Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Steve Bannon’s bluster falls flat: Trumpism is weakened when its leaders face consequences

Steve Bannon is running his mouth again.

A federal jury, after less than three hours of deliberation, found Bannon guilty of contempt of Congress on Friday for his refusal to answer a subpoena from the House committee investigating January 6. As soon as the verdict was in, Bannon ran straight to Fox News to guest on a segment of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that had the vibe of an alt-right party at 4AM, when the old head is ranting while the young ones try to figure out how to buy more cocaine with crypto. 

“I support Trump and the Constitution and if they want to put me in jail for that, so be it,” Bannon raved, swearing revenge on the January 6 committee. 

Bannon, as usual, is using bluster to intimidate the legal authorities out of holding him accountable for his role in Donald Trump’s attempted coup and his ongoing efforts to overturn democracy. Clearly, he wants them to envision Adolf Hitler in the 1920s, when he used his time in prison after the Beer Hall Putsch to write “Mein Kampf” and gather more support for the fascist cause. Bannon wants law enforcement to see him as a martyr for Trumpism, someone whose speckled visage will become an icon of the movement that will rally supporters, creating even more momentum for 21st-century American fascism. 

No one should feel intimidated. Steve Bannon is not Adolf Hitler and this is not 1920s Germany, despite many admittedly alarming parallels between now and then. For one thing, Hitler was a healthy man in his mid-thirties, one who had actually put himself in the fray during the attempted insurrection. Bannon, on the other hand, is a decrepit 68-year-old. Despite all of his big talk behind the microphone, Bannon has yet to actually put himself in any physical danger for his fascist beliefs. More importantly, Bannon’s been declaring for months that he will be a martyr for the cause and that attempts to hold him accountable will only make him stronger. So far, the opposite has been happening, and there’s no reason to think things will change if or when Bannon sees the inside of a prison cell. 

There’s a lesson in this that could be applied to the entire pantheon of Trumpist leaders: They talk a big game, but if they face real consequences, they turn out to be paper tigers. 


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


If only more of them were actually prosecuted for their crimes, we’d find a mob of Steve Bannons. Behind the microphone, they are mighty warriors. But when facing actual consequences, they’ve got nothing. 

Bannon is a talented propagandist. With Trump’s help, he was able to remake the GOP in the image of the site he used to run, Breitbart.

When Bannon was first arrested, his bluster about how he was going to turn this into a recruitment opportunity for his fascist cause was genuinely frightening. After all, Bannon is a talented propagandist. With Trump’s help, he was able to remake the GOP in the image of the site he used to run, Breitbart. So when he started to paint a picture of how he would use this trial to champion his cause, much as Hitler used his trial for treason to build up his public image, smart people were reasonably worried. Salon’s own Heather “Digby” Parton even wrote at the time that “being indicted for defying Congress is the best thing that ever happened to him” and that Bannon may “turn any trial into a spectacle in order to foment more chaos.”

I’m not blowing up Digby’s spot, I hope. I’m sure she’s as grateful as I am that none of this happened. As she wrote more recently of Bannon’s efforts to escape consequences, “Usually arrogant and full of bravado, Bannon does seem to be scrambling.”

Bannon didn’t use the trial as he initially envisioned, as an opportunity for grandiose speech-making, à la Hitler in 1924. Unlike Hitler, who had a sympathetic judge, Bannon found himself facing a judge who wasn’t interested in fascist grand-standing. Instead, Judge Carl Nichols was so effective at shutting down the defense’s trollish hijinks that Bannon’s lawyer complained, “What’s the point in going to trial here if there are no defenses?” Eventually, the defense went with a failed “no defense” strategy of offering no witnesses or evidence, which is just as well, because Bannon probably didn’t have any worth considering. 

During last Thursday’s January 6 hearing, the committee played a video that showed the aftermath of Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and his infamous raised fist encouragement of the January 6 insurrectionists. The video shows Hawley running for his life from the rioters after they breached the Capitol. The choice to play the video was largely received by the press as gratuitous mockery of Hawley, though most everyone agrees he deserves it. 

Presenting the evidence against Trump has weakened his hand.

In truth, the committee was likely doing something both sly and profound with the video: Reminding both the public and, crucially Attorney General Merrick Garland, that if you peel back the bravado of authoritarian bullies like Hawley and Bannon, you’ll find empty-headed cowardice. It underscores why it’s important not to be intimidated by the braggadocio, but instead to take these folks head on. Often, as with Bannon, one finds that they don’t simply don’t have some secret reserve of power to draw on, just hot air. 


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


Bannon’s not even the first example of this.

During the coup itself, Trump’s lawyer Sidney Powell loved to brag into any microphone stuck in her face that she planned to “unleash the Kraken,” i.e. bury Joe Biden’s electoral victory in so many lawsuits that Biden’s win would simply crack in half and, presto bingo, Trump would be able to stay president. But it turns out that you can’t sue an electoral victory into oblivion like you’re dealing with a contractor you stiffed on a bill. Trump’s team did, in fact, file a dizzying number of lawsuits, and one by one, they all failed to make a dent in Biden’s victory. Now Powell is facing a defamation lawsuit and she’s been frozen out by Trump, who has no loyalty to return to those who serve him. 

We see a similar situation play out, over and over again, with the people who actually rioted at the Capitol on January 6.

As has been remarked on by many at length, the insurrectionists ended up creating most of the evidence used to convict them, by filming themselves and posting the videos and photos of the riot online. Flush with white privilege and high on Trump’s encouragement, most of these folks didn’t stop to consider the possibility of consequences for their actions. As they are churned through the court system and found guilty of their crimes, they often blubber in disbelief, the fascist warrior front dissolving to reveal the crybaby underneath. 

Of course, as the Capitol insurrection shows, these folks are indeed very dangerous, if their violent impulses and authoritarian longings remain unchecked.

1 in 4 Republican voters now agree that Trump should probably face prosecution.

Over the weekend, Dave Weigel at the Washington Post published a deeply disturbing piece chronicling how widespread the fascist incitement from Republican politicians has become. “[C]andidates are brandishing firearms while threatening harm to liberals or other enemies,” Weigel writes. They are painting Democrats and progressive activists as an existential threat that must be extinguished with violence. 

This reality only underscores the need for more legal consequences for Trump and his allies for the insurrection. The failure of the Department of Justice to prosecute Trump for any of the many crimes he committed while conducting his coup sends a message to other Republican politicians: Instigate as much violence as you want, no one will do anything about it. Sure, they may throw the people who actually commit violence at your urging in jail, but there will be no penalty for you for inciting violence or taking other criminal actions to destroy democracy. Until that message changes, this situation will only get worse. 

Trump has successfully created the illusion that he’s untouchable, which has the unfortunate effect of making him actually untouchable. All too many people, eager to make excuses for the DOJ’s reluctance to prosecute Trump, have settled on claims that doing so will somehow just make Trump stronger, by turning him into a martyr for the cause. But the January 6 hearings show the opposite to be true. Presenting the evidence against Trump has weakened his hand.

While most Republicans would rather stick by Trump to the bitter end, rather than admit liberals were right all along, at the margins, Trump has been losing steam. Even 1 in 4 Republican voters now agree that Trump should probably face prosecution. Polling shows a significant number of Republican voters are hoping for a different candidate in 2024. Even parts of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire are souring on Trump

It’s easy to tell a story where the bad guys are too powerful to defeat. That excuses inaction and rewrites cowardice as rationality. The reality, however, is that these big-talking fascist pigs all too often turn into squealing piglets when confronted with consequences. If you doubt it, look again at Steve Bannon. What was supposed to be his Trial of the Century ended with a whimper. Maybe it’s true, and the fascists will win sometimes if the good guys fight back. But, so far, they win every time that the good guys just stand down.

The Josh Hawleys of the world love to pump their fists and act like big men. But if you actually give them chase, they run. 

Trump rages at Fox News on Truth Social for reporting his falling poll numbers

Former President Donald Trump was up and running on his Truth Social account on Monday morning after making an appearance late Sunday at the Turning Point USA conference, where he was the winner of a highly unscientific straw poll showing 78.7% of the attendees would vote for him in 2024.

In a Monday post, the former president continued his war with the Fox News network and, in particular, Fox & Friends that stems from his complaints that the conservative network called Arizona for Joe Biden earlier than any other network on election night in 2020 despite his protestations.

According to Trump, the hosts of the Fox News morning show — who used to do phone-in interviews with him on a regular basis when he was still president — have gone to “the “dark side” by comparing his straw poll numbers with actual national polling results.

Taking to Truth Social, Trump wrote, “@foxandfriends just really botched my poll numbers, no doubt on purpose. 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. Actually, almost all polls have me leading all Republicans & Biden BY A LOT.”

He then took a shot at former Rep. Paul Ryan, now a Fox Corporation board member, for the Fox & Friends segment.

“RINO Paul Ryan, one of the weakest and worst Speakers EVER, must be running the place. Anyway, thank you to Turning Point, the crowd & ‘love’ was AMAZING!” he wrote.

Trump’s diatribe comes after two of Rupert Murdoch’s papers, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, editorialized over the weekend that he is no longer fit for office.

Medical students stage mass walk out during anti-abortion doctor’s address at white coat ceremony

Medical students at the University of Michigan walked out of an anti-abortion speaker’s keynote address on Sunday after petitioning the event. 

Shortly after Dr. Kristin Collier, a pro-life professor of medicine at the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS),  took the stage, dozens of students began filling out the auditorium. The school was hosting its white coat ceremony, an informal ritual that symbolizes the transition from student to healthcare professional.

“I want to acknowledge the deep wounds our community has suffered over the past several weeks,” Collier started in her speech. “We have a great deal of work to do for healing to occur,” she added. “And I hope that for today, for this time, we can focus on what matters most: coming together to support our newly accepted students and their families with the goal of welcoming them into one of the greatest vocations that exist on this earth.”

RELATED: Biden’s bewildering reaction to Roe: Limp response to overturn explains his drastic drop in approval 

Collier has made numerous anti-abortion remarks in the past. Back in May, she reportedly wrote that it was an expression of feminism to fight for “prenatal sisters” who had been subjected to “the violence in the act of abortion.”


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


“Holding on to a view of feminism where one fights for the rights of all women and girls, especially those who are most vulnerable. I can’t not lament the violence directed at my prenatal sisters in the act of abortion, done in the name of autonomy,” she tweeted in May, adding: “Liberation that costs innocent lives is just oppression that is redistributed.”

Her keynote address came weeks after some 340 students at the University of Michigan Medical School signed a petition protesting Collier’s speech, according to The Michigan Daily.

“While we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care,” the petition read. 

Some conservative outlets have expressed outrage at the students’ actions.

“They should be ashamed of their actions, and they need to take a moment to seriously reflect on whether they will be able to properly discharge their obligations when they finish medical school,” wrote The National Review.

RELATED: Abortion providers’ lives are in growing peril following Roe reversal: report

After the demonstration, the University of Michigan Medical School refused to accept any blame for booking Collier. 

“The University of Michigan does not revoke an invitation to a speaker based on their personal beliefs,” a spokesperson for the school reportedly wrote. “However, the White Coat Ceremony will not be used as a forum to air personal political or religious beliefs; it will focus on welcoming students into the profession of medicine.”

The display comes just months amid a sweeping Republican assault on abortion, culminating in the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling establishing America’s constitutional right to abortion.

“Aiding and abetting”: SC GOP pushes “blatantly unconstitutional” bill to ban abortion info online

Critics on Friday took aim at a proposed South Carolina law that would criminalize the online sharing of information about obtaining abortions and, according to some journalists, could even be used to silence stories related to reproductive rights.

S.B. 1373—which one prominent defense attorney called “a breathtaking assault on free speech”—contains language associated with organized crime conspiracy laws by targeting people who engage in “a pattern of prohibited abortion activity.”

“This is tremendously concerning for us. It is a target for folks who tell the stories of patients who need to access care, explain how care is [accessed], and the stories of providers and advocates who are helping make sure that happens,” Jessica Mason Pieklo, senior vice president and executive editor at the reproductive rights site Rewire News Grouptold Prism.

“If we think that conservatives will stop at speech that targets abortion providers, people who write about abortion, people who offer scientific and medical information around abortion, we’re mistaken,” Pieklo added. “We know that this will bleed into other areas that evangelical and social conservatives deem inappropriate and deviant.”

Just before the U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority overturned Roe v. Wade last month, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation’s largest anti-choice group, published model legislation that, in addition to banning abortion, criminalizes “aiding or abetting” the medical procedure.

According to S.B. 1373—parts of which are nearly identical to NRLC model law—”aiding or abetting” includes:

  • Providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion;
  • Hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this state that provides information on how to obtain an abortion;
  • Offering or providing abortion doula services, knowing that the services will be used, or are reasonably likely to be used for an abortion;
  • Providing a referral to an abortion provider, knowing that the referral will result, or is reasonably likely to result, in an abortion; and
  • Providing a referral to an abortion provider and receiving monetary remuneration, or other compensation, from an abortion provider for the referral.

S.B. 1373 also contains novel “whistleblower” protections, imposing prison terms of up to 10 years for people who “take any action to impede” those who report violations of the law to the state attorney general.

The National Law Review said the bill “also provides an extremely broad definition of what constitutes ‘actions impeding a whistleblower.'”

Michele Goodwin, director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy at the University of California, Irvine Law School, called S.B. 1373 “unconstitutional,” but warned such bills would nevertheless likely proliferate.

“These are not going to be one-offs,” Goodwin told The Washington Post. “These are going to be laws that spread like wildfire through states that have shown hostility to abortion.”

Digital rights campaigners highlighted the role—and responsibility—of Big Tech in light of bills like S.B. 1373, with New Jersey congressional candidate and attorney Stephanie Schmid asserting that “it’s time for tech companies to get off the sidelines.”

The Center for Democracy & Technology says that “crucially, companies should carefully scrutinize and seek to limit the scope of surveillance demands issued in prosecutions to enforce anti-abortion laws.”

“They should adopt clear and consistent standards for refusing overbroad requests, commit to giving their users timely notice of requests, and report publicly the numbers of surveillance demands they receive to increase public accountability,” the advocacy group added.

In a bid to counter legislation like S.B. 1373, congressional Democrats last month introduced a bill, the My Body, My Data Act, that would establish privacy protections for reproductive health data.

Earlier this month, a coalition of reproductive rights groups filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the legislation, which Center for Reproductive Rights president and CEO Nancy Northup said is causing “mayhem at an unimaginable scale.”

