Vaughn said. “If you want to talk about basic rhetoric, no, there’s not been a lot of progress.”

Dillard, the longtime treasurer of the state Log Cabin group, said there was some progress in his time with the group. He helped run the group’s political action committee and said that funding helped stop anti-gay legislation. He’s still a Republican but doesn’t support Trump.

He’s not too worried about the state of gay rights in the country. But he acknowledged the state party’s executive committee “has kind of gone back to being almost as nutty as they’ve ever been.”

Carpenter agreed that the Texas GOP’s views on LGBTQ issues are wildly out of touch.

“[The party’s] views have not changed, but the wider cultures have. That’s a very striking thing to me,” Carpenter said. “They are like a fossil from another age. And it’s on everything. I don’t believe they support a single thing that’s happened over the last 25 years.”

When you join us at The Texas Tribune Festival Sept. 22-24 in downtown Austin, you’ll hear from changemakers who are driving innovation, lawmakers who are taking charge with new policies, industry leaders who are pushing Texas forward and so many others. See the growing speaker list and buy tickets.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/24/texas-log-cabin-republicans/.

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

Lawyers preparing for abortion prosecutions sound the alarm on health care data privacy

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

A young woman and her mother are nervously driving through the night when they’re pulled over by law enforcement. Flashlights in their faces, the women are questioned about whether they’re heading for the border and whether the young woman might be pregnant, before being pulled out of the car.

This political ad, released ahead of the 2020 election, speculated about what a post-Roe v. Wade future might look like as Republican states sought to crack down on abortion ban violators.

In the weeks since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional protection for abortion, the ad went viral, contributing to growing fears of state border checkpoints and widespread data mining to track menstruation and pregnancy outcomes.

“But I think the reality is, the vast majority of these criminal cases are going to begin in kind of more mundane and common ways,” said Emma Roth, staff attorney at National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Despite fears of unconstitutional legal gambits and Big Brother-style tracking, lawyers and experts predict that much of what is expected to unfold over the coming months and years will look very familiar.

More than 1,700 people have faced criminal charges over pregnancy outcomes since 1973, according to NAPW. Like a woman charged with murder for a “self-induced abortion” in Starr County earlier this year, many pregnant people who get caught up in the criminal justice system are reported to law enforcement by health care workers. Like a woman in Mississippi who was charged with murder after a stillbirth, many people willingly turn over digital records that are used to incriminate them.

Reproductive justice lawyers say they are focused not on preparing for a potential dystopian future like the one presented in the commercial, but on educating health care providers, lawyers and pregnant people about what they can do to protect themselves right now — with the rights they still have available to them.

Criminalizing pregnancy and abortion

In January, a 26-year-old woman in rural South Texas went to Starr County Memorial Hospital for complications related to a self-managed abortion.

A nurse at the hospital reported her to law enforcement, and in April, the woman was charged with murder and imprisoned on a $500,000 bond. The district attorney later dismissed the charges, acknowledging that Texas law specifically exempts someone who has an abortion from being prosecuted for murder.

Despite the legal missteps, this case tread a very familiar path for pregnancy criminalization.

“The most common way that a criminal case begins is that they are reported by a medical provider,” Roth said.

Getting an illegal abortion looks very different in 2022 than it did in 1972: Many people who would have turned to surgical abortions can now have pills discreetly mailed to their homes. There are international nonprofits that have publicly flouted state and federal regulations for years to provide these medications to people in states that restrict abortion access.

The two-drug regimen is generally safe and effective, when taken as recommended, but there is always a risk of medical complications.

Advocates worry that people who self-manage an abortion — or experience a miscarriage that resembles an abortion — may not seek out necessary medical assistance if they fear being prosecuted.

Although Texas’ abortion law specifically exempts pregnant patients, the Starr County case exemplifies the ways they can still get caught up in the system.

“We know that prosecutors are going to try to criminally punish people, irrespective of what the law says,” said Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel at If/When/How, a reproductive justice legal nonprofit, in an interview last month. “For us to be able to resist this criminalization, it is important to note that it is unlawful criminalization. Merely being an act of a prosecutor doesn’t mean that it’s the law.”

Pregnant people may also worry about anyone who, in the language of the law, “aided and abetted” or helped “furnish the means” for an abortion — friends who drove them over state lines, someone who mailed them pills, a doctor who provided an ultrasound to ensure they completed the abortion.

“People are living in constant fear [because] they wouldn’t want to do anything that would jeopardize the liberty of their loved ones or their medical providers, and as a result, may avoid necessary health care,” Roth said.

Prosecutors in five Texas counties have vowed that they will not pursue abortion-related charges, but legislators are already discussing ways they may empower other district attorneys to bring charges outside their jurisdiction.

And Texas’ abortion laws do not bring only criminal penalties. The trigger law, which goes into effect later this summer to coincide with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, also has civil penalties of at least $100,000 per abortion, and under a law commonly referred to as Senate Bill 8, anyone who “aids or abets” in a prohibited abortion can be sued for up to $10,000 by any private citizen.

Anti-abortion lawyers have already begun filing pre-lawsuit petitions to depose abortion providers and abortion funders to gain information about potential prohibited abortions, in hopes of bringing lawsuits.

Already, advocacy groups have mobilized resources for people who face prosecution — or fear it. If/When/How operates a legal help line that answers questions and helps connect people to legal resources around abortion access. NAPW provides pro bono legal representation to people who are facing criminalization over a pregnancy outcome with the slogan, “If you are locked up because you are knocked up — call NAPW!”

Role of health care providers

Advocates and lawyers are working to arm health care providers and pregnant patients with information about their rights.

Since Texas’ current abortion laws do not require providers to report someone they suspect may have undergone an illegal abortion, providers who do proactively report to law enforcement may be in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance clarifying providers’ obligation under HIPAA, stressing the importance of “giving individuals confidence that their protected health information … including information relating to abortion and other sexual and reproductive health care, will be kept private.”

The guidance makes clear that providers cannot disclose to law enforcement that a patient is considering seeking an illegal or out-of-state abortion, or provide data on all abortions performed at a facility without a court order.

Roth said this is an important message right now, as many health care providers may be inclined to over-report for fear of being criminalized themselves.

“They are very concerned about the liability of not reporting,” Roth said. “I hope that this guidance clarifies that they should also be concerned about being found in violation of federal law if they report when they should not have done so.”

But HIPAA does not offer blanket protection to people navigating the health care system.

“Law enforcement could also use a court order, a court-ordered warrant, subpoenas and administrative requests to compel a health care provider to release a patient’s medical records in the case of a suspected illegal abortion,” said Rebecca Reingold, associate director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. “A health care provider could refuse to comply but would likely face fines or penalties for doing so.”

Digital privacy 

HIPAA also applies only to “covered entities,” like health care providers and insurers. Other health care services, including health tracking apps, are not protected by HIPAA and can potentially leave a trail of breadcrumbs that could help law enforcement identify illegal abortions.

“There’s a lot of different ways that we are … leaving recorded footprints, both where we go online, but then the real kicker is, where we go in the real world with your location tracking,” said Jen King, privacy and data policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.

This digital footprint trails behind each of us, documenting where we go, what we search, who we text and call, and with services like period tracking apps, when we menstruate — or don’t menstruate.

“Law enforcement can access all of that through warrants or even, depending on who they’re asking, sometimes providers will just hand that information over,” King said.

This has led many people to delete their period tracking apps, and Democratic U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden have introduced a pair of bills that would limit the sale of health and location data collected from smartphones.

But many digital security advocates are pushing back against the idea that the average person using an app to track their period is going to get caught up in a digital dragnet, at least at this point.

“Period trackers are not the primary form of digital evidence likely to be used in abortion prosecutions today,” said Kendra Albert, a lawyer with the ​​Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School, in a Medium post. “If tracking your period is useful to you, you don’t need to stop tracking your period, although you may choose to switch to an app that collects less data and stores it locally.”