As of last month, abortion is banned in South Carolina after six weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the pregnant person’s life is in danger.

Ashli Babbitt’s mom tells Giuliani her death would be treated better if she was a “Black woman”

Ashli Babbitt’s mother spoke to Rudy Giuliani on his podcast, released on Sunday, and claimed that her daughter is treated worse than a Black woman in America.

Aside from the racist claim, Babbitt joined a crowd of attackers in breaking through the windows and doors of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, marched through the halls of the Capitol, then directly to the outer office of the Speaker of the House, where she helped break out the glass with a Capitol Police officer standing with his gun drawn. She chose to go through the window anyway.

Even Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Ohio, a far-right supporter of Donald Trump told Good Morning America, the officer “didn’t have a choice at that time. They were trying to come through the front door, which is where I was at in the chamber, and in the back, they were trying to come through the speaker’s lobby, and that’s problematic when you’re trying to defend two fronts.”

“When they broke the glass in the back, the [police] lieutenant that was there—him and I already had multiple conversations prior to this—and he didn’t have a choice at that time. The mob was going to come through the door, there was a lot of members and staff that were in danger at the time. And when he [drew] his weapon, that’s a decision that’s very hard for anyone to make and, once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force.”

Giuliani said that he may have been among the first to see the video. “I saw it — I saw it, I saw it, three hours after — I may have been the first one to see the film. When I saw it with several homicide detectives.”

Co-host Maria Ryan claimed, falsely, that there was new information becoming available about anti-fascist protesters and Capitol Police officers that she implied were actually the ones behind the Jan. 6 attack.

“New film is coming out all the time,” she claimed.

“Nancy Pelosi sitting up there in her castle mad that the minions dared show up that day — well, you know there are a million strong people there to address their government and they made an attempt to kill the First Amendment,” said Babbitt’s mother Micki Witthoeft. “But the First Amendment isn’t dead. It’s wounded but it’s not dead. And people are startin’ to realize things that happened that day.”

She went on to say that the House Select Committee is only there to “brainwash American citizens.” She believes that because the Jan. 6 committee aired the public hearings in prime time that the Jan. 6 attackers now can’t get a fair trial before a jury anywhere in America.

Withoeft then claimed that the officer who shot her was checking his earpiece and that a signal flare went up at the time her daughter was shot. It’s unclear what she’s talking about, however. She attacked the officer and questioned the investigation.

Ryan then claimed that videos show Babbitt trying to stop the men from breaking the glass, but Ryan claimed the ones decked out in MAGA gear were anti-fascists. She also claimed that Babbitt was trying to help officers, but didn’t explain why then Babbitt climbed through the glass while an officer had a pointed gun at her. Ryan claimed there was no warning before he fired, which is also false, as a video shows the officer had his gun aimed at them as they were trying to break the glass.

As of June 2022, Babbitt’s family hasn’t filed a lawsuit against the Capitol Police saying they would in Aug. 2021, the New York Daily News reported.

Listen to the rant below:

Secret Service agents who tried to torpedo Hutchinson testimony lawyer up, refuse to testify: panel

Top Secret Service agents who tried to undermine former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony to the Jan. 6 committee have hired private lawyers and are refusing to cooperate with the investigation, members of the panel said over the weekend.

Hutchinson, who worked as a top aide to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified last month that she was told by deputy chief of staff Tony Ornato that former President Donald Trump was so irate that his security detail would not take him to the Capitol with his supporters on Jan. 6 that he lunged at Secret Service agent Bobby Engel, the head of his detail. Hutchinson said Ornato, who made the unusual leap from working at the Secret Service to working for Trump before returning as a senior Secret Service official, described the incident with Engel present and he did not dispute it.

After her testimony, journalists citing anonymous sources reported that Engel and the driver of Trump’s vehicle were “prepared to testify under oath” to dispute Hutchinson’s account and that Ornato denied telling Hutchinson that Trump “grabbed the steering wheel or an agent.”

Hutchinson’s lawyer, Jody Hunt, a former aide to Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions, said that she stood by her account and urged the Secret Service agents to testify under oath. Several witnesses, including a D.C. police officer assigned to Trump’s motorcade, testified that Trump got into a “heated” confrontation with his security detail when he was told he could not go to the Capitol.

Ornato, Engel, and the unidentified driver of Trump’s vehicle have since hired private counsel, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., told reporters last week.

“Some of the officers said that they would be coming and talking under oath,” said Lofgren, a member of the committee. “They have not come in, and they recently retained private counsel, which is unusual but they have a right to do that.”

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., one of the two Republicans on the panel, told ABC News on Sunday that “it is not our decision that they have not [testified] so far.”

Asked if the Secret Service is refusing to cooperate, Kinzinger replied, “that’s a question you have to ask the Secret Service, you have to ask those particular people.”

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the committee’s vice-chair, told Fox News Sunday that “we have not had the kind of cooperation that we really need to have” from the Secret Service.


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


Questions have swirled about Ornato and Engel’s credibility since Hutchinson’s testimony. Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig, who wrote the book “Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service” during the Trump administration, told MSNBC that both men were “very, very close to President Trump.”

“Some people accused them of at times being enablers and ‘yes men’ of the president—particularly Tony Ornato—and very much people who wanted to do what he wanted and see him pleased,” she said, adding that “both of these individuals lose a little credibility because of how closely they have been seen as aligned to Donald Trump.”

Ornato made an unusual transition from working for the Secret Service to working directly for Trump at the White House, serving as deputy chief of staff for operations. Former White House spokeswoman Alyssa Farah accused Ornato, who helped coordinate Trump’s infamous photo-op at a church near Lafayette Square, of lying about the incident. “There seems to be a major thread here… Tony Ornato likes to lie,” Kinzinger tweeted last month.

The committee members also called out the Secret Service over missing text messages from around the time of the Capitol attack. The Secret Service said that agents’ text messages were deleted during a system migration in Jan. 2021. The agency turned over just one text message thread in response to a subpoena from the committee. Joseph Cuffari, the top watchdog at the Department of Homeland Security, was aware of the deleted texts since February but did not inform Congress, according to The Washington Post. Cuffari’s office has since opened a criminal investigation into the destruction of the text messages, NBC News reported last week, after the committee accused the agency of potentially violating federal record-keeping laws.

The committee, which held eight televised hearings over the last six weeks and plans to hold three more in September, vowed to continue its investigation, including into the “extent to which there are no text messages from the relevant period of time,” Cheney said Sunday.

“Those are all the things the committee is going to be looking at in more detail in the coming weeks,” Cheney told Fox News.

Malcolm Nance on the Trump insurgency: Jan. 6 was a “template to do it correctly next time”

To this point, the House Jan. 6 committee hearings and related investigations have decisively established that Donald Trump and his confederates, including some Republican members of Congress, were involved in a serious, nationwide conspiracy spanning from the local to the federal level aimed at nullifying the results of the 2020 presidential election and installing Trump as an autocratic ruler.

Several apparent crimes were committed as part of this coup plot, likely including seditious conspiracy, voter fraud, financial fraud, witness tampering, obstruction of Congress and perhaps even acts of terrorism.

The assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by thousands of Trump’s followers, including right-wing paramilitaries, was a key part of the coup plot. Trump’s mob was not “random” or “hapless” or “unarmed” or “uncoordinated” as too many observers in the mainstream news media and elsewhere have long insisted. Some were armed with lethal weapons including pistols and assault rifles. Their goals were clear: Keep Donald Trump in power at any cost, in defiance of the will of the American people. Their methods were obvious: Use any means necessary, up to and including lethal violence, to stop the certification of the 2020 election.

Trump and his confederates’ coup plot also involved contingency plans to use the military to seize voting machines in order to “prove” non-existent voter fraud and the Big Lie.

Last week’s primetime hearing focused on Trump’s actions during the 187 minutes beginning at the end of his incendiary speech at the Ellipse through the siege and invasion of the Capitol, up to the time when he finally and reluctantly asked his followers to stop the attack. At any point during those 187 minutes, Trump could have told his followers to end their attack on the Capitol. Nearly all of them would have likely obeyed. He could also have ordered the military and law enforcement to bring an end to the terrorist attack. He chose not to.

This was much more than dereliction of duty or “inaction,” as some have described it.

The sum total of the facts show that Donald Trump did not order law enforcement and the military to intervene on Jan. 6 because he was allowing his attack force the time they needed to break through the defenses of the Capitol, rampage, and cause general chaos and mayhem so that he could then somehow remain in power.

It was a strategy that came very close to succeeding. The Republican-fascist movement’s war on democracy is escalating. The events of Jan. 6 were not the end of that war, but the beginning of what will be a long conflict over the future of American democracy.

To discuss that larger conflict and much more, I recently spoke with Malcolm Nance, a former senior chief petty officer in the U.S. Navy, an intelligence analyst and a leading expert in counterterrorism studies. He is the author of several bestselling books including “The Plot to Hack America,” “Defeating Isis” and “The Plot to Destroy Democracy.” His new book is “They Want to Kill Americans: The Militias, Terrorists, and Deranged Ideology of the Trump Insurgency.”

Nance is also a counterterrorism analysis for MSNBC and is founding executive director of the New York-based think tank Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics and Radical Ideologies.

In this conversation, Nance warns that Donald Trump and the larger Republican-fascist movement constitute a phenomenon he calls TITUS (for “Trump Insurgency in the U.S.”). In his view, TITUS will be the basis of an extended right-wing insurgency aimed at ending America’s multiracial democracy. The Jan. 6 attack, he contends, was one element of a much larger strategy and in many ways a proof of concept and roadmap for the methods TITUS and the other anti-democratic forces will use in a sustained attack on America.

Nance shares detailed thoughts on the events of Jan. 6, and speculates on some of the most disturbing questions that remain unanswered about that day. He suggests right-wing paramilitaries such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers would have become TITUS stormtroopers. Toward the end of this conversation, Nance outlines a scenario where TITUS and its allies launch a wave of terrorist attacks across the U.S. and the country spirals into a worsening cycle of political violence or perhaps even a second civil war. 

How are you feeling? How are you making sense of this? You literally predicted the Trump insurgency, the events of Jan. 6 and this worsening democracy crisis.

It does hurt, in a way, to be a type of Black Cassandra. Apollo cursed her with the gift of foresight, where everything she said would be true, but she would never be believed. Apparently, it doesn’t matter what I say. It only really matters that I document it, say it clearly, and that hopefully the public understands the reality of the situation. That is what I do in the new book.

I saw Jan. 6 and this escalating crisis coming a very long way away. On Nov. 6, 2020, I was on “Real Time With Bill Maher,” and he was preaching kumbaya: Let’s all get along and come to an understanding with each other. He said, that’s enough of doom and gloom. And I said, you want doom and gloom? I’ll give you doom and gloom. The United States is going into an insurgency. The Trump voters are going to form an insurgency.

He caught onto it rather quickly. He said, well, you mean like Iraq or Afghanistan? I said, yes. It is a political paramilitary insurgency, where they intend to destabilize the new government until it collapses.

The contract for this book, “They Want to Kill Americans,” was signed, I believe, on Dec. 16, 2020. That was three weeks before the insurrection. I had already started this book and I understood that the United States was going into a state of right-wing insurgency. The Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, the Three Percent militia were already having meetings and conferences together to plan for an insurrection.

Why didn’t people listen? Most of the evidence was public. What do you do with the frustration, anger and other emotions? This was wholly preventable.

There is a measure of frustration. But I’m an intelligence professional. My job is to analyze. We don’t predict the future. Intelligence professionals give you a series of options from the most likely, the least likely, all the way out to the worst-case scenario.

My books are a deep analysis of threats to the fundamental fabric of America. Unfortunately, the news media processes things very late, and in some instances refuses to believe the facts and reality of the situation no matter how dire it is. In the end I just let my work speak for itself.


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


As a military intelligence professional, what did you see on Jan. 6? What was your assessment of the situation?

What I saw back in November and December 2020 would manifest itself on Jan. 6. I was not surprised. In fact, some of the warnings that I was making in real time were being scoffed at even on Jan. 6 as the events unfolded.

For example, when I was on air with Joy Reid I was deeply concerned, because as the fighting was going on at the Capitol, I was trying to warn the public that the police and other defenders needed to be prepared for “murder cells” in that Trump crowd.

A murder cell is a professional team of people who go in for a very specific purpose, in the middle of a crowd, to do just that, murder people. They use that swath of humanity as cover, but they are organized, they move together and then get in to accomplish their mission. The crowd is the camouflage.

Then we saw the “stack” from the Oath Keepers. We saw these very organized teams of people. I don’t know whether they were the murder cell, or there were teams of one or two. But I believed from the bottom of my heart that murder, rape, public humiliation and executions were going to happen on Jan. 6 at the Capitol. There were just too many people there who believed that the attack was the so-called “Storm” that the QAnon conspiracy cult believed was going to take place.

I believed from the bottom of my heart that murder, rape, public humiliation and executions were going to happen on Jan. 6 at the Capitol. They were going to kill people in that building.

They were going to kill people in that building. And once you start and kill one, it would be mass murder. They could have started hanging people from the windows of the Capitol and other horrors like that. What happened on Jan. 6 with the coup and attack on the Capitol was really a template for the right wing to do it correctly next time.

How close were we to martial law on Jan. 6? That was what Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, and other parts of Trump’s coup cabal were urging him to do. What would have happened?

I believe that we were within hours of a full-scale coup d’état in the United States on Jan. 6. The only thing that broke it was the fact that Donald Trump didn’t come down to the Capitol. Now we have the evidence. Trump was going to declare himself president of the United States. He and his confederates were waiting for that crowd to neutralize everyone, the key people, at the Capitol.

Every person in the chain of succession was in that building. That’s the vice president of the United States. If he got killed or incapacitated, Donald Trump would have had to appoint the vice president. The speaker of the House of Representatives was in that building. The president of the Senate pro tempore was in that building.

If you lose that chain, then you go to the senior member of the Cabinet. If that one officer had not shot Ashli Babbitt and that mob of people had broken through those doors and started beating and killing and raping and sexually humiliating members of the House of Representatives, it would have been broadcast around the world.

Mobs go to savagery very quickly. If that scenario had played out, who would have been the only real ultimate authority left in the United States? Donald Trump would have been the only non-incapacitated surviving authority in the United States, with no chain of succession. The United States government would have been Donald Trump that night.

If that scenario had played out, Donald Trump would have been the only non-incapacitated surviving authority in the United States, with no chain of succession. The U.S. government would have been Donald Trump.

All you have to imagine is if part two of the coup plot had been successful and Donald Trump had gone to the Capitol to lead the protest. Trump would have been leading the murder, abuse and humiliation of the people at the Capitol.

I really do believe that Trump’s intent was to go to the Capitol and march down the halls into the well of the House of Representatives and declare himself king. 

Why won’t the mainstream news media types just say this plain truth?

They see it as being something untoward and unacceptable. They don’t want to say such things about Trump and his confederates and the mob because they have not been indicted for conspiracy.

The root of that reluctance is in part how Donald Trump’s followers, that mob, got to the Capitol building in the first place. Roughly 40,000 protesters were there for Donald Trump. It is believed that 10,000 or more laid siege to the building and 2,000 entered the building.

The news media doesn’t want to take on these subjects for the same reason that the Capitol Police, and the U.S. Park Police, and the Washington, D.C., police couldn’t respond to these people until the last moment. The Trumpists were camouflaged. How? They were camouflaged with white skin. That camouflage allowed them to engage in hand to hand and other close-quarter battle with the police at the Capitol.

The Trumpists were camouflaged. How? With white skin. That allowed them to attack the Capitol without any threat from anyone whatsoever.

The thinking was, “Well, they’re white and they’re middle class. They’re not going to do anything bad.” That was the camouflage. The whiteness of the Trump voters allowed them to attack the Capitol without any threat from anyone whatsoever. This has been revealed by the DOJ and other investigations.

Promises were made to the Three Percenters, the Oath Keepers and Proud Boy types. The Oath Keepers have said they were going to be given pardons and made part of a federal posse force or the like by Trump. How do you assess this?

The Trump people were going to be one of two wings of an insurgency. If Trump had won, they would become the unofficial armed enforcement wing of the Trump Party. It would not be the Republican Party anymore. It would be the Trump party. If Trump lost, his followers would become the unofficial insurgent paramilitary wing of the Trump Party. What we have now is option number two.

I was terrified of Trump winning the election. Those people would have hit the streets and there would have been convoys of his followers armed with AR-15s. They would have told the American people, you work for us now. We’re the winners. You don’t exist anymore. We’re going to rule over 65 percent of the American public.

Trump lost. So now they have become the insurgents. They are now waging an insurgency against the people of the United States. At present it is a political insurgency. All insurgencies start in the halls of power. They just refuse to use the levers of power to better the nation. They use the levers of power to dismantle government and use the rule of law as part of preparing for their armed paramilitaries or terrorists to destabilize the nation.

When I write about today’s Republicans, especially since Jan. 6, I describe them as “a white supremacist terrorist organization.” Please intervene. Is this accurate, or not?

I would make one change. I wouldn’t use the word “terrorist” because the organization is not the terrorists. The individuals who join groups are the terrorists. Terrorism is when they choose terrorist tactics.

The Republican Party is the equivalent of the Sinn Féin to the Provisional Irish Republican Army terrorist or paramilitary forces. We’re just not at the point where the Republican paramilitaries have carried out an operation, apart from Jan. 6, which was a terrorist attack. It met every characteristic of a terrorist attack — an act or threat of violence that’s political in nature, designed to extract a concession or influence an audience beyond its immediate victims.

If the same events that took place and are continuing to escalate with Trump, the Republicans, Jan. 6 and the attacks on democracy were happening in another country, what would the intelligence assessment be?

If I were an officer at MI6, British intelligence, and I had to write an assessment, I would conclude that the United States has a political party that has become an insurgent group and is preparing for violent military and paramilitary action in an effort to destabilize the government and overthrow American democracy to establish a totalitarian dictatorship. I believe such an assessment has likely been written. One day it will become publicly known.

What are the capabilities of the Trump insurgency movement? What does the leadership look like? What are its weapons capabilities? How would you describe the threat assessment?

All of these disparate groups, most notably the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, by summer 2020 had merged into what I describe as TITUS. That stands for “Trump Insurgency in the U.S.”

Who is the leader? Donald Trump. Who are the principal officers? His senior people. Who are the shooters on the street? Every Trump voter.

Who is the leader? Donald Trump. Who are the principal officers? The senior people that work under him. Who are the shooters on the street? Every Trump voter. Now, before the summer of 2020, I would have said the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and the Boogaloo Boys. They are now a collective, but for every one of them there are five or six other people who are so-called patriots, and they are just the collective extension of Donald Trump’s will. If Donald Trump were to encourage violence, they would do it.

More than half of Republicans now say that Jan. 6 and the attack on the Capitol was an act of patriotism. Attempting to overthrow the government of the United States is an act of patriotism? That is disgusting.

Here is a scenario. I recently wrote about it for Salon. Donald Trump is indicted by the Department of Justice. In response, he goes down to his resort at Mar-a-Lago and turns it into his bunker. He tells his followers to surround him and also to descend upon Black and brown cities that are “Democrat-controlled.” Trump says he’s under attack by the “deep state” and they’re after him. What do you think happens?

Trumpism is moving beyond Donald Trump. Trumpism is the embrace of the conspiracy against all of them. I believe that maybe half of them, 40 million or so of his voters, would take to the streets.

I’d say an easy 10 million would come out with arms. Here’s the second component of that scenario. Republican governors and state legislatures refuse to do anything about the armed Trumpists. They refuse to bring out the National Guard. They refuse to allow the National Guard to be federalized. Now you’re in pre-Civil War 1860 territory.

Here is a scenario from my new book. Terrorists bomb a parade using high-technology drones that are synced together and drop mortar bombs, just like ISIS does. The president of the United States starts getting these reports. It’s not one city, it’s 10 cities right here in the United States. Armed men are taking over federal armories and National Guardsmen are not stopping them. The president of the United States, in a matter of moments, has to do several things. The president has to federalize state troops. The U.S. military would have to be mobilized to fight state troopers and recalcitrant National Guardsmen who refuse federal orders.

There will be a fiefdom down in Mar-a-Lago. There will be civilians with long rifles. The governor of Florida endorsing them, calling out the state National Guard to resist the president of the United States. This is not as farfetched a scenario as many would like to believe.

What does this Trump insurgency and other violence mean for the average American? Let’s say for someone in a blue state like Connecticut, who lives outside Hartford or in Fairfield County, not out in some rural Trump area. Many of those people may believe that such violence will not really impact their day-to-day lives. What would you tell them?

It will happen around you. Don’t you have a town named Newtown? Imagine Newtown, where the shooters are saying they’re going to carry out their insurgency in the halls of power in Connecticut. TITUS and its followers are going to target liberals and Democrats and others they see as the enemy. The insurgency is going to be a nationwide event. This isn’t something that’s going to happen in just a matter of moments. We could have states that will just peel off and decide they’re not going to take part in federalism anymore. Given this Supreme Court, the United States could come apart again. It will take a bold president who says, no, it’s not. A new Lincoln.

Will there be no-go zones in the country? Parts of the United States where liberals, progressives, Black and brown people and others that TITUS and its forces mark as the enemy cannot go?

There could be. We don’t know. We’ll find out. It’s a question: Do the Trump insurgents and their followers feel that they can do this with impunity? That they can carry out any operation, any way that they want?

What is your call to action? What do you want people to do after they read “They Want to Kill Americans”?

There is only one way out of this. The only way out of this outcome is that the November midterms are the final referendum on whether America truly stays America and a democracy or if it becomes a fascist dictatorship. If the Democrats lose the House and the Senate, then it is all over. There may never be another free and fair election in America. If the Republicans take control, we may be teetering on the edge of an American dictatorship.

13 years after last minimum-wage hike, Democrats told $7.25 is “deplorable”

Marking the 13-year anniversary of the last federal minimum wage increase in the U.S. — a boost from $5.15 to $7.25 in 2009 — progressive campaigners on Sunday urged congressional Democrats to make another push to raise the national pay floor as inflation continues to diminish workers’ purchasing power.

“Today is a sad anniversary in the United States,” said Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, a group that advocates progressive economic policy. “For 13 years now, Congress has failed to act to raise the $7.25 hourly federal minimum wage. Lawmakers have turned their backs on America’s tens of millions of low-wage workers and revealed themselves to be beholden to the short-sighted interests of some of their ultra-rich donors.”

According to a recent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the real value of the federal minimum wage is currently at its lowest point in nearly seven decades amid record-high inflation, which spurred a decrease in real average hourly earnings between June 2021 and June 2022 as corporate profits soared.

“Last July marked the longest period without a minimum wage increase since Congress established the federal minimum wage in 1938,” EPI noted, “and continued inaction on the federal minimum wage over the past year has only further eroded the minimum wage’s value.”

In 2021, Senate Democrats stripped a proposed $15 federal minimum wage from their coronavirus relief package on the advice of the chamber’s parliamentarian, an unelected official tasked with offering non-binding opinions on whether legislation complies with Senate rules.

Eight Senate Democrats joined Republicans in voting down Sen. Bernie Sanders’ last-ditch attempt to include the provision, which had been approved by the House.

Amid more than a decade of federal inaction, states and localities across the U.S. have raised their hourly wage floors in response to pressure from the grassroots Fight for $15 movement.


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


But $7.25 an hour remains the prevailing minimum wage in 20 states. The tipped sub-minimum wage is still $3 an hour or lower in 22 states.

Had the federal minimum wage risen at the same rate as Wall Street bonuses, it would now be $61.75 an hour instead of $7.25. If the minimum wage had kept pace with worker productivity since 1968, it would have been around $23 an hour last year.

“Regressive politicians across this country have kept our wages down for years,” Fight for $15 wrote in a Twitter post. “That’s why it’s important that we get at least $15/hour federal minimum wage. That way no one gets left behind.”

Morris of the Patriotic Millionaires said Sunday that “$7.25 was already inadequate back in 2009 when the minimum wage was last raised, but now it is downright deplorable.”

“Since 2009, workers have endured the Great Recession, a worldwide pandemic, historic inflation, and massive changes in the cost of living,” Pearl added. “And what have they gotten in return? A minimum wage that is worth 27% less than its 2009 value, one that now isn’t enough to afford even a single-bedroom apartment in 93% of the country.”

“In the face of rapidly rising costs for American families, Congress must act to raise wages for the tens of millions of workers who are struggling just to get by. They must immediately raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. Our country cannot afford to reach a 14th anniversary of $7.25.”

And if congressional Democrats can’t muster “the political will” to raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15 an hour — a move that would boost the incomes of more than 30 million people across the country — “then the president must act,” said Pearl.

“When President Biden came into office, he raised the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors to $15,” he pointed out. “Given the rising cost of living, he should now raise the minimum wage for federal contractors even higher, to no less than $20 an hour. This move will benefit hundreds of thousands of workers, prove to voters that Democrats care about working people, and provide a strong example to spur congressional Democrats to action.”

“The president,” Pearl added, “is supposed to be the leader of our country — it’s time for Biden to lead on this critical issue.”

Fox News host Maria Bartiromo gets a lesson on inflation

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) offered Fox News host Maria Bartiromo a lesson in inflation on Sunday after she suggested that President Joe Biden was to blame.

In an interview on Fox News, Bartiromo told Khanna that Covid-19 legislation signed into law by Biden “was the beginning of inflation getting stoked.”

“Maria, just to be factual on inflation,” Khanna replied, “there was $3 trillion of spending under President Trump. And yes, there was spending under Joe Biden. But it is unfair to say that it’s just the spending under Biden that somehow caused the inflation and not under Trump.”

Bartiromo interrupted: “Just to be clear, I’m looking specifically at the numbers and when we look at the inflation timeline, which was the handover from President Trump to President Biden. … By the time that we got to July of 2021, inflation was at 5.5%. Then the Democrats led the infrastructure package. That was signed into law November 21 and inflation was up to 6.8%. By March of 2022, right after the invasion by Russia, inflation was at 7.9% and today we are 8.6%”

“So we’re up to 9.1%, Congressman, with all of this spending,” she said.

“But, Maria, you know correlation and causation are different,” Khanna remarked. “You can’t say that Trump sending stimulus checks in December of 2020 was not inflationary and somehow Biden doing in March was inflationary.”

“What happened is we got out of Covid,” he added. “And that increased demand and the supply was constrained and the Fed policy was wrong.”

Watch:

Rupert Murdoch’s papers lose confidence in Trump

Donald Trump has lost the confidence of both of the major newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Under the headline, “The President Who Stood Still on Jan. 6,” The Wall Street Journal editorial board harshly criticized the former president.

“No matter your views of the Jan. 6 special committee, the facts it is laying out in hearings are sobering. The most horrifying to date came Thursday in a hearing on President Trump’s conduct as the riot raged and he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets and refusing to send help,” the editorial board wrote.

“The committee’s critics are right that it lacks political balance,” the newspaper wrote. “Still, the brute facts remain: Mr. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he had a duty as Commander in Chief to protect the Capitol from a mob attacking it in his name. He refused. He didn’t call the military to send help. He didn’t call Mr. Pence to check on the safety of his loyal VP. Instead he fed the mob’s anger and let the riot play out.”

The editorial concluded, “Character is revealed in a crisis, and Mr. Pence passed his Jan. 6 trial. Mr. Trump utterly failed his.”

Trump was also criticized by the NY Post editorial board under the headline, “Trump’s silence on Jan. 6 is damning.”

“As his followers stormed the Capitol, calling on his vice president to be hanged, President Donald Trump sat in his private dining room, watching TV, doing nothing. For three hours, seven minutes,” the editorial board wrote.

“There has been much debate over whether Trump’s rally speech on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted “incitement.” That’s somewhat of a red herring. What matters more — and has become crystal clear in recent days — is that Trump didn’t lift a finger to stop the violence that followed,” the NY Post wrote. “And he was the only person who could stop what was happening. He was the only one the crowd was listening to. It was incitement by silence.”

The tabloid concluded he is unfit for office.

“His only focus was to find any means — damn the consequences — to block the peaceful transfer of power.

There is no other explanation, just as there is no defense, for his refusal to stop the violence,” the newspaper wrote. “It’s up to the Justice Department to decide if this is a crime. But as a matter of principle, as a matter of character, Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country’s chief executive again.”