Most often, the trail of information becomes relevant once law enforcement is already investigating a suspected illegal abortion that was reported by friends, family or medical professionals.

In 2017, Latice Fisher delivered a stillborn baby at her home in Mississippi; she was 35 weeks pregnant. Fisher originally told health care professionals that she didn’t know she was pregnant.

But when Fisher voluntarily handed her phone over to the police, they found she had googled how to buy abortion-inducing medication 10 days before she gave birth. She was charged with second-degree murder, though there was no concrete evidence that she took the medication.

After Fisher spent several weeks in jail, the district attorney put the case to a second grand jury, which declined to indict her.

“What’s really important about that case is that the police didn’t need to seek a warrant because she actually willingly handed over her phone,” Roth said. “Never, ever hand your phone over to law enforcement if they don’t have a warrant, and also don’t talk to law enforcement without your attorney present.”

If someone is actively seeking out an abortion, lawyers and digital security experts recommend taking precautions — using a secure browser and relying on encrypted texting services or burner phones for communication, as a starting point.

But for people fearful of potentially needing an abortion in the future, King said, it’s difficult to fully cover your tracks all the time.

“Those are all fingers in the leaking dam,” King said. “You can try to plug them all, but then you’ll basically be living like somebody who practices operational security for a living. That’s hard. I don’t even do all that.”

When you join us at The Texas Tribune Festival Sept. 22-24 in downtown Austin, you’ll hear from changemakers who are driving innovation, lawmakers who are taking charge with new policies, industry leaders who are pushing Texas forward and so many others. See the growing speaker list and buy tickets.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/25/abortion-prosecution-data-health-care/.

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

Capitol rioter busted after calling FBI hotline to “clear his name”

A Pennsylvania man tried an unusual strategy for avoiding punishment after taking part in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol: He called the FBI hotline using just part of his name.

It didn’t work out so well for Samuel Fontanez Rodriguez, 33, of Emmaus, PA. Rodriguez was arrested Friday on charges of illegal entry, disorderly conduct and parading at the Capitol. 

Rodriguez had called the FBI National Threat Operations Center on January 22, 2021, as “Samuel Fontanez,” according to the FBI criminal complaint against him. He provided his birth date, phone number and address, the report said.

“Fontanez further stated that he called to clear his name surrounding the events at the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021,” the report stated. “Fontanez further stated that he was at the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021, and he was exposed to tear gas and smoke bombs. Fontanez stated he was in the area of the U.S. Capitol building from approximately 2:05 p.m. to 2:22 p.m. Fontanez stated he entered the Capitol building for a short period of time. After he exited the building, he turned around and took a photograph of the Capitol building.”

Rodriguez’ self-incriminating information was corroborated by fellow rioter Jackson Kostolsky, who had listed Rodriguez in his cell phone as “New Sammy Dose.” Kostolsky pleaded guilty last September to misdemeanor charges in connection with the riot.

Rodriguez repeated the allegations against himself in an interview with FBI agents at his home. You can read the FBI statement of facts here.

“Better Call Saul” explains what Cinnabon means to Gene Takavic, and to us

To mark the long-delayed, highly anticipated reappearance of Gene Takavic, Jimmy McGill’s secondary alter ego after he had to burn Saul Goodman, “Better Call Saul” invites us to contemplate Cinnabon’s signature treat.

The mall food chain’s cinnamon rolls rank among America’s most irresistible and entirely unnecessary delights. You may go to the mall saying to yourself, “Dammit, I need a Cinnabon roll today,” while knowing good and well you don’t need it. You simply want it.

If the Cinnabon does its job as intended, you may never experience the sugar high and crash it causes, just the sweet satisfaction of a craving sated. You will never feel the whole truth of it, which is that this baked good is quite bad for your health.

“But every now and then,” as Gene (Bob Odenkirk) reminds his latest mark, the security guard at Omaha’s Cottonwood Mall, “no harm, right?”

“Nippy,” written by Alison Tatlock and directed by Michelle MacLaren, fulfills the promise Gene made to “The Disappearer”/Vacuum Repairman Ed Galbraith to “fix” a situation involving a cab driver named Jeff (Pat Healy, taking over the role from Don Harvey) who recognized him as Saul Goodman from his time spent in Albuquerque.

Related

Breaking up with “Saul’s” Kim Wexler

This DIY correction involves Gene/Jimmy luring in Jeff and his friend to pull off an elaborate department store heist, which he accomplishes by insinuating himself into the good graces of Jeff’s mother Marion, played by the incomparable Carol Burnett. Marion rolls into Gene when her motorized chair is stopped by a small ridge of snow blocking the sidewalk on her way home from her grocery run.  

It’s just high enough to prevent her from passing, and Gene happens to be nearby posting signs about his missing Pomeranian. His nonexistent companion Nippy is the type of adorable toy dog that only a gentle stranger would have. Marion lets her guard down and allows Gene to help her get past the snow ridge, then push her chair back to her house when it suddenly stops working, so of course he must stay for dinner. She’s making meatloaf.

Gene’s is a mystery wrapped in ordinariness, a badly mustachioed man wearing … soulless corporate flare that reads, “I am making the world a more delicious place.”

Before “Nippy,” Jimmy’s resurfacing at a Cinnabon in Nebraska played as an extension of a throwaway line Saul busted out at the end of “Breaking Bad”: “From here on out, I’m Mr. Low Profile,” he says to Walter White (Bryan Cranston). “Just another douchebag with a job and three pairs of Dockers. If I’m lucky, a month from now, best-case scenario, I’m managing a Cinnabon in Omaha!”

Never speak your fears aloud.

Gene’s Cinnabon landing may seem like a cruel accident, but this late-in-the-season hour reveals it to be a metaphor for the man we’ve gotten to know. Gene Takavic is simply the frosting around several layers surrounding a softhearted center – and we all know that the center is the best part.

Better Call SaulBob Odenkirk as Gene and Carol Burnett as Marion in “Better Call Saul” (Greg Lewis/AMC/Sony Pictures Television)

But Gene’s also a mystery wrapped in ordinariness, a badly mustachioed man wearing a company polo shirt and soulless corporate flair that reads, “I am making the world a more delicious place.” Like the baked goods he manufactures every day, the man employs a few secret ingredients that only those watching closely will recognize. The personality Marion meets is named Gene but behaves like Jimmy, the son so beloved by his mother that she asked for him on her deathbed, not her responsible boy Chuck who was sitting with her.

Gene survives by hiding within a batter of unnecessary indulgence. But Jimmy knows how to charm his way into an old woman’s life.

By showing Jeff that he knows where he lives and ensnaring Marion’s affections, Gene reels the cab driver into a mad after-hours dash to swipe a variety of luxury brand clothing items – three of each – in under three minutes and 12 seconds.

This is precisely the amount of time it takes the mall’s senior security guard Frank Danielsen (“Parks and Recreation” star Jim O’Heir) to devour one of Gene’s cinnamon rolls prepared expressly for him and his partner, whom the Cinnabon manager visits precisely when the junior guard must head out on his rounds.

Gene explains his first delivery of the cinnamon rolls as his way of thanking them for reviving him after he fainted, but keeps coming back afterward, frosted temptations in hand, because who can say no to that? The scent alone announces itself like an irresistible perfume on a seductress cloaked in the illusion of love.

And Gene makes sure that Frank doesn’t multitask when he enjoys Cinnabon treasure. The only things Frank pays attention to as he’s civilly dining on the ooey, gooey spirals in front of him are how it tastes, and that day’s conversation about last night’s game.

A couple of months after the first season of “Better Call Saul” premiered in 2015, Odenkirk revealed to James Corden on “The Late Late Show” that as part of his prep for the series, Cinnabon sent an official representative to show the actor the proper way to make one of its rolls. 

“You put me in front of a bunch of margarine, I can make one to specs,” he tells Corden. “I know how to run the machine and plop it out and roll it out and put the margarine on and the various ingredients – which are all bad for you! But you know that.”

This is proprietary knowledge, by the way, because as anybody who has eaten a Cinnabon knows, it has some ingredients and techniques that make it stand apart from a typical cinnamon roll, even the ones mother used to make. Hacks and copycat recipes created from practice and guesswork abound but they can only replicate it to a point. For example, the type of cinnamon the company uses is trademarked.

What makes the rolls so precisely soft and gooey? Odenkirk knows, as does Gene Takavic. But the man we witness in “Nippy” isn’t entirely Jimmy, or “Slippin’ Jimmy,” or Saul, or Gene. He’s some integrated version of all of them, with his long lost partner-in-crime Marco’s pinky ring acting as a binding agent.

Wholesome and sinful in the same pass, consuming a Cinnabon roll flips all the brain’s pleasure switches before the reality registers in the digestive system with a thud.

Before embarking on his Cinnabon recon and designing the department store robbery, he unearths the ring from an old shoebox where he’s hidden it and slides it on. For luck? Out of tradition? To demarcate the border between normal, black-and-white life and something else? Guess away, because that’s also proprietary knowledge.

As is the case with many of Jimmy’s cons, something goes wrong. Jeff is nailing his run, but on the homeward dash he slips magnificently and knocks himself out. To keep Frank distracted, Gene pretends to suddenly crumble. Frank buys Gene’s outburst because it’s partly true – another of the con artist’s secret ingredients.

Reminding Frank he has a wife, he blurts, “I have no one. My parents are dead. My brother . . . ” he theatrically cries, before dropping the charade to plug into real depression and continues. “My brother is dead. I, uh, I have no wife. No kids. No friends. If I die tonight, no one would care! What difference would it make?”

Frank spends enough time making Jimmy feel better for Jeff to resume consciousness and complete the mission. Later, Gene makes Jeff feel worse, reeling off the laws he’s broken. “It’s called mutually assured destruction. So: If I go down, you go down.”

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

Wholesome and sinful in the same pass, consuming a Cinnabon roll flips all the brain’s pleasure switches before the reality registers in the digestive system with a thud. According to Cinnabon’s nutritional information table, one classic roll adds 880 calories and a heart-skipping 37 grams of fat to your daily intake.

Along those same lines, the department store doesn’t seem to notice any of the merchandise Jeff pilfered is missing, in part because none of the so-called luxury items he’s taken are essential. The missing merch is a lot like Cinnabon and Gene Takavic that way – nobody needs them to live, and yes, that phrase is to be taken in multiple ways. As Gene tells Frank, if he vanished overnight, the Cinnabon would simply find a new manager and continue as if he’d never been there.

“Nippy” ends by hinting that Gene/Jimmy is thinking about taking advantage of the anonymity baked into that mall job, showing him perusing a few loudly patterned shirts and a tie that clashes enough to burst through the episode’s black-and-white filter.

Before that happens, though, he’ll have to find a way to let down Marion as easily as possible. As he’s trying to separate himself from Jeff, Marion invites Gene into her home again to help her with the groceries, expressing her hope that he’ll stick close to her son.

“You’re a good influence, Gene,” she says. But we know that’s just the impression left by that sweet first taste.

New episodes of “Better Call Saul” air Mondays at 9 p.m. on AMC.

Read more

about “Better Call Saul” and Cinnabon

Trump deleted lines from his speech about prosecuting Jan. 6 rioters after Capitol insurrection

Donald Trump removed lines about prosecuting January 6 rioters from a speech he delivered the day after the Capitol riot, according to congressional testimony provided on Monday. 

The former president reportedly deleted a line that disavowed the actions of the insurrectionists. “I want to be very clear: You do not represent me. You do not represent our movement,” the line allegedly read. 

Trump was also originally supposed to direct the Department of Justice “to ensure all lawbreakers are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

“We must send a clear message – not with mercy but with JUSTICE. Legal consequences must be swift and firm,” the initial draft of his speech read.

RELATED: Trump “was the cancer in the center” of January 6 plot

During the select committee’s eighth hearing last week, the panel played footage of closed-door testimony from former Trump adviser Jared Kushner, the former president’s son-in-law, who told the committee that he attempted “to put together some draft remarks for Jan. 7 that we were going to present to the president to try to say like we felt it was important to further call for de-escalation.” 

“Do you know why [Trump] wanted that crossed out?” an investigator asked Kushner, referencing sections of Trump’s speech that had been omitted. 

“I don’t know,” Kushner responded.

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

According to closed-door testimony from John McEntee, a former Trump aide, Kushner had asked McEntee to encourage Trump to “help everything cool down” by delivering a conciliatory address. 

“Was the implication that the president was in some ways reluctant to give that speech?” an investor inquired of McEntee.

“Yeah,” McEntee. 

“OK, what do you base that on?” the investigator asked again. 

“The fact that somebody has to tell me to nudge it along,” McEntee responded. 

RELATED: Flailing Trump has extended meltdown on Truth Social over Jan. 6 hearing

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone meanwhile told the committee that Trump should have issued more forceful remarks against the rioters. “In my view,” Cipillone said, “he needed to express very clearly that the people who committed violent acts, went into the Capitol, did what they did, should be prosecuted and should be arrested.”

11 totally DIY-able headboard ideas

You know by now that a good headboard works wonders in making a room feel more put together and, well . . . more adult. But let’s face it, not all headboards are created equal. These days, we’re majorly digging those that pack a punch and really add personality to a sleep space. And the good news is that we’ve found some incredible DIY-friendly options that you’ll want to (and should!) replicate in your own home. Whether your style leans boho and minimalist or bright and bold, we’ve got you covered — read on and pick a favorite.

1. Rustic Moment

Who needs a traditional headboard when you can hang beautiful wood panels behind your bed for some artful flair! This setup is a particularly excellent choice for those who love the rustic aesthetic and are drawn to warm wooden accents.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CcRfySqJLl4/

2. Rainbow Bright

For a little extra oomph, take the same slatted headboard concept as seen above but make it rainbow! Bonus points if you choose to keep the color scheme going on your walls by DIYing a vibrant mural.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CYHiaSlvIIb/

3. Geo Glam

Fake a headboard by installing geometric tiles behind your bed. If you’re a renter or a serial redecorator, you can achieve the same look by opting for something removable. Feel free to change up the colors or configuration as your heart desires.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CbigntOtbhg/

4. Sweet Scallops

Squiggly, scalloped designs are everywhere these days. Embrace this playful trend with a headboard that is sure to make a statement, whether it’s neutral in hue or a bright, bold color.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CcDxCr-rn-_/

5. Fresh Florals

Adhere faux flowers or vines to a standard headboard using a staple gun to add a whimsical touch to any sleep space — absolutely zero green thumb required!

https://www.instagram.com/p/CYCLYhqsoVI/

6. Supersized And Stylish

Go tall — headboards that practically touch the ceiling bring that luxe hotel vibe to any bedroom, but better yet, they also help to absorb sound. Sophistication and a peaceful night’s sleep? We’re all in.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMh5nPql29g/

7. Extra Long

Opt for a headboard that extends past the width of your bed to make a major style statement. Better yet, cover it in a patterned fabric that is bound to make you smile every time you walk into your room after a long day. Shades of yellow, anyone?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNSJ5nIMMJr/

8. Moody Noodles

Believe it or not, this headboard was actually made from foam pool noodles! If you don’t have any left over from your childhood summers, it’s easy to snag a bunch online ultra affordably to create the funky bedroom setup of your dreams.

https://www.instagram.com/p/COEIPbmJK6h/

9. Rocking Rattan

Embrace Scandi vibes with an oversized cane headboard that is sizable, yet by no means chaotic-looking, all thanks to its neutral hue. This one was designed to match the natural slope of the bedroom wall.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CB5qHZYpKi6/

10. Petite And Peppy

Even a smaller, twin bed deserves to have a statement headboard of its own. This scalloped one is whimsical and cozy, while also bringing a pop of color to the space.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUccBbcqIjZ/

11. Painted Perfection

Add a little more oomph to a standard bed frame by painting an arch on the wall directly behind the headboard. Select your bedding in a corresponding hue, and you’re golden.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVlC6HUMred/

11 expert tricks for making a small room look bigger

No Space Too Small is a column by Laura Fenton that celebrates the idea that you can live well in a small home. Each month, Laura will share her practical findings from years of observing how people live in tight spaces, and her own everyday experiences of living small — from the hunt for the perfect tiny desk and managing everyday clutter to how to smooth the frustrations out of cooking in a galley kitchen.