Netflix loses subscribers, says it would’ve been worse without “Stranger Things”

Netflix is still the biggest, most powerful streaming service in the world, but it’s been taking its lumps lately. For a variety of reasons (e.g. consumer saturation, increasing competition, lack of availability in Russia thanks to the war in Ukraine), it lost subscribers for the first time ever in the first quarter of this year, and it expected to lose even more in the second quarter: two million, to be exact.

But once the numbers came in, it only lost just shy of one million, so . . . yay? “We are talking about losing one million instead of losing two million, so our excitement is tempered by the less bad results,” executive Reed Hastings recently said, per Deadline. “Tough in some ways losing a million and calling it success, but really we are set up very well for the next year,” he added with typical sashay.

Hastings credits the not-as-bad-as-expected results to the fourth season of Stranger Things, which premiered in May and absolutely blew the hell up. He wants more of that. “I think it is really important, particularly in tough economic times that consumers see Netflix as a tremendous value,” said fellow Netflix exec Ted Sarandos. He called the platform’s current content offerings the “tip of the iceberg.”

Netflix wants its own version of “Star Wars” or “Harry Potter”

“Stranger Things” is a bona fide hit for Netflix, and they’re already working on spinoffs. But can other series get “the ‘Stranger Things’ treatment”?

Well, it depends what pops off. Netflix is already doubling down on series like “The Witcher,” “Squid Game” and “Bridgerton,” which have spinoffs on the way. And they have a lot more coming down the pike, including “The Three-Body Problem,” “One Piece,” “Avatar: The Last Airbender,” and more.

“It has to start with the story itself,” executive Matthew Thunell told Reuters. “Does it sustain that kind of expansion? There are some series like ‘Stranger Things’ that are wildly successful, that do have the depth of mythology, and additional stories that allow you to move into animation or features or anime.”

We want to have our version of ‘Star Wars’ or our version of ‘Harry Potter,’ and we’re working very hard to build that. But those are not built overnight.

Despite falling subscriber numbers, Netflix is still well ahead of its nearest competition, so they have some time to work all of this out.

11 of the most influential royal lovers in British history

Wallis Simpson is one of the most famous women in British royal history: Her romance with Edward VIII led to the abdication of 1936 and changed the line of succession. Not only was Britain spared the reign of a very questionable king, but it led to the accession of his niece, Elizabeth II, who is Britain’s longest reigning monarch.

And yet, despite her immense influence, Wallis was never queen. And like her, some of the most influential people in British history have been the monarch’s lover rather than their spouse. Here are 11 royal lovers who left their mark.

1. Piers Gaveston and Edward II

Piers Gaveston first met Edward in 1300 when he joined the Prince’s household. Both were about 16, and it was said that Edward “immediately felt such love for him that he entered into a covenant of constancy, and bound himself with him before all other mortals with a bond of indissoluble love, firmly drawn up and fastened with a knot.”

There is no firm evidence that their relationship was sexual, but Edward was certainly devoted to Piers — to the detriment of others. Gaveston was low-born, arrogant, prone to insulting the nobility, and was hoovering up titles and wealth at the expense of those who thought themselves more entitled. The writer of the “Vita Edwardi Secundi,” a 14th-century chronicle of the king’s reign, declared that “I do not remember to have heard that one man so loved another . . . our king was incapable of moderate favour.” Edward created the title of “Earl of Cornwall” for him and gave him extensive lands. Edward also arranged for his niece, Margaret de Clare, to marry Piers. The one person who Gaveston seemed to show respect to was Edward’s wife, Isabella of France.

Against Edward’s wishes, Gaveston was forced to leave England three times between 1307 and 1311, though he always came back. But by 1312 the nobility had had enough: Despite guarantees for his safety by the Earl of Pembroke, he was seized, subjected to a mock trial, and then executed on the orders of the Earl of Warwick.

Edward’s bond with his barons never recovered; he spent the next 10 years plotting his revenge. He soon found another favorite in Hugh Despenser, and the same pattern began to repeat itself. But Despenser overstepped the mark when he appropriated Isabella’s lands and took control of her four children. In retaliation, she led a rebellion that resulted in Edward’s death in 1327 and the succession of their son, Edward III.

2. Alice Perrers and Edward III

Alice Perrers was the widow of the king’s jeweler, Janyn Perrers, and one of the queen’s damsels when she met Edward III. The most likely date for the beginning of their relationship is 1364, when she would have been no older than 18 and the king 55. The birth of the first of their three children sometime occurred between 1364 and 1366.

There’s no record of Edward having a mistress before Perrers, and out of respect for his ailing wife, Phillippa of Hainault, the affair was initially kept low-key. Perrers became more prominent at court after Phillippa’s death in 1369. Over the next eight years, as the king’s health deteriorated, he showered her with gifts, gave her jewelry once belonging to the queen, made her his “Lady of the Sun” at a public tournament, and allowed her to accumulate enough land and wardships to make her the richest and most powerful woman in England. She was also an independent businesswoman, moneylender, and property owner, and although she remarried in 1375 (without the king’s knowledge), she retained her image as a self-reliant woman (a femme sole).

Perrers was not the only person seeking to use the aging king’s failing mental health for their own end, but her gender made her a target for the chroniclers of the time. The most famous was Thomas of Walsingham’s unreliable description of her as “a shameless, impudent harlot . . . [who] was not attractive or beautiful, but knew how to compensate for these defects with the seductiveness of her voice.” Her business acumen only served to antagonize the patriarchal hierarchy further, and the Good Parliament of 1376 resulted in her temporary banishment.

She soon returned and remained with the king until his death a year later in June 1377. Although Perrers was not responsible for many of the failings of Edward’s government at the end of his reign, the king’s reputation fell from one of respect and authority to someone whose mistress had “such a hold over him that he allowed important and weighty affairs of the realm to be decided on her advice.”

3. Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt

Katherine Swynford met John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and King Edward III’s third son, while she was a damoiselle in his wife Blanche’s household. 

In September 1371, John married his second wife, Constance of Castille, following Blanche’s death. It was a purely dynastic union that gave the duke a claim to the Castilian throne. Swynford’s husband died two months later, leaving her a widow with three children. Though their relationship seems to have remained platonic prior to her husband’s passing, by spring 1372, Swynford was openly acknowledged as John’s mistress.

Between 1373 and 1379, Swynford and John had four children, all given the surname Beaufort. By 1381, the duke’s reputation was at an all time low, and Swynford was targeted as “an abominable temptress.” John was forced to make a public denouncement of her and end the relationship, but this was a ruse. The two continued to meet in private.

Constance died in 1394, and two years later, amid a public scandal, John and Swynford were married at Lincoln Cathedral. Their children were legitimized by the Pope and, despite being barred from the line of succession by John’s eldest son from his first marriage, Henry IV, they would in fact go on to change history. Every English monarch since Edward IV (1461) and Scottish monarch since James II (1437) has been descended from Swynford. She is also the ancestor of numerous American Presidents, including George WashingtonThomas JeffersonTheodore Roosevelt, and George W. Bush.

4. Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII

For the four years after her return from the French court in 1522, Anne Boleyn lived a dazzling if inconspicuous life as a lady-in-waiting to Katherine of Aragon. If she had married Henry Percy, the future Earl of Northumberland, as she had hoped, she would have been just a footnote in history. But in 1526, she caught the attention of Henry VIII.

Henry may never have set out to replace his wife with Boleyn. He had a history of infidelity and illegitimate children — including one with Anne’s sister, Mary. To further complicate matters, his Catholic faith prevented him from seeking a divorce. But Henry had only a daughter to succeed him and no male heir, and it was Boleyn’s good fortune that she was the woman who piqued his interest just when he came to the conclusion that he needed a new wife.

Henry’s pursuit of Boleyn had repercussions that would irrevocably change England’s religious identity. The Reformation did not happen because of Anne Boleyn — it was already a growing force — but her continual assertion that she would not be just another mistress fueled Henry’s desire for the annulment from Katherine, no matter the cost. Boleyn’s own support for the reformers also significantly advanced Protestantism’s progress in England. But their marriage only lasted a little over three years. At Henry’s connivance, Boleyn was charged with treason and executed on May 19, 1536.

5. James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell and Mary I of Scotland

James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell — commonly known as Lord Bothwell and described by the English Ambassador as a “[vain] glorious, rash, and hazardous young man” — first met Mary in 1560 when she was still Queen of France. Although he was a Protestant, he was a supporter of the Scotland’s Catholic regent, and in 1561 he was appointed to the privy council by the newly widowed Mary on her return to Scotland. Despite being described as having a “near sybbe [close friendship] unto her grace,” there is no evidence that they were lovers at this time — in fact, Mary was said to be besotted by Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, who she married in July 1565.

There does seem to have been a change, however, by June 1566. The English diplomat Henry Killigrew wrote that, “Bothwell’s credit with the Queen is greater than all the rest together.” Mary’s son, James, had been born five days before, and although there is no question that he was Darnley’s son, her relationship with her husband had now completely broken down thanks to his involvement in the murder of her secretary David Riccio the previous March.

Mary’s relationship with Bothwell grew. When Darnley was found half-naked and smothered in the garden of his bombed house in 1567, both she and the earl were accused of arranging his murder. Abandoned by the Protestant nobles who had also been complicit, Mary continued to support her lover and sat on the sidelines as he was prosecuted and acquitted for Darnley’s murder. It seems likely that she knew of his plan to abduct her on April 24, 1567, although perhaps not of the violent assault that followed. With her position compromised, and no one left to support her, she married Bothwell on May 15, 1567.

After being forced to abdicate because of the scandal, Mary fled to England where she was executed on February 8, 1587, for plotting to murder Elizabeth I.

6. Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and Elizabeth I

Although Elizabeth may have known Robert Dudley as a child, and may have even had contact with him during her imprisonment in the Tower of London, any relationship that existed between them probably didn’t start until sometime shortly before her accession in 1558. By then he was already firmly entrenched as one of her most intimate advisors, and within a year she had become so emotionally reliant on him that the Spanish Ambassador noted that “they say she is in love with Lord Robert and never lets him leave her.”

Dudley already had a wife, who now prevented him from marrying the queen. He had wed Amy Robsart for love as a teenager in 1550. If Elizabeth ever intended to marry Dudley, Amy’s death under suspicious circumstances in 1560 ended any chance of that. Elizabeth was too savvy a politician to risk her throne as Mary I of Scotland had, and although Dudley would spend the next 18 years trying to get her to change her mind, Elizabeth never married him.

There is no evidence that they were ever physically lovers — the Spanish Ambassador recorded that Elizabeth herself swore that “as God was her witness nothing improper had ever passed between them,” and Robert had numerous sexual relationships with other women, including Lettice Devereux, who he married in 1578. But despite this, they were inseparable until Dudley’s death in 1588 and it’s said he remained her great love. Elizabeth was reportedly never happy when he was absent, and politician Sir Thomas Shirley told Dudley in 1586 that “you knowe the queen and her nature best of anny man.” She kept the last letter Dudley ever sent her in a casket by her bedside until she died in 1603.

7. George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham and James VI and I

James’s inclination for male company was well known when George Villiers engineered his way into the king’s presence in August 1614. James was immediately attracted to the man a bishop described as, “the handsomest-bodied in England; his limbs so well compacted and his conversation so pleasing and of so sweet a disposition.” But Villiers had to wait two years before the king’s current favorite, the Earl of Somerset, fell from grace.

Villiers immediately filled the void, seeming to confirm that they were lovers in a letter to James where he questioned, “whether you loved me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham [in 1615], where the bed’s head could not be found between the master and his dog.” The aging James was besotted by the younger man, who he called his “sweete Steenie,” raising him through the ranks to become the Duke of Buckingham in 1623.

The danger was not necessarily that it was a gay affair, but rather that James had once again chosen a lover who was unequal to the job of being a key advisor. James’s blindness to Villiers’s corruption and incompetence put the country in danger. For his own ends, the new duke ensured the impeachment of the man trying to reform the king’s finances, nurtured the row between James and parliament to hide his own illegal dealings in Ireland, and called for a war with Spain to avert attention from his disastrous negotiations that almost resulted in the Prince of Wales becoming a hostage.

If James was ever aware of this, he forgave him. “I desire,” he wrote to Villiers, “to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow’s life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.”

8. Barbara Palmer, Duchess of Cleveland and Charles II

Barbara Palmer‘s father was the half-nephew of the Duke of Buckingham, but her family was impoverished when she married her husband, Roger, in 1659. She was already known for her scandalous lifestyle; within weeks of meeting King Charles II in 1660, she became his mistress.

Their first child was born in February 1661, and by December that year her husband had been made Baron Limerick and Earl of Castlemaine. Palmer had another four children with Charles, who declared in 1662 that “whosoever I finde to be my Lady Castlemaine’s enemy in this matter, I do promise upon my word, to be his enemy as long as I live.”

Her relationship with the king was never exclusive, but she remained his most important mistress between 1660 and 1672. The chronicler Samuel Pepys recorded that she “commands the King as much as ever, and hath and doth what she will.” She used this influence to her own advantage, selling access to the king and negotiating positions of high office for anyone who either paid her or was her lover. Worse still, she took bribes from the Spanish and French to intercede on their behalf, and she passed them information that would help them in their negotiations. Pepys believed that, “at the great ball she was much richer in jewells than the Queen and Duchess put together,” and an Italian diplomat recorded that “the prodigious amount of money dissipated by this woman, who has no moderation or limit in her desires, passes all bounds and exceeds all belief.” The number of portraits of her surpassed those of the queen.

In 1670 she was given a further three titles, one of which made her the duchess of Cleveland in her own right. But her relationship with Charles was on the decline. Gradually it became one of friendship and she went abroad, though they remained in contact regarding their children. The king spent an evening enjoying her company only a week before he died in 1685.

9. Lady Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough and Queen Anne

By the time of Anne‘s accession in 1702, she and Churchill had been together for 29 years. They had supported each other through the turbulent years of the Glorious Revolution and the combined death of 20 of their children. Anne’s loyalty to Churchill had even driven a wedge between her and her sister, Queen Mary II, and although both women were married — Sarah to John Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough, and Anne to Prince George of Denmark — their relationship was much more than that of monarch and servant.

The nature of their relationship can’t be known for sure, but it is generally accepted that Anne and Churchill’s bond went beyond friendship, thanks mainly to the latter’s kiss-and-tell memoir. Anne’s letters were full of affection, as when she told Churchill that “tis impossible for you ever to believe how much I love you except you saw my heart.” They adopted names which made them equal in their letters — Anne signed herself as Mrs Morley while Churchill took the name Mrs Freeman — and they expressed their passion unreservedly. “If I writ whole volumes I could never express how well I love you,” the queen wrote to Churchill, although we will never know the responses because the duchess made Anne burn all of her replies.