When I published my book about small-space living two years ago, one of the most common questions that came up was: “How do I make a small room look bigger?” At first I was confused by this query; in all my years of living small, I had never consciously strived to make a room look bigger. My design goals had been how to live more comfortably or to sneak more storage into a tiny space. However, as the question came up again and again, I realized what people were asking was: How do you make a small space feel more spacious? Or, even more likely: Help! I’m overwhelmed by my small space.

I’ve lived in a lot of small spaces, and looking back, I’ve subconsciously made all of them feel more roomy than they really are. In fact, when my very first solo apartment appeared in one of Time Out New York‘s small spaces issues years ago, almost everyone who saw the photo insisted that the apartment must be larger than the 200 square feet the article claimed (I assure you it wasn’t!). I ended up with a full-page photo of my tiny studio, and I can tell you the trick that made thatapartment look bigger: The photographer was standing on my fire escape shooting through the window and using a wide-angle lens!

The other factor in play was the fact that I was a 20-year-old who just didn’t own much stuff yet. My only furniture was a bed, two folding chairs, a fold-up table, a futon-style couch, and a bunch of wooden wine crates that passed as occasional tables, which brings me to my first rule of making a small room feel larger:

Declutter. Declutter. Declutter.

The fastest, easiest way to make your small space feel more spacious is to declutter. Period. Less stuff equals more space. Getting rid of the excess is key to giving you room to breathe. (Need some inspo to get started? The Home52 team has you covered with this, this, and this.) OK, now that we’ve gotten the elephant in the room (too much stuff!) out into the open, I can dive into the more nuanced tips and tricks that can help create a feeling of spaciousness, so read on.

Trick the eye with color.

Paint your ceiling the same color as your walls, suggests Shavonda Gardner, a designer blogger based in Sacramento, California. “It gives the illusion of more space because the eye doesn’t stop at a white ceiling. This is especially the case with dark colors.” Gardner also recommends painting your baseboards and trim the same color as the walls and ceiling, which she says has the same effect of expanding the space and continuing your gaze.

Make strategic use of mirrors.

It’s an old chestnut of advice, but a well-positioned mirror can make a room look larger. In my own home a mirror hung above my husband’s desk (strategically high enough not to capture the reflection of work clutter) doubles the view opposite. I once stayed in a hotel that had narrow pieces of mirror fitted into the narrow strips of wall on either side of the window — a tiny detail that seemed to expand the view and amplified the daylight. However, beware of mirrored glass furniture, which can make a room look cluttered when it reflects its surrounding furnishings (and household clutter).

Don’t fear pattern!

I confess that I have not yet dabbled in wallpaper (someday!), but I’ve seen firsthand how wall patterns can create depth in a small room. Contrary to the popular wisdom that patterns make a small space feel cramped, a gorgeous wallpaper can soften the perception of a room’s corners. Case in point: Gardner’s laundry room, which appeared in my book, expands in its jungle-inspired wallpaper by Justina Blakeney; plus, it’s just a visual delight! The key is to choose a large-scale print like Gardner did and avoid itsy-bitsy prints. A bold wallpaper is also a classic decorator move for a small powder room.

Choose your furnishings with care.

Strategic choices in furniture can go a long way toward making your tiny digs look larger, but don’t feel like you have to buy everything specifically designed with small-space living in mind. One option is to make some of your furniture disappear — literally — by opting for glass, lucite, and acrylic pieces. As a bonus, clear furniture looks great with almost any style of decor. You can also seek out low-slung furniture: By choosing pieces that sit closer to the ground, you’ll open up space above giving a lofty feeling; for example, platform beds and slipper chairs are typically a few inches shorter than their counterparts.

But what about white?

Paint it white! is often the first thing people will tell you: It’s advice that pro designers and color lovers despise, but . . . I do think a coat of white paint can work wonders in most spaces. Yes, it’s literally plain vanilla, but an all-white room often does feel airy and open. And if you follow Gardner’s advice from above, and paint a room all white — ceilings, moldings, window trim and all — you’ll erase the visual breaks that make a room feel small. In an attempt to embrace color, I painted my tiny bathroom a rich navy blue, and honestly, it made the room feel much smaller. That said, our back bedroom gets almost zero daylight; its white walls are doing nothing for the room and I bet you a mid-tone would expand the room. If you like white, this is still an easy, low-budget way to try to make a space look bigger.

Don’t tear down all the walls.

“I often hear that when you have a small space, it’s better to use one light color on the walls and take away all the unnecessary walls to favor space. I do just the opposite,” says Marianne Evennou, a Paris interior designer known for her mastery of tiny apartments. “The more walls I have, the more I can create a sense of depth by playing with the perspectives. This is reinforced by the use of different colors and materials.”

However, if you do have time (and budget) to make renovations, here are a few ways to make a small space seem bigger:

Create clean lines.

“Look to create clean lines — always,” says New York City-based architect Kenny Payero, whose work was featured in my book (and here on Home52). “Align things, equally-space things, and make a lot of different things look like one single element.” It may feel counterintuitive to take away space, but 

Payero says that sometimes he has to build out to create a continuous line. “If you see lots of jogs in the walls and the ceilings, it’s because the builder tried to waste the least amount of space to cover pipes, columns, etc., but these jogs are visual clutter. I’d rather build out to align and straighten lines. Sometimes you lose a little space, but most times I can regain that space by creating a recessed niche, shelf, or hidden cabinet.”

Streamline your ceiling.

Payero agrees with Gardner that ceilings are important to our perception of space, but he favors changing the structure over the color. “If you perceive a clean ceiling then you feel the whole space,” says Payero. “I try to avoid creating soffits and keep a clean rectangular ceiling, especially if you want crown moldings. Too many corners in the walls and ceiling is visual clutter that makes the space feel smaller.”

Give rooms additional “exits.”

“I never enclose spaces,” says Evennou. “I always create openings for the eye to escape. Even a small space should give you the feeling of an inner journey with borders that allow you to move from one universe to another.” Among Evennou’s signature “escape” routes are to install interior windows (a feature I long for in my own home!) and glass interior doors. But if you can’t bring in a contractor for a literal window, a large landscape photo or painting give the eye a place to wander.

Looking for more ways to make a small room look bigger? Last month’s installment of No Space Too Small was all about making the most of small bedrooms, but there are plenty of lessons in there that could be applied to the whole house (oversized art, ditching unnecessary doors, and more!).

Should you be exercising twice as much? A new study has surprising health findings

For years, Americans have been told by doctors and medical groups that 150 minutes per week of “moderate-intensity” exercise is the sweet spot to maximize health and longevity. That recommendation, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes as ideal on their website and literature, equates to about 5 half-hour workouts per week. The reason that more exercise than that isn’t often advertised is because, unlike some pursuits, the relationship between exercise and health benefits did not seem to scale linearly.