Both were equally devoted to their husbands, and it was not unusual in the 18th century for women to write romantic-friendship letters in the same language as they used with male lovers. It may be that the sentiments expressed were only pronouncements of a strong and deep friendship.

It is remarkable that the two women remained together for as long as they did. They were very different personalities: Churchill was overly blunt and unnecessarily cruel in how she treated the shy and fragile queen. Their differences over the evolving makeup of Parliament — with Churchill’s support of the Whig Party contradictory to Anne’s natural leanings toward the Tories — drove them apart, though the former’s absence from court, her cruelty when Anne’s husband died, and the arrival of Abigail Masham, whose treatment of the queen was considerably kinder, played a role as well. Churchill had one final meeting with Anne in 1710, and although she regained some of her status under George I, she was never reconciled with her former friend.

10. Melusine von der Schulenburg, Duchess of Kendal and George I

For much of his reign, George I remained unpopular, in no small part thanks to the actions of his mistress, Melusine von der Schulenburg. She had been George’s lover since about 1690, when he was still Elector of Hanover and she was his mother’s maid of honor. George’s marriage was particularly complicated — he had divorced his wife for her infidelity in 1694, five months after the murder of her lover, for which he has remained chief suspect.

Von der Schulenburg and the three daughters illegitimate daughters she shared with George accompanied him to Britain when he became king in 1714. As with many royal mistresses whose position relied completely on the king, she made sure to secure her future. She quickly established herself as a way to access and influence the king for a price, and the politician Robert Walpole claimed that, “her Interest did Everything; that she was, in effect, as much Queen of England as ever any was; that he did Everything by her.”

Regardless of what society thought — or the ridicule she received for her looks — von der Schulenburg remained devotedly by George’s side for the rest of his life. They were well suited, with the aristocrat Lady Mary Wortley Montagu noting that von der Schulenburg was “so much of [the king’s] own temper that I do not wonder at the Engagement between them.” George showered her with peerages, including making her Duchess of Munster in 1714 and Duchess of Kendal in 1719, and her creation as Princess of Eberstein by the Holy Roman Emperor at George’s request may indicate that he had secretly married her. When George died in Hanover in 1727, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, returned to Britain where her grief was recognized by the new queen: “My first thought, my dear Duchess, has been of you . . .  I know well your devotion and love for the late King . . .  I hope you realize that I am your friend.”

11. Alice Keppel and Edward VII

Keppel was a descendant of Robert III of Scotland and a suitable bride for the younger son of the Earl of Albemarle, who she married in 1891. She was a lavish society hostess but, with little money, she soon began affairs with numerous wealthy aristocrats — with her husband’s blessing — to fund their lifestyle. In 1894, he acknowledged her eldest daughter, Violet, as his, although this is unlikely.

It was almost inevitable that Alice would eventually catch the attention of the Prince of Wales, a notorious womanizer who delighted in the company of the wives of other men. They met in February 1898 when he was 56 and she 29, and their affair would last 12 years and make the Keppels wealthy enough to afford numerous houses both in the UK and abroad, in addition to providing for her brother. In return, she was discreet and a good listener, and, according to one contemporary, made the king “a much pleasanter child.” Edward used her to promote his interests with the government; the government in turn used her as an intercessor. One diplomat wrote that, “there were one or two occasions when the King was in disagreement with the Foreign Office, and I was able, through her, to advise the King with a view to the foreign policy of the government being accepted.”

While she is not one of his most famous mistresses, she was one of his favorites. Keppel’s great-granddaughter is Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and wife — and former mistress — of the present Prince of Wales.

You got someone else’s blood on you. Now what?

America is bleeding. We are in the throes of an escalating gun violence epidemic, with mass shootings a now daily tragedy. Vehicular deaths have in past year increased by 10.5%. Even shark attacks are on the rise. But it’s okay; you’re safe. You weren’t injured, or at least not seriously. Now, however, in the aftermath of the chaos and confusion, you realize there’s blood — someone else’s blood — on you. You should get checked that out.


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


We’ve spent the last few years getting used to a more hygienic new normal, one in which we have become painfully aware of the risks of just breathing on each other. Yet we rarely consider the consequences of bleeding on each other. It certainly hadn’t crossed my mind in a concrete way until I recently wound up in the path of an elderly pedestrian with a traumatic head injury. I waited for the ambulance with him, ineptly trying to stanch his wound with a paper towel. After the paramedics arrived and he was on his way to the hospital, I washed up in a nearby restaurant’s restroom. I came home and showered and laundered my clothes. And I called my doctor.

Though the risks of infection from superficial physical contact with blood are relatively low, it doesn’t mean they should automatically be dismissed in the relieved aftermath of an accident or act of violence. The CDC estimates that from 2.4 to 4.7 million Americans are living with hepatitis C, and up to 2.2 million are living with hepatitis B. More than half of them don’t know they have their conditions, which can cause mild illness or more serious, long term symptoms. So it’s worth it for all of us to understand what healthcare workers, who have well thought out protocols for just these types of events, know about blood exposure. Being cautious and prepared can be especially important when you don’t know the health status of the other people involved in your incident.

First, you should know what you are, and are not, at risk for.

“With regards to COVID-19, there is no risk of acquiring it through blood as this is not the mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2. It is through respiratory secretions/fluids,” explains Erica Susky, an infection control practitioner in Toronto. It’s not a bad idea, however, to consider how close you may have been to others, for how long and in how well ventilated a space.

“For bloodborne viruses (HIV, hepatitis B and C), exposure can occur with blood but not with other bodily fluids (feces, vomit, nasal secretions, saliva, sputum or tears),” Susky continues. “Exposure is possible when infected blood comes in contact with non-intact skin, mucous membranes, and through the skin through a needle or sharp object. Factors to consider would be if the blood comes from someone infected, the amount of virus in the blood, if the person exposed is immune (as vaccines are available for hepatitis B) and the volume of blood involved in the exposure.” And Nancy Mitchell, a registered nurse and contributing writer for Assisted Living Center, points out that “While the most common blood borne pathogens are HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C… there are more than 20 other pathogens that can be transmitted via blood exposure.”

Next, assess whether the person’s blood could have had a viable point of entry to your body. “One should be concerned if blood comes in contact with mucous membranes or an opening in the skin,” says Susky. Could blood get in to a fresh cut or wound, or the inside of your mouth or nose, for example? If not, you’re probably safe. Susky says, “The risk should be absent if it occurred with intact skin or any other physical barrier,” like clothing.

Regardless of risk, the sooner and more thoroughly you can wash up, the better (assuming of course that you don’t need to preserve evidence of a crime). “It’s important to immediately clean the area,” says Mitchell. Wash your hands well with warm, soapy water and do the same to any areas of the body which have been exposed. Wash your hands again once all the blood has been cleaned away.”

Although we were outside and I didn’t notice any open cuts on myself while I was with the injured man, I still got tested later for HIV, hepatitis B and C, and COVID-19. I didn’t know him, didn’t know the state of his health. There is no downside to being cautious, and if I wash my hands before I eat a meal, why wouldn’t I want to know if I’d been exposed to a potentially serious infection? There are relatively straightforward and effective treatments for blood borne conditions, but nothing works if you don’t know you’ve got one.

The difficult reality of contemporary life in America is that on any given day, a random accident or act of mass violence can directly affect your life. And even in a best case scenario, one in which you walk away unscathed, you could still experience unforeseen consequences to your health. That’s hard to think about it, but it’s good to prepare for. And as long as we keep spilling blood, we need to know what to do when some of it lands on us. 

Your couch is calling for a clean (and you must go)

When it comes to cleaning your house, you’re got it down to a near-perfect science. You’re tossing out bed pillows that are past their prime , keeping out dirt and debris with clean window screens, and making sure your pantry is operating at its organizational peak.

But what about your couch? You can’t toss the whole thing into the wash and call it a day, unfortunately. Your sofa is likely very large, possibly made of a finicky material (hello, linen or, gasp, leather), and probably an absolute magnet for pet hair and little colonies of crumbs. But the time has come to tackle the mess that is your musty stained, smelly couch, so take a deep breath and heed the advice of a few pros we’ve assembled for the job. Meet Angela Bell and Georgia Dixon, the Grove Guides at Grove Collaborative, a natural and sustainable cleaning company, and Bailey Carson, the Head of Cleaning and Home Improvement at Handy. Unfortunately, they’re not literally doing the job for us, but they’ll help see us through.

How to clean a couch: Remove pet hair, crumbs, and debris with ease

Before we dive into the deep end of our couch cushions, let’s take a closer look at the surface. There might be a few stray pet hairs (or many, no shame) and some crumbs from last night’s late night snack. These are no biggies and can be handled in a few ways, depending on how you like to clean, plus each tactic is simple enough that it can be done every few days, as needed.

“Using a vacuum with an upholstery head attachment is a great way to remove food particles so that they don’t smudge any grease or food into the upholstery,” Bell and Dixon say. “A good lint brush can be great for removing pet fur and dander, too, and a dustpan and brush can come in handy for larger debris on sturdier fabric.” We like Grove Co.’s Full Circle Clean Team Dust Pan & Brush with it’s hefty bristles for this exact task.

For a deeper-clean version of this quick fix, do a weekly sweep under each pillow and lift the cushions so your vacuum can do its job of making sure you leave no popcorn kernel behind.

1. Take a crash course in manufacturer tag language

Before you try to tackle a stain, it’s important to read and understand those upholstery tags on your furniture (that you definitely didn’t cut off . . . right?), Carson says. It can feel like these are written in alien, but if you somehow didn’t major in manufacturer lingo, fear not, our pro has a cheat sheet.

“W stands for water, and means the furniture can be cleaned with water-based cleaning products. S stands for solvent, and means it should only be cleaned with a water-free product like a dry-cleaning solvent,” Carson adds. “WS or SW means that the product can be cleaned with either water- or solvent-based cleaning products. X generally means that this product is challenging to clean and should be taken to an upholstery-cleaning professional.”

2. Pay close attention to the material you’re working with

Our couches come in many different shapes, sizes, and fabrics, but this doesn’t necessarily mean we need an equal number of cleaning products and techniques.

“Using an enzyme-based stain remover can be great for many materials,” Bell and Dixon advise, “just be sure to use a clean, damp cloth to gently blot or rub the fabric.” This technique might do the trick on its own, but it also doubles as a pre-treatment for set-in stains on removable cushion covers that need to head to the laundry room.

Amazon shoppers in the tens of thousands love this Rocco & Roxie Supply Professional Strength Stain and Odor Eliminator, especially for pet stains. And blotting with OxiClean Laundry Stain Remover Spray as a pre-treat before your covers take a whirl in the wash has also given many of us caught with jam on our hands (and white sofas) wonderful results. Both are suitable for common couch materials like cotton, wool, or poly-blends.

It’s no surprise, however, that “materials like leather and suede require more care and specific cleaners,” the duo says. So be sure to look for products that specify these fabrics on their labels, like this cleaner from Leather Honey (which also cleans your leather-passing vinyl and plastic furniture, just in case you need to take care of those pieces, too).

3. Do a test-run for any liquid cleaner

Now that we know what we’re working with, it’s time to actually deal with that unsightly marinara stain on your taupe couch that totally kills the vibe of your chic and sophisticated living room, right? Not so fast.

When attempting to get a stain out of your couch with a liquid cleaner, Carson has one key piece of advice: “Always test cleaning products on an area you can’t see before jumping right to spot-treatment,” she implores. The best place for this can usually be found underneath your couch where the upholstery is pulled tight and stapled to the frame where no one will ever see it. It might take some maneuvering or even an extra set of hands to help lift the couch to get to this discreet location, but it will be worth it to know for sure how the material will react to your cleaner of choice.

4. Make your own non-toxic cleaner

Unless you’re new here, you know we love a DIY hack born of pantry staples. So, if you still aren’t sure which cleaning product is best for a specific stain or material, “mixing one cup warm water with one-quarter cup dishwashing soap is a great, non-toxic upholstery cleaner” for most fabrics, Carson advises. “Skim excess foam off the top, keep the solution away from wood accents, and be careful not to use too much water, as this can cause further staining and fabric shrinkage.” And as always, do a spot test first.

5. Deep clean in your washing machine

After you’ve de-crumbed and eliminated nearly all proof that there’s a pet in your house, spot-treated stains, and vacuumed up every corner and crevice of your couch, the last, monthly step is to head to the laundry room. If your sofa has removable cushions, which most do, one of the best ways to ensure a fresh smell and feel is to take those off and toss them into the wash — on the correct settings, of course.

“The best way to wash removable cushion covers is to run them in a separate, delicate cycle, with normal detergent in cold water,” Bell and Dixon tell us. “Using a cold-water cycle will prevent the fabric from shrinking and will avoid setting any stains that you may be trying to remove.”

Be sure that any zippers, buttons, or ties are “securely fastened before beginning the wash cycle so that there are no rips or damages,” Carson adds, noting that these embellishments can easily snag the material while covers are tossed around inside the washing machine. “Always air-dry cushions, as a machine dryer tends to damage or shrink cushion cover materials.”

6. Get your hands wet when need-be

If your cushion covers are vintage and delicate or a less sturdy fabric, like linen, utilizing your bathtub is a great alternative to the sometimes overwhelming power of a washing machine. Simply fill the tub with enough cool water to submerge cushion covers and use a delicate detergent, like Tide Free and Gentle or Grove Co. Care & Renew. “Let covers soak in the water and gently move them around to release dirt and odors,” Bell and Dixon say. “After soaking, covers can be rinsed by hand in warm water, squeezed gently, and hung to dry.”

After a few hours’ drying time, your couch will be ready for reassembly and some much deserved lounging time. You’ve earned it!

7. Keep things cleaner, longer

Aside from instituting a no-pets-on-the-sofa rule and enforcing a new policy that restricts anyone in your household from eating on the couch (your own post-dinner ice cream ritual included), there’s one more thing you can do to help keep your couch in tip top shape. If the material will be ok with it — don’t forget about that handy spot test — using a protectant like the Scotchgard Fabric Water Shield to keep liquid-based stains from ever settling in on your furniture could be a great first line of defense.

Especially since we’re already eyeing tonight’s mint chocolate chip.

This post contains products independently chosen (and loved) by Food52 editors and writers. Food52 earns an affiliate commission on qualifying purchases of the products we link to.

Garlicky, lemony fried chickpeas are an addictive summertime snack

The pandemic made me a believer in cocktail hour. From its earliest formless days, I found myself grasping for whatever structure I could impose — early morning walks, Monday night movies, and sometime around the hour that applause would spill from the windows of New York City, a beverage to signal the end of one time of day and the start of another.

It didn’t have to be alcoholic — just something ceremoniously poured into a nice glass, something civilized for the end of the world. Two and a half years later, I still find myself grateful for that gentle time of the day, signaled with a glass of wine or a seltzer with a sprig of mint. But what’s a happy hour without a nibble to go with it?

From the moment I first cracked open Andy Baraghani’s “The Cook You Want to Be: Everyday Recipes to Impress,” I’ve been obsessed with his caramelized lemon cacio e pepe, the brightest, boldest, most deeply comforting dish I’ve made all year. But because I apparently can’t make it every single night without my family mutinying, I decided to take its elements and put them into a bite I can have every night.

Citrusy, crunchy, garlicky and salty, these chickpeas make an exquisite side dish or light supper. But frankly, I’d rather watch you enjoy them while you’re sitting outside right before sunset, a cooling breeze coming in and a negroni or another Italian cocktail nearby.


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


I can attest that they’re enthusiastically welcomed by guests, but also that they’re far too good to save for only when guests are around. So, go ahead and make them — even if just for yourself — and toast the achievement of getting though another long day.

***

Inspired by Andy Baraghani’s “The Cook You Want to Be: Everyday Recipes to Impress” and Appetizer Addiction

Garlicky, Lemony Fried Chickpeas
Yields
 2-4 servings
Prep Time
 5 minutes
Cook Time
 10-15 minutes

Ingredients

  • 1⁄4 cup vegetable oil
  • 1 15-ounce can chickpeas 
  • 2 cloves garlic, minced
  • 1 small lemon, washed and thinly sliced
  • Salt and pepper, to taste

 

Directions

  1. In a large pan or skillet, heat the oil to shimmering.
  2. Drain the chickpeas and rub them gently with a paper towel to dry. (You don’t have to go overboard.)
  3. Heat the chickpeas in the oil until they’re browned to your liking, about 10 minutes. (I like to keep them going until they start to pop.)
  4. Add the garlic and lemon slices and stir. Cook about 1 minute more. 
  5. Remove from the heat and top with salt and pepper.
  6. Eat them while they’re hot and crispy.

Cook’s Notes

You can add any spices you like to change up the flavor here. Za’atar is always delicious. 

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Salon has affiliate partnerships, so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

In breaking up with Kim Wexler, “Better Call Saul” maps a noble end to a stellar portrait of a lady

As part of the historic run of “Better Call Saul,” Kim Wexler and Jimmy McGill will go down as one of TV’s greatest storied couples, although for reasons other than their smolder. They never had that – no offense to the multiple Emmy-nominated Rhea Seehorn and Bob Odenkirk, the outstanding actors who make this pair work.

The audience understands Kim and Jimmy aren’t bonded by lust. No, what fuels their love is mutual validation.

For much of the series, and the couple’s relationship, that dynamic appears to be one-sided. Kim and Jimmy start out as co-workers in the mailroom of his brother Chuck’s law firm. But she works her way up the ladder to become a litigator, unencumbered by sibling hatred or personal vendettas but still subject to standard workplace sexism cloaked in the language of paying dues.

The more she and Jimmy are kicked around, the closer she shifts to Jimmy’s way of viewing the world as a place that rewards corner-cutters and ruthless scammers. And once she finds a version of work-life balance that suits her – valiant public defender by day, revenge artist in her off-hours – her balancing act with Jimmy levels out.

There are so many reasons the two of them shouldn’t have worked and, at least cosmetically, good reasons that they should. Kim and Jimmy is a marvy couple moniker, after all. Fun-loving Kim and Jimmy.

But as Kim and others point out, they’re a problem. “You’re like Leopold and Loeb, two sociopaths,” Howard Hamlin says to them in the last words he ever speaks. When cartel fixer Mike Ehrmantraut (Jonathan Banks) arrives to clean up the corpse that their long con leaves in its wake, he tells them to act like nothing happened, invoking the names of Laurence Olivier and Meryl Streep. They’re two of the greatest actors of the modern age, but tough to picture as a couple.

After years of TV dramas uplifting troubling men … Kim Wexler walks out of her old life heroically.

Kim and Jimmy enjoy inspired, ruthless good times, the kind that doesn’t generally end well. Fortunately for Kim and all who love Seehorn’s portrayal, “Better Call Saul” doesn’t close the door with her death in its ninth episode, “Fun and Games.” Instead, it kills her partnership with Jimmy.

“You were asked if you were bad for me. That’s not it. We are bad for each other,” Kim says to Jimmy during its dramatic climax, following her reveal that she’s quit the legal profession and is moving out of their apartment. “Apart, we’re OK. But together, we’re poison.”

Better Call SaulRhea Seehorn as Kim Wexler and Bob Odenkirk as Saul Goodman on “Better Call Saul” (Greg Lewis/AMC)For many seasons fans feared Kim’s absence from “Breaking Bad” meant she was destined to be knocked off, another piece of collateral damage caused by Jimmy’s misdeeds. But the reality is far more provocative and, honestly, a relief. After years of TV dramas uplifting troubling men while their reasonable, rightfully upset wives and partners were deemed shrews, Kim Wexler walks out of her old life heroically, her respectability intact.

As I previously wrote, Kim always stood out in a lineup of characters who equate success with money, risk, and how far they’ll go to get ahead and get one over on their enemies as morally stalwart. She was more like us than Jimmy or Mike or Gus Fring (Giancarlo Esposito) or even Howard.

Across six seasons the writers and Seehorn steadily, expertly built Kim from a woman with many unanswered questions about her character bio into someone who presents a serene front while doing excellent work and secretly masterminding a few terrible acts. We also knew very little about who she was and where she came from until recent seasons and episodes when we met her mother and found out that con artistry is in her blood.

Long before the writers dropped that detail into “Better Call Saul” lore, we see Kim steadily, subtly pulling away from the behavioral standards of the average person, demonstrating her willingness to slip along with Jimmy and persuade herself that her cheap thrills didn’t cause any lasting harm.

And when he started to let his baser nature rise to the fore, she was shocked at times but never horrified enough to walk away.

One clue of the chilly current running through her veins comes at the start of this season when she finds the mug she bought for Jimmy to mark his first big success as a straight world-edition of a lawyer has taken a bullet.

She stares at it and tilts her head with slightly irritated curiosity before, a few moments before they’re about to get into a cab, casually tossing it into a trash can. For many people, finding out a loving gift has been desecrated by a gangster’s bullet, for crying out loud, would be a deal breaker. Not for Kim.

But this doesn’t make Kim a pushover or enabler. It’s her version of accepting the price of partnering with Jimmy. She says as much in her breakup speech, telling him she stuck with him through all the awful things they were doing to good people like Howard because she was having too much fun.

Better Call SaulRhea Seehorn as Kim Wexler on “Better Call Saul” (Greg Lewis/AMC)By subtly painting that gradual slide, the show’s writers coaxed the audience into loving and caring about Kim with a similar fervor to that of previously established characters. And in a universe where victory is determined by wealth, power, and staying alive, winner takes all, Kim pulls out a victory by ditching her entire life, including the man who brought out her inner grifter.

Nine years ago Anna Gunn, who played the “Breaking Bad” antihero’s wife Skyler, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times titled “I Have a Character Issue.” Through that column she pushed back against the vitriol her character inspired among viewers. Walter White, the high school chemistry teacher turned methamphetamine kingpin, is the show’s protagonist who also manufactures an illicit substance that ruins people’s lives – and that’s before you get into the violence and murder he’s a party to.

But as much as viewers adored Walter White, they despised his Skyler for having the gall to be upset with her husband for risking her life and the lives of their children by trading in his legal, respectable teaching career to consort with violent criminals.

“As an actress, I realize that viewers are entitled to have whatever feelings they want about the characters they watch,” Gunn wrote. “But as a human being, I’m concerned that so many people react to Skyler with such venom. Could it be that they can’t stand a woman who won’t suffer silently or ‘stand by her man’? That they despise her because she won’t back down or give up? Or because she is, in fact, Walter’s equal?”

When contemplating Kim’s trajectory in “Better Call Saul,” it’s as if series creators Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould always had that paragraph in mind.

Kim has never been the long-suffering type, and Seehorn never played her that way.

That’s the part about this farewell that’s so wonderful, whether it’s the definitive goodbye or simply the start of it. Kim has never been the long-suffering type, and Seehorn never played her that way. She makes her someone who knew exactly what she was doing at every step, grew into the prankster she wanted to be, and is smart enough to realize that none of what she’s doing, legally or illegally, jibes with want she wants.

This gives her breakup speech the equivalent of Walter White’s moment of truth, at long last, before Skyler: “I did it for me,” he admitted after years of claiming he was building his meth empire for her and the kids. “I liked it, I was good at it, and I was really . . . I was alive.”

People love that “Breaking Bad” quote because it validates Skyler’s resentment while confirming Walter’s ruthlessness, which is precisely what makes him such a popular character.

Kim hasn’t fully broken that way, but she turns the same energy on Jimmy, flipping the Walter-Skyler dynamic when he tries to halt the speeding train of their breakup with a humble, “Hey . . . I love you.”

“I love you too,” she whispers, before following that with, “But so what?”


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


In talking about Kim at the end of the first season, Seehorn – who, at the time, likely had very little idea of how her character would evolve – observed, “They give me these moments where I tell [Jimmy] don’t make it personal about Hamlin . . .  But then she smiles when she sees he’s pulled off this amazing stunt with a guy falling off a billboard. And I think she enjoys him, and I think that the people she thought 100% defined what’s good have started to crumble around the edges.”

Comparing sixth-season Kim Wexler to who she was then makes her journey all the more astounding since Seehorn herself hadn’t a clue who her lawyer would turn out to be. Then again all she is what she’s always been, which is to say someone who simply wants to be satisfied. That’s more along the lines of what the average person wants. But what sets her apart is her willingness to act on her impulses to behave as terribly as Howard says.

In that same monologue, he also calls her “one of the smartest and most promising human beings I’ve ever known.”

We know both to be true. That’s why it’s wonderful to picture her being alive and living in a colorful, brighter future, presumably someplace far, far away from Gene Takavic and Saul Goodman.

“Better Call Saul” airs Mondays at 9 p.m. on AMC.

To search for alien life, Webb telescope will look for clues in the atmospheres of distant planets

The ingredients for life are spread throughout the universe. While Earth is the only known place in the universe with life, detecting life beyond Earth is a major goal of modern astronomy and planetary science.

We are two scientists who study exoplanets and astrobiology. Thanks in large part to next-generation telescopes like James Webb, researchers like us will soon be able to measure the chemical makeup of atmospheres of planets around other stars. The hope is that one or more of these planets will have a chemical signature of life.

A diagram showing green bands around stars.

There are many known exoplanets in habitable zones – orbits not too close to a star that the water boils off but not so far that the planet is frozen solid – as marked in green for both the solar system and Kepler-186 star system with its planets labeled b, c, d, e and f. NASA Ames/SETI Institute/JPL-Caltech/Wikimedia Commons

Habitable exoplanets

Life might exist in the solar system where there is liquid water – like the subsurface aquifers on Mars or in the oceans of Jupiter’s moon Europa. However, searching for life in these places is incredibly difficult, as they are hard to reach and detecting life would require sending a probe to return physical samples.

Many astronomers believe there’s a good chance that life exists on planets orbiting other stars, and it’s possible that’s where life will first be found.

Theoretical calculations suggest that there are around 300 million potentially habitable planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone and several habitable Earth-sized planets within only 30 light-years of Earth – essentially humanity’s galactic neighbors. So far, astronomers have discovered over 5,000 exoplanets, including hundreds of potentially habitable ones, using indirect methods that measure how a planet affects its nearby star. These measurements can give astronomers information on the mass and size of an exoplanet, but not much else.

A chart showing two lines each with two peaks in the blue and red wavelengths.

Every material absorbs certain wavelengths of light, as shown in this diagram depicting the wavelengths of light absorbed most easily by different types of chlorophyll. Daniele Pugliesi/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Looking for biosignatures

To detect life on a distant planet, astrobiologists will study starlight that has interacted with a planet’s surface or atmosphere. If the atmosphere or surface was transformed by life, the light may carry a clue, called a “biosignature.”

For the first half of its existence, Earth sported an atmosphere without oxygen, even though it hosted simple, single-celled life. Earth’s biosignature was very faint during this early era. That changed abruptly 2.4 billion years ago when a new family of algae evolved. The algae used a process of photosynthesis that produces free oxygen – oxygen that isn’t chemically bonded to any other element. From that time on, Earth’s oxygen-filled atmosphere has left a strong and easily detectable biosignature on light that passes through it.

When light bounces off the surface of a material or passes through a gas, certain wavelengths of the light are more likely to remain trapped in the gas or material’s surface than others. This selective trapping of wavelengths of light is why objects are different colors. Leaves are green because chlorophyll is particularly good at absorbing light in the red and blue wavelengths. As light hits a leaf, the red and blue wavelengths are absorbed, leaving mostly green light to bounce back into your eyes.

The pattern of missing light is determined by the specific composition of the material the light interacts with. Because of this, astronomers can learn something about the composition of an exoplanet’s atmosphere or surface by, in essence, measuring the specific color of light that comes from a planet.

This method can be used to recognize the presence of certain atmospheric gases that are associated with life – such as oxygen or methane – because these gasses leave very specific signatures in light. It could also be used to detect peculiar colors on the surface of a planet. On Earth, for example, the chlorophyll and other pigments plants and algae use for photosynthesis capture specific wavelengths of light. These pigments produce characteristic colors that can be detected by using a sensitive infrared camera. If you were to see this color reflecting off the surface of a distant planet, it would potentially signify the presence of chlorophyll.

Telescopes in space and on Earth

A giant gold mirror in a lab.

The James Webb Space Telescope is the first telescope able to detect chemical signatures from exoplanets, but it is limited in its capabilities. NASA/Wikimedia Commons

It takes an incredibly powerful telescope to detect these subtle changes to the light coming from a potentially habitable exoplanet. For now, the only telescope capable of such a feat is the new James Webb Space Telescope. As it began science operations in July 2022, James Webb took a reading of the spectrum of the gas giant exoplanet WASP-96b. The spectrum showed the presence of water and clouds, but a planet as large and hot as WASP-96b is unlikely to host life.