Now, a new, huge study casts doubt on that suggested number. Indeed, it turns out that getting twice as much exercise may actually bring with a host of health benefits. That suggests that millions of us who are moderately active, and following the exercise wisdom of our doctors, may want to consider doubling (or more) our weekly workout time in order to live longer and be healthier.

In the recent study — which was published in the scientific journal Circulation — scientists looked at a sample size of more than 116,000 US adults divided into two cohorts. The researchers analyzed self-reported leisure-time physical activity as the scientists followed up with members of the cohorts over a period of 30 years (1988 to 2018). Within that group, more than 47,000 passed away, while the rest supported a wide range of health conditions within that span.

RELATED: The damning portrayals of Peloton on our TVs and what that says about us

As they discovered, a big factor in terms of determining how much you should exercise is the rigorousness of the exercise in question itself. As of 2018, the physical activity guidelines for Americans recommended a minimum of 150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate physical activity and 75 to 150 minutes per week of vigorous physical activity. If that already sounds strenuous, guess what? You should be doubling it — or, barring that, putting in “an equivalent combination of both.”

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

“The nearly maximum association with lower mortality was achieved by performing [approximately] 150 to 300 minutes per week of long-term leisure-time [vigorous physical activity], 300 to 600 [minutes] per week of long-term leisure-time [moderate physical activity], or an equivalent combination of both,” the study’s authors conclude.

The study is sufficiently thorough to be taken seriously, scientists say. One fitness expert, Harvard University professor of human evolutionary biology Daniel E. Lieberman, described the study to Salon in writing as “excellent” and added that “the results make total sense.”

“[Fifty] minutes a week of moderate vigorous physical activity has been sort of set in stone as the standard minimum recommendation, but the word ‘minimum’ is often left out of the conversation, and few studies have ever argued that additional physical activity – especially vigorous physical activity — wasn’t more beneficial,” Lieberman explained. “The question has always been how much more and what intensity yields what degree of benefit. This study provides excellent evidence to bolster evidence that more than 150 minutes has benefits, especially when it is vigorous.”

Referencing his own recent book “Exercised,” Lieberman added that the study “also reinforces other evidence that concerns over exercising too much are overblown.”

The news may be somewhat discouraging to people who have repeatedly tried to lose weight and found that it is difficult to shed the pounds. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it is difficult for most people to both lose weight and keep it off, and that this difficulty can frustrate people who want to become healthier out of doing so. Yet even if the weight does not come off as quickly or significantly as you might like, your health will still benefit tremendously just by improving your diet and exercise habits.

“This study provides excellent evidence to bolster evidence that more than 150 minutes [per week] has benefits, especially when it is vigorous.”

Lieberman made a similar point.

“What all these studies do show is that some exercise is always better than none, that eventually the benefits level off, and that mixing it up is also beneficial,” Lieberman pointed out. “Moderate aerobic activity is the bedrock of every exercise regime, but some degree of strength training is important especially as we age, and some vigorous physical activity is almost always beneficial for those who can tolerate it safely.” Moreover, the situation is complicated by “many factors such as age, gender, fitness, health status, previous physical activity history, and so on.”

Yet one thing is indisputable: If you focus on being healthy, there are unlikely to be downsides.

“I’d remind readers that this study (like so many) looks only at lifespan, not healthspan,” Lieberman explained. “Physical activity has stronger effects on healthspan than lifespan. Put differently, what physical activity really does is reduce one’s vulnerability to a wide range of diseases, thus increasing healthspan, hence lifespan (as well as quality of life). I think we need to be more concerned about healthspan.”

For more Salon articles about fitness:

Move over, ketchup. There’s a new, fresher and more seasonal way to use up summer tomatoes

There are entire internet communities dedicated to the hate of ketchup. One that I find particularly interesting is a Facebook group called “Ketchup is a Garbage Condiment,” which I discovered while specifically writing about how ketchup, an invention of imperial China, became an American staple, albeit a polarizing one. 

This 13,000-member group was created with a satirical mission centered partially on exposing the “over use of ketchup we see on our feeds.” Dig around within the group, and you’ll find entire folders of photos of ketchup used in increasingly unorthodox — and occasionally stomach-turning — places: on macaroni and cheese, as a “dip” for Cheez-Its or smeared on croissants. 

Related

My virtual life as a jam maker in “Stardew Valley,” where small-batch food takes down Big Business

Does your kid eat scrambled eggs with ketchup? Most of the members would jokingly counsel you to simply “toss the whole kid, make a new one.” 

My feelings about ketchup definitely don’t run that deep. I don’t hate ketchup. It’s just not something I actively seek out. In my mind, a good burger doesn’t need it. The Chicagoan in me prevents me from putting it on hot dogs. I’m a heathen who prefers my french fries with aioli (or even just straight-up mayonnaise). 

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

However, the tomato condiment that I have become particularly passionate about this summer is tomato jam. It’s incredibly easy to make, as it takes only four ingredients and less than an hour to put together.

Tomato jam is sweet, thick and slightly acidic, making it an ideal addition to basic sandwiches, avocado toast and cheese plates. Currently, I’m loving it on vegan brioche that’s been toasted and topped with cashew milk ricotta. 

4-Ingredient Summer Tomato Jam
Yields
12 servings
Prep Time
10 minutes
Cook Time
40 minutes

Ingredients

Directions

  1. In a small pot, combine the tomatoes, agave to taste, apple cider vinegar and a generous pinch of salt. Just cover the mixture with water and bring to a boil, before reducing to a simmer.
  2. Stir occasionally as the mixture thickens — making sure to scrape the bottom and sides of the pot. It should take 30 to 45 minutes.
  3. Remove the jam from heat. Season again with salt to taste. After it’s cooled, place the jam in a sealable glass jar or plastic container. It will last for about 2 weeks.

Cook’s Notes

While this recipe is delicious when made with only four ingredients, feel free to tailor it to your specific tastes. Additions like black olives, fresh basil, rosemary, red pepper flakes or even roasted red pepper would be absolutely delicious.

Read more

about all things tomato

How cookbook writer Eric Kim found home through Korean-American food: “I’m obsessed with nostalgia”

Food has always been a central part of Eric Kim’s story, though he initially didn’t think of it as a career. For years, Kim had his sights set on working in academia. Before that, he toyed with the ideas of poetry and pop stardom.

But fate ultimately brought him back into the kitchen, where he’s used his creativity and love of language to write about food that reminds him of home in all its many different forms. His debut cookbook, aptly titled “Korean American: Food that Tastes Like Home,” is a stunning culmination of that work packed with playful recipes like cheeseburger kimbap and crispy lemon-pepper bulgogi with quick-pickled shallots.

“Sometimes, when I’m writing recipe head notes, it feels like I’m writing a lyric because you have to be really concise,” Kim told Salon. “Everything kind of makes sense for me in the end, but I think that’s just because I like to make things sound prettier than they were.”

Related

The best way to make kimchi, according to my Korean mom

The cookbook offers readers a primer on what a Korean-American pantry looks like, how Korean cooking is interwoven throughout the history of America (especially in Atlanta where he grew up) and how Kim developed his “Korean-ish” meals for one — such as gochujang-buttered radish toast and caramelized-kimchi baked potatoes.

Watch Kim’s interview with “Salon Talks” or read the transcript below to learn more, as well as to find out what inspired his exodus from academia, what it’s like to interview one’s parents for a cookbook and what ingredient absolutely can’t be substituted in his recipes.

This conversation has been edited lightly for clarity and length. 

One of the things that was really apparent in your book “Korean American” is this beautiful undercurrent of nostalgia. When you think back to the foods of your childhood, what comes to mind for you?

The title page of my book has a picture of me and my dog on the rug of the Airbnb we were shooting the book at, but I was holding a bowl of gyeran bap, which is egg rice, and that’s certainly something I remember very vividly because it has all the components of the flavors I associate with home. And the main flavor for me is toasted sesame oil, chamgireum. I can add it to a salad. I can add it to anything, and I know it will remind me of my mom’s food. I think it says a lot about Korean food too. It’s a very important seasoning to the point where there’s like a whole flavor word for it, kosoham, which refers to nuttiness

You had initially thought about pursuing a career in academia, then you got rerouted to food. What sparked that transition?

I was so set on just being in school for as long as possible because I really liked it. I always loved my English courses in high school and I remember in 10th grade deciding that I wanted to be a literature professor. And so, I kind of stuck with it for a good seven years. I went to school in New York, studied English and graduated a year early so I could go straight into a PhD program, because I thought that’d be a good idea, which it was not. But I’m really grateful for the experience because I think it taught me how to be an academic.

What journalism did for me years later was teach me how to present it to the world in a way that’s digestible, like literally and through my words. I just had an edit yesterday actually by my wonderful deputy editor, Patrick Ferrell, he said, “This word ‘temporalities’ is a little academic.” And I didn’t say it to him at the time, but actually my dissertation was going to be about temporality in ethnicity and 20th century literature. No one would’ve read it.

I think academia was my way of figuring out what I wanted to do with my life. I failed an exam and dropped out and went straight into this Food Network job. It was like this entry level position that really taught me so much. And from there I just kind of found food writing and everything happens for a reason. Even before academia, I was a poet. I thought I would be like a poetry MFA. I had a pen name, and I was publishing poems. Before that, I was a songwriter because I thought I wanted to be a pop star. Sometimes, when I’m writing recipe head notes, it feels like I’m writing a lyric because you have to be really concise. Everything kind of makes sense for me in the end, but I think that’s just because I like to make things sound prettier than they were.

I’ve been following your writing since you were at Food52, and I remember your first column there. What was it like developing your first column? Did that help you find your voice as a food writer?

I’m really grateful for that job. It was a horrible job, to be frank, and a really difficult place to work. But I think I really took from it just writing every day and editing every day. It certainly helped me to be writing in a consistent way with that column. I just knew that I had this obsession about cooking for one and loneliness because I was a very lonely 20-something year old. I found my voice in memoir writing. I didn’t know I was doing it at the time, but these personal essays, sometimes I would go a little more ambitious and longer and those are the ones that would resonate with people. I do think I found my voice there. It sounds cheesy, but it was sort of a playground. It was sort of two years where I just kind of like did whatever I wanted, in terms of writing.

“I had a pen name, and I was publishing poems. Before that, I was a songwriter because I thought I wanted to be a pop star.”

It was like splattering paint on a wall and seeing what stuck.

Now, I really love [my current] job because at The Times it is a little slower. It’s not slower, it’s a daily newspaper, but I just mean that my process feels a little more natural and I’m really grateful for my editors for kind of giving us room to really explore these obsessions that we have. My obsession happens to no longer be cooking for one because I’m happily in a relationship. 

I’m obsessed with nostalgia. My magazine columns kind of explore that. I don’t know that it’s necessarily just nostalgia that I’m interested in, but I’m interested in the way when we bring the past into the present, how that illuminates a truth about contemporary culinary life. That’s something that I’m always trying to get at or explore. And sometimes it’s just a recipe, but sometimes I do arrive at this nice kind of thesis statement that causes a lot of conversation between people and that I think that’s what I want. I want people to really think about their lives and the present in regard to food. I think it’s a great way to kind of learn about yourself.

What is your recipe writing process like? Because you take these dishes that were potentially served to your family or served to a group, and you translate that into a dish for one or two. You have several of those, like the radish toast or the kimchi baked potatoes. I feel like those are perfect for a single person.

That was a big conversation while writing the cookbook because for two years I was writing these recipes for one, which are really easy to test because it’s just a single serving, and frankly, they were just my dinners. I was like, okay, how do I write about this thing I just made for myself? And then, my editor for the cookbook, Raquel Pelzel, was sort of like, “Why are some of these recipes for one and why are some of them recipes for four? Why are some six to eight?”

Food media has it so that we’re all eating for four people, we’re feeding four family members or something. I wanted to really explore how people really eat, which is when you’re making a baked potato sometimes it is just for yourself and that’s like the perfect meal for one. Toast is not something that needs to be a recipe for four because you can just scale it up easily if you’d like, but it’s just toast.

I really have always been fascinated by the occasions of eating. I think when I was writing about cooking for one, I was really obsessed with the occasions where we find ourselves eating alone. And I think this book happens to have recipes for one because even when we’re happily engaged or even if we family around, sometimes you just have to feed yourself. I am, as a recipe developer, interested in how to scale down things that are very difficult or scale up things that don’t need to be scaled up. I did a Long Island Iced Tea that was in a pitcher. It was really fun to develop. That was a wild week for me. But I really enjoy that challenge because sometimes you do want to make a batch mojito for friends and sometimes you do want to make fried chicken just for yourself. I think the question that I was often asked at my “Table for One” column was “Why would anyone do this?” Or “What’s the reason?” And sometimes the reason was just to treat myself.

I remember that when this cookbook was first announced, it was going to be called “The Essentials of Korean American Cooking,” which sounds very serious. I was curious if your vision for the book changed during the writing process.

You’re very observant. When I got the book deal, that was just a placeholder title. I can’t tell you how many weird titles I came up with that just never stuck. But actually it does tell the story of how the project evolved. It started out as a survey. It was going to be a survey of Korean American home cooking across the country. I was going to travel. I was going to go into people’s homes and try to be like a serious reporter.

This was before I got to the Times. I feel like that wouldn’t have gone well because I feel like I learned so much about reporting on the job, a year after I filed the book. What it ended up becoming was a document of my education. I went into it with a lot of fear because I was like, who the hell am I to talk about Korean food? I’m not an expert.

I think when you write a book, people think you’re an expert, but I think what makes you an expert is writing it.

I don’t know if my publicist wants me to say that, but it’s true. This book starts with me at 17 years old and then ends with me present day. I wanted to show that the discovery process of Korean food and all of the preconceptions I had to let go of in order to really learn.

I learned just by kind of leaving my own pride or preconceptions about cooking at the door. And I think that’s important whenever you follow a recipe that you might not be familiar with. I think people have this impulse to sear your meat before brazing it. But if a recipe tells you not to, then just don’t do it and see what happens and you might learn a lot. I learned how to cook this way, especially through Nigella Lawson’s recipes. She’s a wonderful recipe developer, but she’s also a great reporter. She reports on the accounts of how people cook more than just the best way to do something.

That’s never been my job to show you the best way, but what I really believe is that the best way is honoring what the recipe writer wanted you to learn from it. I think that’s the way the book [writing] changed [me]. It went from me presenting myself as an authority to kind of completely letting that go. In the process, I learned so much and I hope people read this and learn the same things.

Your book opens readers up to contemplating the foods or the recipes that made them who they are. What advice do you have for people who are potentially looking to go down that journey?

I really hope that it encourages people to call their moms and to stand by their side at the stove to see how they cook their special this or that. I think writing it down or even just filming it or recording the audio, all these things are things we don’t think to do.

“When you’re interviewing your parents, they’re always lying.”

We’re like, oh, I’ll do that tomorrow. But tomorrow might not exist. I don’t mean to be maudlin or anything, but I really do believe that writing down your family recipes is a way to also hear stories.

Me asking my mother how she cooks something, it’s not just like the technique, it opens up a whole conversation about her life and the time period of that first food memory of that dish. I learned so much about my family and I think that’s something that I really want to encourage. I think going at it with an open mind. And, just having that reporter hat on, you don’t have to be a reporter, but when you’re interviewing your parents, they’re always lying.

You have to get them to talk straight and it kind of teaches you how to listen. And I think as children, we don’t always listen to our parents. But asking them for a recipe is like the one time you’re really listening. My parents enjoyed it. They like attention and they like feeling seen, as do I. We all have that in common. They really enjoyed having these conversations because when the hell else are you going to do that?