However, this early data shows that James Webb is capable of detecting faint chemical signatures in light coming from exoplanets. In the coming months, Webb is set to turn its mirrors toward TRAPPIST-1e, a potentially habitable Earth-sized planet a mere 39 light-years from Earth.

Webb can look for biosignatures by studying planets as they pass in front of their host stars and capturing starlight that filters through the planet’s atmosphere. But Webb was not designed to search for life, so the telescope is only able to scrutinize a few of the nearest potentially habitable worlds. It also can only detect changes to atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor. While certain combinations of these gasses may suggest life, Webb is not able to detect the presence of unbonded oxygen, which is the strongest signal for life.

Leading concepts for future, even more powerful, space telescopes include plans to block the bright light of a planet’s host star to reveal starlight reflected back from the planet. This idea is similar to using your hand to block sunlight to better see something in the distance. Future space telescopes could use small, internal masks or large, external, umbrella-like spacecraft to do this. Once the starlight is blocked, it becomes much easier to study light bouncing off a planet.

There are also three enormous, ground-based telescopes currently under construction that will be able to search for biosignatures: the Giant Magellen Telescope, the Thirty Meter Telescope and the European Extremely Large Telescope. Each is far more powerful than existing telescopes on Earth, and despite the handicap of Earth’s atmosphere distorting starlight, these telescopes might be able to probe the atmospheres of the closest worlds for oxygen.

Is it biology or geology?

Even using the most powerful telescopes of the coming decades, astrobiologists will only be able to detect strong biosignatures produced by worlds that have been completely transformed by life.

Unfortunately, most gases released by terrestrial life can also be produced by nonbiological processes – cows and volcanoes both release methane. Photosynthesis produces oxygen, but sunlight does, too, when it splits water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen. There is a good chance astronomers will detect some false positives when looking for distant life. To help rule out false positives, astronomers will need to understand a planet of interest well enough to understand whether its geologic or atmospheric processes could mimic a biosignature.

The next generation of exoplanet studies has the potential to pass the bar of the extraordinary evidence needed to prove the existence of life. The first data release from the James Webb Space Telescope gives us a sense of the exciting progress that’s coming soon.


Chris Impey, University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy, University of Arizona and Daniel Apai, Professor of Astronomy and Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona

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

I grew up in a narcissistic family. I’m not having kids because I want the cycle to end

When my grandfather passed away more than three years ago, I offered to write his obituary. I’d written two: First came the doting one, the version that I knew local newspapers would publish without issue. And then I wrote the honest one — the version of his life that I knew editors would refuse to run, regardless of how much money I offered them.

My grandfather was a good, honest and hardworking man. That much is true. But he was also the victim of a brutish marriage, the details of which still make me shudder and my heart ache. The challenges he experienced didn’t stop at a toxic marriage; several of his children emotionally abused him, and in the hours before his scheduled cremation, one of them drove clear across the country to clean out his bank accounts upon learning of his death.

Even though I knew no one would run it, I attempted to post my grandfather’s “honest” obituary to several local newspapers. In it, I’d described the narcissistic trauma he’d endured until his death at 84 years old. When editors refused, I shared the obit with several close friends instead.

The mental health issues plaguing my family are intergenerational, and the trauma continues to affect every generation born into it. My family members had historically shamed and punished those who dared to speak out about the dysfunction. 

My reasons for wanting to write — and share — the raw version of my loved one’s obituary stemmed from my growing disgust for the secrets that narrated my family tree. Narcissistic abuse is defined by MedCircle as “the emotional, physical, sexual, or financial forms of abuse that a narcissist inflicts on others,” including gaslighting, manipulation, emotional blackmail, a lack of empathy and a long list of other traumatizing behaviors. This was our family’s dirty little secret, and with conversations about narcissism and narcissistic trauma gaining traction in the media and public imagination, I was tired of my family’s generations-long investment in silence and appearances.

The mantel had grown too heavy, and the gig was up. I’d had enough, in more ways than I’d been aware of at the time.

Children born into narcissistic families know how hard it can be to share stories like these. The truth is, the mental health issues plaguing my family are intergenerational, and the trauma continues to affect every generation born into it (I’m currently in therapy trying to wade through the sludge). My family members had historically shamed and punished those who dared to speak out about the dysfunction. Afterall, I was “just” the granddaughter, and still—maddeningly—considered a child. Who was I to have an opinion? Despite being nearly 40 years old, with my own life and desires, I’d been villainized by a key family member for daring to share an unpalatable perspective of my grandfather’s death, but most of all, daring to defy my family’s expectations for obedient silence.

As a result of ObituaryGate, I found myself having to establish boundaries with this same family member, whom I’ll call Adrian. Adrian was unhappy about my decision to air our family’s laundry to my trusted inner-circle; I reminded Adrian that she was not the only family member with wants and needs that mattered—that I mattered just as much as she did, that I had a need to share, and that I was no longer a child. I’d reminded Adrian that she was responsible for managing her own feelings, particularly in reference to her lifelong pattern of chronically manipulating other family members into doing what she wanted. I’d told Adrian that I loved her, but would no longer submit myself to her outsized rage and random outbursts (ObituaryGate merely being the latest example to top a lifetime’s worth of unchecked anger). My own mental health was on the line.

My request that Adrian receive professional help for her longstanding need to control other adults was met with crickets. More than three years later, Adrian’s silence — a well-established weapon of war in my family — continues.

Thanks to my family’s legacy of turning on each other and eating their young, I’d never had a stable model for how to raise emotionally healthy children. And so, I wondered: would having children of my own curse them to repeat the same traumatic cycle that I went through?

During that time, I’d had to make difficult decisions about my own future. Chief among these was whether to start a family. For the first time in my life, I was in a position to do so — at least in terms of logistics. My spouse and I were finally living under the same roof after we’d spent the first five years of our relationship separated by three states and two time zones. We had his loving family nearby, a logistical luxury I had not experienced in over ten years. We were financially stable, another characteristic that was relatively new to me.

But, thanks to my family’s legacy of turning on each other and eating their young, I’d never had a stable model for how to raise emotionally healthy children. And so, I wondered: would having children of my own curse them to repeat the same traumatic cycle that I went through?

There was no way to know for sure. But in the end, I decided that the probability was just too high — both for myself and for any potential offspring. When you come from a dysfunctional family, it’s hard to feel like you’re capable of breaking that cycle. I couldn’t bear the thought of another child being born into the web of narcissistic abuse that I’d spent my entire life trying to extricate from.

The stigma of having grown up this way was also the elephant in the room that helped me make my decision. For those of us from narcissistic families, the thought of the word “family” itself  can bring up negative feelings. I do not often talk about growing up because the details of my day-to-day life as a child are nearly impossible to articulate to those who haven’t been through something similar.

This is especially true because, on the surface, I had all of my physical needs met as a child. Us children had clothes on our backs, a roof over our heads and food in our stomachs. We did well in school and our parents, to whatever extent possible, encouraged and paid for extracurriculars. Ours was a childhood where there were also good — very good — times. The toxicity was hard to see.

Those of us who try to explain these disparate experiences — that of having one’s physical needs met while consistent emotional nourishment and efforts to instill healthy attachment were near nonexistent — are typically met with skeptical comments, like “How is that possible when you’ve obviously turned out fine?”

It turns out that the insidiousness of narcissistic trauma is just really hard to explain.

For that reason, I understand the inclination toward disbelief. We all know, intellectually, that there are a lot of unhealthy families out there. But to encounter someone who says they came up in such a construct requires us to come face to face with inconvenient truths about the world. It demands that we reconsider everything we believe about families and what they’re supposed to represent — to be — to their members. These uncomfortable truths require us to consider that there is much we don’t know about what goes on behind the scenes of any family, let alone those with unpalatable backstories. Perhaps these hard truths even force us to come face to face with who we are, and our own contributions to the family unit.

In my case, the narcissistic abuse that defined (and continues to define) my family is intergenerational — also a complicated construct to explain. But some of the trauma in my family, for instance, comes from knock-down drag-out fights over issues large and small; financial abuse; emotional manipulation; and — above all — a breathtaking lack of empathy for others’ feelings and experiences. This was the norm for my family’s dynamics long before I was born; hence, dysfunction was normalized and passed down by older generations like an heirloom.

In this way, I’d been the unwitting recipient of an unfortunate inheritance. Many of these same family members are still alive, willfully clueless as to the pain that their descendants carry with them to school, to work, to their friends’ houses, and to their therapists’ offices. The pain is like carrying around another limb — it becomes intrinsic to a person. And I didn’t want to extend this to another child.

I’d seen firsthand how this flavor of family dysfunctional and resulting pain secures a vice-like grip around each and every family member born into the fold. To my mind, the only way to truly end the cycle is to stop reproducing into it.

Even recognizing the patterns of dysfunction that are so baked in, so entrenched into a family’s DNA, is hard — and for some, impossible (which is often how such cycles continue). It had taken me more than 30 years to come to grips with my family’s sickness. As I’d said, life on the surface was so pristine that there almost wasn’t room for other interpretations — not even my own.

What really goes behind the scenes of a narcissistic household? While I can only speak for myself, my own experiences are captured within the professional discourse about what such environments often look like.

A narcissistic household often looks like children being relied upon to anticipate their parents’ (or other adults’) emotional needs. As journalist Julie Hall, author of “The Narcissist in Your Life: Recognizing the Patterns and Learning to Break Free,” writes in an explainer for Psychology Today: “a narcissistic family is one in which the needs of the parents are the focus and the children are expected in various ways to meet those needs.”

Having lived in this environment, I saw firsthand how this dynamic does not change, even as children grow older and become adults with their own lives to live. As Hall points out, “As in other kinds of dysfunctional families, there is abuse and corresponding denial of the abuse. There is also secrecy, neglect, unrealistic expectations, an impoverishment of empathy, disrespect for boundaries, and ongoing conflict.”

I’ve spent the entirety of my adult life contending with the lasting effects of growing up in this sort of toxic family system. Looking back, I do believe that the ultimate deciding factor against having children was my diagnosis of PTSD. My therapist had noted just how much I continued to struggle as a result of my childhood experiences.

As it happened, I’d just read Kristen Brownell’s piece in The Guardian at around the same time as my diagnosis. She wrote about the potential to genetically pass on addiction genes. The author had refused to have children for this reason. Around this same time, I’d come across researchers who were looking at how trauma might also be passed down through genes. While the jury is out and more research needs to be done (scientists admit that the field is moving slowly in this regard), it remains possible that a person’s genes could have expressions of their parents’, grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ trauma. Much like scientists are beginning to understand how addiction has the potential to express itself genetically, a 2019 study identified a clear biological basis for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Sometimes I convince myself that I am equipped to consider motherhood. But the fact remains that I’m terrified of raising — and screwing up — children due to my lifelong struggles with emotional instability and post-traumatic stress. How could I begin to believe that my own children would somehow be spared the legacy that I’ve spent my life contending with? For these reasons, I feel that I am playing it safe by opting out of parenthood.

One day as I was writing this piece, I was curious as to what feelings come to mind when most people think of family. So, I did a search for “adjectives for family.”  Common ones included adoring; affectionate; boisterous; brotherly; close-knit; cohesive; competitive; devoted; bonded; dutiful.

There’s nothing wrong with people who can say that they come from families like this. But for many, these descriptors are not reality. The fact is, parents can do serious emotional harm to children. It’s a gift that our culture is opening up to this reality, and that there are acclaimed mental health experts like Dr. Ramani Durvasula and Lindsey Gibson dismantling the taboo.

I applaud those parents who have found a way to overcome such legacies with their children. But my own legacy as a cycle-breaker relies on remaining childfree.

New transgender discrimination lawsuit marks decade of anti-LGBTQ controversies for Chick-fil-A

Last week, the Washington Post reported that Erin Taylor, who is transgender, filed a federal lawsuit alleging discrimination and sexual harassment after being fired by a hospitality company that owns a Chick-fil-A franchise in Decatur, Ga.

According to the lawsuit, Taylor alleges that while she was in training to be director of operations at the Decatur location — which is overseen by IJE Hospitality — one of her colleagues made a number of lewd remarks. Taylor claims to have approached Joe Engert, the franchise owner, to report the alleged harassment, which was sexual in nature.

Taylor disclosed that she was transgender in that conversation, according to the complaint. Taylor claims that Engert told her “it should be an honor . . . that someone liked her enough to hit on her.” Allegedly, Engert subsequently outed Taylor to her colleagues, including the employee whom Taylor had reported for sexual harassment. Taylor was later fired. 

In a statement to Insider, Taylor’s lawyers said, “Ms. Taylor alleges that, instead of the ‘positive and productive place to work’ Chick-Fil-A says they strive for, she found a cesspool of hate and discrimination.” 

While this location is owned by a franchisee rather than Chick-fil-A’s parent company, as is the case with many of the chain’s locations across the countries, it has reignited a now decade-long conversation about Chick-fil-A’s charitable giving and what Vox once described as “its reputation as a homophobic purveyor of delicious chicken sandwiches” — both of which are important to understand as context for this case. 

Here’s what you need to know:

When did allegations of “homophobia” against Chick-fil-A surface? 

In 2012, Dan Cathy, then-president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, who is the son of the chain’s founder S. Truett Cathy, appeared on The Ken Coleman Show, a syndicated radio talk show. In response to a discussion about some of the chain’s stances tied to Cathy’s religious beliefs— such as remaining closed on Sunday as it is “the Lord’s Day,” according to an archived Chick-fil-A press release — Cathy said he felt people were “inviting God’s judgment on our nation” by supporting the legalization of gay marriage. 

“I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we have the audacity to define what marriage is about,” he added. 

But that “wasn’t the first time the Cathys were accused of homophobia,” Vox noted. As the outlet’s Gaby Del Valle wrote:

A year earlier, a Pennsylvania Chick-fil-A’s decision to donate food to a marriage seminar conducted by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, a group known for its anti-gay advocacy, prompted a nationwide boycott of the chain. Cathy issued a video statement in response to the boycott, in which he claimed the company “serves all people” and that, while he personally believes in the “biblical definition of marriage,” his company doesn’t have an “anti-gay agenda.”