One thing I also want to just say is that some of us aren’t lucky enough to have our parents still with us, or our grandparents or our uncles and aunts. So I want to say too, is you always have your taste memory to lean on and going back to the kitchen to try to figure out a memory is one way to really honor that person’s life.

I grew up in the Atlanta suburbs, so I was thrilled to see Atlanta pop up in your book. Did being raised in Atlanta, or perhaps the South at large, impact your sense of taste or what you’re looking for in a dish?

I think that I always kind of repudiated it in my maybe teens and twenties. I feel like no one really likes where they come. I had this realization that it’s not because Atlanta is lesser or anything. It actually has to do with the fact that I just wasn’t proud of the person I was when I was there because I wasn’t a fully-fledged human.

I think growing up is kind of trying to run away from yourself a little bit. So, spending time in Atlanta to write this book, was a really wonderful moment to recognize Atlanta restaurants and the Atlanta Korean-American community. It’s the community that raised me and it’s the community that taught me these early taste memories.

My mom wasn’t frying chicken at home. My aunt was at parties. The reason I even know what Korean fried chicken is because there are restaurants on Buford Highway that were making it. It was nice to pay homage to those little temp pools of restaurant memory. And a lot of those restaurants are still running and doing well. It was nice to kind of put a spotlight on them and to celebrate their food, which inspired a lot of the recipes in this book because I was a kid who went to restaurants with his mom in Atlanta.

In your opinion, what items belong in a Korean-American pantry? What do you keep on hand to throw together a quick dinner?

I have a line in there that says “you can’t cook this book without gochugaru.” Gochugaru is a Korean red pepper powder. It’s incredibly flavorful and versatile. If you have a bag of that and you keep it in your freezer, you can cook a lot of things in this book, including the kimchi, which is why it’s red. The red version has that crimson gleam. I also think kochujang is important. It’s made of ground up gochugaru, so they’re kind of related. And also related is doenjang, which is a fermented soybean paste. I think of it as the sister to kochujang, but much more original. It’s kind of like what Koreans were seasoning their food with before chili peppers came on the scene, chilies are actually quite new in Korean cuisine and people don’t realize that.

Then you go one step further, ganjang is soy sauce. So I think those ingredients are pretty standard and important to have. They’re also just really fun to cook with. I think they’re really versatile. I’m trying to really celebrate doenjang as something that you can use for all manner of things. I glaze fish with it. I make salad dressings with it. I’ve even put it in like my cacio pepe, like creamy pasta. It’s really good, lots of these recipes are on NYT Cooking.

I also think seaweed, like kim, which is a roasted seaweed, I use it for so much. It really tells the story of Korean food because Korea shores are rife with it. Kim is seasoned with salt and sesame oil. Sesame oil is, again, that flavor that really just brings me back home. It adds a nuttiness to something, just really makes you feel like the deepness of that dish. It’s a deep flavor. My mom says that it’s like, gip-eun mas, which means like deep taste. It’s like this low note that not many things can offer. I think those are my staples.

It’s really one of those things where you go to the Korean grocery store once, stock up on those few things, and then you can cook the rest of the book because you can get chicken anywhere. You can get jalapenos anywhere. People often ask me what they can substitute and there’s a dish called doenjang-glazed salmon and they’re like, “Can I make this with miso?” And I’m like, “Yeah, but it’s then you’re just not making the recipe. It’s like swap the salmon for tofu, but don’t swap the doenjang for miso, they’re not the same thing.” That’s something that I’m trying to teach people.

“Korean American: Food That Tastes Like Home” was released by Clarkson Potter Publishers on March 29.

Watch more

Salon Talks about food

The return of Joni Mitchell, the music great who’s always relevant

Joni Mitchell took the stage and stole the show at the Newport Folk Festival over the July 24 weekend. In a surprise performance, the music great made an unscheduled appearance with rocker Brandi Carlile, playing a full set, including a guitar solo. It was Mitchell’s first show in 20 years. 

Where has Mitchell been this whole time? Why does the festival have a particular hold on the performer, and why does Mitchell have such a hold on us culturally?

In recent years, Mitchell has both disappeared and been everywhere. Her song “Both Sides Now” was the emotional heart of the 2022 Oscar-winning film “CODA.” Though the film is somewhat controversial due to its dramatizing of deaf lives through an abled lens, there’s nothing questionable about its music. Emilia Jones’ performance is a stirring rendition of the deceptively simple song about clouds (but really, about growing, learning and changing your perceptions).

It was one of the songs Mitchell performed over the weekend, duetting with Carlile on it as well as on “A Case of You.” Like the Stevie Nicks’ classic “Landslide,” the lyrics of “Both Sides Now” were written when Mitchell was young but take on new relevance when sung by Mitchell, older and wiser now: “I’ve looked at life from both sides now/ From give and take and still somehow.”

Related

The solace of Joni Mitchell’s “River,” a holiday song that defies merry and bright expectations

Mitchell started performing as a teenager, singing in nightclubs in her native Canada before moving to the United States. In her early 20s, she became pregnant by an ex-boyfriend and gave the baby up for adoption (she and her grown daughter reunited in the 1990s). Her big break came when folk singer Tom Rush recorded one of her songs (which had been rejected by Judy Collins). Country singers were some of the first to embrace Mitchell’s work, and soon her songs were covered by popular folk musicians like Buffy Sainte-Marie . . . and eventually, Judy Collins herself.   

In 1968, Mitchell released her first album. By the next year, she had won her first Grammy. Her 1971 album “Blue” was an immediate hit, considered an instant classic. Other awards followed for albums like “Court and Spark” and “The Hissing of Summer Lawns.” 

By the ’90s, Critics began to write about a change in Mitchell’s voice, which was lower and huskier, unable to reach the highest notes, attributing it to smoking, though Mitchell also dealt with severe polio as a child and vocal nodules as an adult. In more recent years, Mitchell has said she has a skin condition. In 2015, she had a brain aneurysm rupture.

But it was not only health concerns that pushed Mitchell out of the spotlight in the past few years. She has spoken candidly about the music industry and its nefariousness, particularly for women, calling it a “cesspool” in a 2002 interview with Rolling Stone where she also was open about never having a decent deal for her music. She expressed her frustration in having to work in an industry where art was “calculated for sales,” saying, “I’m ashamed to be a part of the music business.” 

She told The Guardian in 2007, “The bosses were looking, thinking, ‘Oh, she’s getting old now, she’s just about 27.’ They want to dispose of you and get a 14-year-old in there.”

Mitchell announced multiple times she was quitting the music business, even quitting listening to music for several years, as it was too painful; she says she listened to talk shows instead. She turned more seriously to visual art, becoming a respected and distinctive painter (her art graces several of her album covers, including 2000’s “Both Sides Now”). 

But Mitchell was honored as MusiCares’ Person of the Year at this year’s Grammy’s, and she gave a brief performance then. Both artist and activist, not only have Mitchell’s songs been used as anti-war folk anthems over the years, the singer herself participated in anti-nuclear campaigns in the ’70s. She confronted Russian whalers with Greenpeace, and more recently, joined Neil Young in removing her music from Spotify as the platform continued to support the COVID misinformation spread by podcaster Joe Rogan.   

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

The Newport Folk Festival may hold a special place for Mitchell. She played there for the first time in 1969: Judy Collins had invited her on. Mitchell’s appearance over the weekend was the first at the festival for her since then, and she played one of the same songs: “Both Sides Now.”

The 78-year-old Mitchell started her set sitting down. But by the end, Joni Mitchell was on her feet again. 

Read more

from both sides now

Fox News fans turn on network after Bret Baier says Jan. 6 hearings make Trump “look horrific”

Fox News host Bret Baier said on Sunday that the January 6 hearings have made Donald Trump “look horrific.”

Baier’s remarks came shortly after the committee’s latest hearing on Thursday, which centered on the former president’s communications in the leadup to the insurrection and Trump’s failure to condemn it. 

“Laying out all these 187 minutes makes him look horrific, it really does,” said Baier during the channel’s “Media Buzz” segment. “To hear it and see it in that chronological order can be very powerful.”

Related

Fox News flips on Donald Trump during Jan. 6 hearings

Baier went on to suggest that the testimony from former Trump admins – like Sarah Matthews, Trump’s deputy White House press secretary, and former deputy White House press secretary Sarah Matthews – was particularly compelling. 

“All of these people who have been testifying at one point or another wanted Trump to win,” Baier said. “They served under his leadership. They wanted him to be a success.”

Last week, during the panel’s eighth hearing, Matthews and Pottinger testified that the former president repeatedly ignored pleas by his own officials to condemn the January 6 insurrection as it was taking place, as The Washington Post reported.

“The mob was accomplishing President Trump’s purpose, so of course he didn’t intervene,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger,R-Ill.) said during the hearing. “President Trump did not fail to act … He chose not to act.”

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

Over the past few weeks, Fox News, which originally trumpeted the former president’s baseless claims of election fraud, has grown increasingly critical of Trump as the January 6 hearings have played out. 

Apart from Baier, hosts Martha MacCallum, Brian Kilmeade, Sandra Smith, and analyst Andy McCarthy have either cast doubt on Trump’s claims of fraud or questioned his fitness for a second term. 

Related

“Not my president”: Fox News flashback features anti-Trump post from now Trump-endorsed candidate

The network’s sudden messaging pivot has not gone unnoticed by Trump, who on Monday blasted the network over its coverage of his polling. 

“@foxandfriends just really botched my poll numbers, no doubt on purpose,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, his social network platform. “That show has been terrible – gone to the ‘dark side.’ They quickly quote the big Turning Point Poll victory of almost 60 points over the number two Republican, and then hammer me with outliers.

His followers have also targeted Baier.

“Outrageous political censorship”: Hulu blocks Democratic ads hitting GOP on abortion rights, guns

Three Democratic Party committees on Monday protested the refusal of the streaming service Hulu to run several campaign ads denouncing Republican policies ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, with the Disney-owned company saying the content of the ads was too “sensitive” and “controversial.”

As The Washington Post reported, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) made attempted ad buys with the streaming service on July 15 for ads regarding gun control policy and abortion rights.

One ad said the overturning of Roe v. Wade is part of a “coordinated Republican attack on abortion” and warned that Republicans “will not stop at overturning ‘Roe'” and will continue working to impose a nationwide ban on abortion care—which GOP lawmakers and pro-forced birth activists have stated.

The ad focusing on gun control included statistics on gun violence and said, “Republicans are more devoted to the gun lobby than taking common-sense action to make our kids safe.”

The DSCC accused Hulu of imposing “shady” ad policies, which vaguely bar ads including “controversial” content.

Hulu told the committees after delaying the airing of the ads that there were “content related” issues, but did not explain the ultimate decision not to run them.

“Americans deserve to know the truth about these issues, and Hulu has no right to block it,” tweeted the DSCC Monday as it shared the ads on social media.

Democratic candidate Suraj Patel, who is running for the U.S. House in New York’s 12th District, was also told by Hulu officials that a campaign ad he submitted to the platform violated an “unwritten Hulu policy” and that its subject matter was too “sensitive” to show Hulu viewers.

The ad showed footage of the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and discussed Republican climate, abortion, and gun policies.

“To not discuss these topics in my campaign ad is to not address the most important issues facing the United States,” Patel told Hulu officials in a letter earlier this month. “We are at an absolutely critical time in our nation’s history. How are voters supposed to make informed choices if their candidates cannot talk about the most important issues of the day?”

“The issues of abortion, guns, climate change, and our democracy are not topics to be discussed in quite hushed speech outside of the reach of the electorate,” he added. “These are topics the American people expect to hear from their leaders, and they are issues that are going to define the next several decades. Americans deserve to know their leaders stand on them.”

The Democratic committees and their supporters are expressing anger both over Hulu’s refusal to air the ads and its failure to make its ad policies clear.

“It’s one thing to have a bad policy. It’s another to have a policy so bad you won’t even put it in writing,” said Isaac Rappoport, digital campaign services director for the DGA. “Hulu’s censorship is dangerous and anti-democratic, and they need to answer for it.”

Democratic strategist Matt McDermott called Hulu’s decision “an absolute scandal” and pointed out that the streaming platform is “one of the most impactful platforms for advertising to young voters.”

“By blocking ads on issues like climate change and abortion,” said McDermott, “Hulu is effectively censoring Democrats from engaging a massive swath of voters on the most critical issues facing our country.”

Over 150 federal workers demand Democrats hit Manchin where it hurts after climate betrayal

Federal agency staffers and congressional office members have a message for President Joe Biden as his climate agenda languishes in the Senate: Ensure that fossil fuel industry ally Sen. Joe Manchin faces significant consequences for obstructing legislative progress.

In a letter first reported by The Lever on Monday, 165 staffers from federal health and environmental agencies and nearly 80 congressional offices urged Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to “strip Senator Manchin of his chairmanship of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, shut down the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, eliminate the use of mountaintop removal and coal burning, and establish stringent water and air pollution standards.”

“This is an absolute emergency, and we want to work together, but since action to meet the scale of the crisis has yet to be delivered, we have no choice but to take matters into our own hands through non-violent direct action,” reads the letter, which staffers have signed with initials to protect themselves from potential retaliation.

The letter marks the second time in two weeks that staffers on Capitol Hill have voiced anger and frustration over the federal government’s inaction in the face of a climate emergency that’s only getting worse, as evidenced by out-of-control wildfires and the record-shattering heatwaves scorching much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Earlier this month, more than 200 congressional staffers warned in a letter to Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that “our country is nearing the end of a two-year window that represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass transformative climate policy.”

“The silence on expansive climate justice policy on Capitol Hill this year has been deafening,” the letter added. “We write to distance ourselves from your dangerous inaction.”

The latest letter, dated July 24 and currently circulating among government staffers, zeroes in on executive action that Biden can and must take following Manchin’s decision to block any new green energy funding as part of Democrats’ nascent reconciliation package, imperiling the nation’s hopes of reining in greenhouse gas emissions in time to avert climate catastrophe.

Saul Levin, a staffer for Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., who provided the letter to The Lever, tweeted Monday that “we refuse to remain silent until climate policy is passed.”

“We, the undersigned staff of the United States Congress and executive agencies, write to you today to demand that you take ambitious, assertive action before the end of July to address the climate crisis,” the letter reads. “We have worked tirelessly to achieve a safe and liveable future. Meanwhile, you have refused to declare a climate emergency.”

“Every day that you do not act, the climate crisis spirals further out of control,” warn the staffers. “The coming days represent our best opportunity to address the climate crisis and save countless lives with robust climate justice policy.”

“Even if Democrats control both chambers and the White House again in four years,” the letter adds, “inaction in this moment will cause an era of record temperatures, extreme drought, sea level rise, and other deadly climate disasters. We do not have years to waste.”

A day after Manchin told Democratic leaders earlier this month that he wouldn’t accept any new climate funding as part of the emerging reconciliation bill, a chorus of environmental groups called on Biden to cancel the Mountain Valley Pipeline in response, a demand that agency staffers echoed in their letter.

Manchin has been an outspoken supporter of the pipeline, which would carry fracked gas from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia.

“Manchin has proven once again that he doesn’t care about the planetary destruction that will cause immeasurable death,” Ashley Thomson, senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace USA, said in a July 15 statement. “President Biden has no more excuses. He must start using his executive powers to full effect if we’re going to make any progress in preventing the worst climate disasters in our country.”