Citing Equality Matters, The Huffington Post reported that the WinShape Foundation, a charitable organization that was founded by S. Truett Cathy, had donated “nearly $2 million to anti-gay groups” in 2010. 


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


Notably, the Foundation gave $1,188,380 to The Marriage and Family Foundation, a political advocacy group that “believes in marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman, an institution of God and a foundation for civil society.” As Vox reported, the WinShape Foundation also donated $480,000 to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, an athletic organization that requires applicants to agree to a “sexual purity statement” that condemns LGBTQ people for living “impure lifestyle[s].”

However, 2012 was when Cathy appeared to lean more into publicly declaring his views for the first time. On July 2, about a month after speaking on The Ken Coleman Show, Cathy spoke with The Biblical Recorder, which is a Baptist publication. When asked about opposition to his company’s “support of the traditional family,” Cathy responded that he was “guilty as charged.” 

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” he said. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” 

He continued, “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.” 

How has the LGBTQ community responded? 

In 2012, following news of Cathy’s interviews and Chick-fil-A’s charitable giving, a number of gay writers and activists responded. 

“Let’s face it: despite what the company’s president says, Chick-Fil-A is an anti-gay corporation,” Tyler Coates wrote for BlackBook. “And, on that note, I’m just going to have to assume that anyone who spends their money there are completely fine with the fact that an anti-gay corporation not only exists, but pushes money to other groups to continue the widespread practice of discriminating against everyone in the LGBT community.”

In August of that year, a number of activists held “kiss-ins” at Chick-fil-A. As CNN reported at the time, an organizer named Carly McGehee wrote on Facebook, “I like to liken it to a married couple sharing a light kiss over a romantic meal, it’s the same thing. We’re here and our love is just as good.”  

According to CNN, some participants noted that they had planned to pay with dollar bills marked “gay money,” while others circulated the phrase “tastes like hate.” 

Marci Alt, a protester at a suburban Atlanta Chick-fil-A, told the outlet that she would like Cathy to meet her wife and their two children. 

“We share some of the same kind of values,” Alt said. “I think it would open his eyes to understand that just because we are a lesbian couple, we’re really not any different than him and Mrs. Cathy.”

Has Chick-fil-A ever responded? 

In advance of the 2012 kiss-ins, CNN reported that Chick-fil-A’s Steve Robinson, executive vice president of marketing, issued a statement saying the company appreciated all of its customers and was “glad to serve them at any time.”

However, in 2013 — the day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage ActCathy tweeted, “Sad day for our nation; founding fathers would be ashamed of our gen. to abandon wisdom of the ages re: cornerstone of strong societies.” 

He would go on to delete the tweet “shortly afterward,” according to CNN. 

Cathy’s vocal stance had some real-world implications. For instance, in 2012, Eater reported that Northeastern University’s student government voted decisively to block a proposed Chick-fil-A from entering their student center. Other schools have since followed suit, including Elon University, Emory University, Johns Hopkins and Duquesne University

As CNN reported in 2012, the controversy didn’t immediately hurt the chain’s bottom line. Following the kiss-ins, conservative activists — including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican — held a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, during which the company ultimately set a sales record (they declined to release specific numbers at the time). However, Cathy’s comments continued to be a PR thorn in the company’s side. 

In March 2014, Cathy told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (in an article that is no longer available on their website, though it was archived by Restaurant News and covered by Forbes) that he regretted speaking out against the Supreme Court’s rulings that recognized same-sex marriage. He claimed to have recognized that consumers “want to do business with brands that they can interface with, that they can relate with” and told the paper that the company didn’t discriminate against employees or customers based on sexual orientation.

While Cathy said he had no intention of ridding the company of its Christian values — they will always be closed on Sunday, he said — “the bottom line is we have a responsibility here to keep the whole of the organization in mind, and it has to take precedence over the personal expression and opinion on social issues.” 

In 2019, the Chick-fil-A Foundation announced a shift in its giving priorities. As Vox reported at the time, “The [company’s] release didn’t outright say the biggest change to Chick-fil-A’s philanthropic giving plan: In 2020, the chain won’t give any money to charities that take anti-LGBTQ stances.” 

In an interview with real estate publication Bisnow, however, Chick-fil-A’s president and COO Tim Tassopoulos made it clear that the company’s new donation strategy was at least partly related to the constant backlash Chick-fil-A has faced over its donations.

“There’s no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are,” Tassopoulos told Bisnow. “There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.”

But “the company did not ‘promise’ to stop donating to anti-LGBTQ groups,” according to a 2020 fact-check by USA Today. Tassopoulos told VICE in 2019 that “no organization will be excluded from future consideration — faith-based or non-faith-based.”

What’s next for the lawsuit in Georgia? 

Chick-fil-A’s parent company hasn’t been named in the current lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Atlanta. When reached for contact by Salon Food, a representative from Chick-fil-A responded that “because Chick-fil-A, Inc. was not the employer and is not named in this lawsuit, all media inquiries regarding this topic can be directed to the franchisee’s attorney.”

IJE, which oversees the store location, hasn’t yet replied to Salon’s request for comment, though it did provide this statement to Business Insider

“IJE Hospitality has vigorous policies and procedures to prohibit harassment, discrimination, and retaliation and does not discriminate or harass, or tolerate discrimination or harassment, on the basis of any protected characteristic, including sex or gender identity,” it said. “IJE Hospitality is committed to creating and maintaining a workplace that is welcoming, inclusive, and values all people. IJE Hospitality will continue to defend against these claims in court.” 

While the court case was only filed last week, there’s legal precedent that could be applied to Taylor’s case. Employers in the U.S. are barred from discriminating against LGBTQ employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity following the 2020 landmark Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County. 

Cathy was among those who topped the list of donors who bankrolled an effort in 2021 to kill the Equality Act, the Daily Beast reported. The Equality Act is a bill in the U.S. Congress that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations and education.

While similar in some ways to Bostock v. Clayton County, the Equality Act expressly states that sexual orientation and gender identity are included in the definition of sex under Title VII. Additionally, Bostock is merely case law, and as such, it could be reversed or limited by future decisions of the Supreme Court. The Equality Act would specifically codify these points as an express matter of statute.

This black bottom cherry pie is full of juicy cherries and a surprising, rich ganache base

I’m a big flower lover, but sunflowers are my very favorite, bar none. Maybe it’s their bright, sunny color, maybe it’s because I’m from Kansas  the sunflower state. This pie is sunny, too  full of juicy cherries and a surprising, rich ganache base. It’s great with or without the floral effect (you can bake it as a regular double crust pie, no problem)! — Erin Jeanne McDowell

Watch this recipe

Black Bottom Cherry “Sunflower” Pie
Yields
1 9-inch pie
Prep Time
2 hours
Cook Time
50 minutes

Ingredients

  • 1 1/2 pounds (681 g) cherries, pitted
  • juice of 1 lemon
  • 3/4 cup (149 g) granulated sugar
  • 1/3 cup (38 g) cornstarch
  • pinch cinnamon
  • small splash vanilla extract
  • 2x your favorite single crust pie dough (my favorite recipe is here)
  • 1 cup (113 g) chopped dark chocolate (I used 60%)
  • 1/3 cup (76 g) heavy cream
  • 1/3 cup (39 g) chocolate chips
  • egg wash, as needed for finishing

 

Directions

  1. In a medium pot, toss the cherries, lemon juice, and half of the sugar to combine. Stir over medium heat until the berries begin to soften and release their juices slightly, 3-5 minutes.
  2. In small bowl, whisk the remaining sugar and cornstarch to combine. Add this mixture to the cherries and mix well to combine. Bring to a simmer, stirring constantly, and continue to cook until the mixture thickens 4-5 minutes. Cool completely. 
  3. Preheat the oven to 425 degrees Fahrenheit. Lightly flour the work surface. Roll out half of the dough into a circle 1/4 inch thick. To transfer the dough to the pie pan, roll the dough up onto the rolling pin, starting at the far edge of the round. With the pie pan in front of you, start at the edge closest to you and gently unfurl the dough into the pan. Press gently to make sure the crust settles all the way to the bottom, but be careful not to poke any holes in the dough. Trim away the excess dough, leaving a 1/2 inch overhang all around. Chill in the refrigerator for 20 to 30 minutes, or freeze for 5 to 10 minutes. 
  4. Tuck the excess dough under at the edges, pressing lightly to help “seal” the dough to the outer rim of the pie pan. Return the dough to the refrigerator for 20 to 30 minutes or to the freezer for 5 to 10 minutes. Crimp the edges of the piecrust as desired (I used a fork to keep it flat for the eventual flower petal placement). 
  5. Prick the dough all over with a fork. Cut a square of parchment slightly larger than the pie pan. Place the parchment over the crust and fill with pie weights or dried beans. Bake the crust on the stone or bottom rack just until the edges barely begin to turn golden, 15-20 minutes. 
  6. Remove the parchment and weights and return the pan to the oven for another 2-4 minutes, just until slightly more golden around the edges and the base looks dry. Let cool completely. 
  7. Place the chopped dark chocolate in a medium, heat-safe bowl. Heat the cream in a small pot until it comes to a simmer, then pour it over the chocolate. Let sit undisturbed for 20-30 seconds, then stir until smooth. Spread the ganache into a thin, even layer in the base of the pie crust. 
  8. Pour the cooled cherry filling into the pie crust and spread into an even layer. Roll out the remaining half of the pie dough to about 1/4 inch thick. Use a paring knife to freehand, or petal/leaf cookie cutter to cut out about 18 large petals and 15 small petals from the dough.
  9. Arrange the large petals around the outside of the pie, overlapping each piece slightly. Arrange the small petals in a smaller circle inside the first — overlapping the large petals, but leaving a small open space in the center of the pie. Fill the open space with chocolate chips.
  10. Egg wash the pie crust petals and transfer the pie to a baking sheet. Bake until the surface pie begins to turn golden brown and the juices begin to bubble, 30-35 minutes. If needed, cover areas that brown quicker with foil and/or reduce oven temperature to 375 degrees Fahrenheit.

Liz Cheney hints at Ginni Thomas subpoena

During a segment of CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday morning, Rep. Liz Cheney told Jake Tapper that the Jan.6  committee is in talks with counsel for Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, regarding what they hope to be her voluntary participation in their ongoing investigation on what the committee’s co-chair refers to as “her role in advocating to overturn the 2020 election results.”

“We certainly hope that she will agree to come in voluntarily, but the committee is fully prepared to contemplate a subpoena if she does not. I hope it doesn’t get to that. I hope she will come in voluntarily,” Cheney said to CNN. “So it’s very important for us to speak with her and as I said, I hope she will agree to do so voluntarily but I’m sure we will contemplate a subpoena if she won’t.”

The committee is primarily interested in reviewing documents in Mrs. Thomas’ possession that they deem relevant to their investigation, according to CNN. 

“The committee has email correspondence between Thomas and former President Donald Trump’s election attorney John Eastman, as well as texts between her and Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows,” says CNN reporter Daniella Diaz. “The texts show Thomas urging Meadows to continue the fight to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Eastman and Meadows have also been subjects of the committee’s investigation.”


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


“There are lines that shouldn’t be crossed, but those lines involve sitting Supreme Court justices not presiding or appearing or taking action in cases in which their spouse may be implicated,” says Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a panel member on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” in response to Cheney’s subpoena comment. “And in this case for Clarence Thomas to issue a decision in a case — a dissent in a case where Congress was trying to get documents and those documents might involve his own wife, that’s the line that’s been crossed.”

Boris Johnson only wishes he were Donald Trump: But his comeback dreams won’t come true

In a certain sense, you almost have to admire Boris Johnson. Please note: I said “almost.” In his final appearance last week for the always-entertaining ritual performance of Prime Minister’s Questions before the House of Commons (seriously, watch it sometime if you’re inclined to believe the British are unfailingly polite), Johnson seemed exactly the same as ever — a mischievous, intelligent and unreliable schoolboy, overstuffed with expensive chocolates, entirely unrepentant and largely upbeat — only days after having been driven to resign by his own party in one of the most humiliating political collapses of recent history. 

And from his blasé, Oxbridge, upper-class-wag, profoundly narcissistic point of view, why not? What Johnson told the honorable members in Westminster was pretty much true (which is a point to keep in mind as we go on): He had conquered the dominant political party in Britain and re-engineered it, pulling in large numbers of working-class voters in the north of England for the first time and leading the Tories (i.e., the Conservative Party) to their largest electoral majority since the days of Margaret Thatcher. He had accomplished the seemingly impossible and quite likely undesirable task of extracting the U.K. from the European Union (i.e., Brexit), something his own party hadn’t previously much wanted to happen. 

Johnson’s unasked and unanswered question during that performance was obvious to all: Given how awesome I am and how much I have accomplished in just three years, why in the name of Sweeney Todd are you chucking me out? He ended on a simultaneously ludicrous and threatening note that even his worst enemies would have to admit was vintage Johnson, winding up his peroration to the House with: “Mission largely accomplished — for now. Hasta la vista, baby!”

Let me revert for a moment to resisting the impulse to admire someone possessed of enough thoroughly unearned self-confidence to quote George W. Bush and the Terminator in a single soundbite. Whew! Let’s move on: Whatever effect Johnson was looking for, he got it. Within hours, even respectable media outlets like the BBC, the Guardian and the Wall Street Journal felt compelled to follow the lead of the right-wing London tabloids and game out scenarios for Johnson’s immediate or eventual comeback, while admitting, almost in passing, that under Britain’s parliamentary system that outcome was somewhere between wildly unlikely and completely impossible. 

One right-wing tabloid promised a “shock poll” revealing that 85% wanted Johnson to stay on as prime minister. It was a poll of the tabloid’s online readers.

On the website for the Express, probably the British daily that most reliably represents pro-Boris working-class Tory voters, the top three stories on Saturday evening (and four of the top five) were all variations on the theme of “Boris Johnson’s incredible comeback,” as one nearly substance-free article breathlessly put it. (It comprised 16 sentences of prose, several of them cribbed from earlier coverage, spread among six or seven photographs of Johnson.) 

Another Express article promised a “shock poll” of Johnson’s popularity, finding that “85% still want him as PM.” Which would indeed have been a shock if it hadn’t been an online poll of angry people reading Boris Johnson content on Express.co.uk, rendering it about as rigorous as a poll of hungry foxes asking whether they prefer live chicken or cold tofu — or, rather more to the point, a poll of Fox News viewers asking them to choose between a Donald Trump dictatorship and a seven-hour lecture on veganism delivered with painstaking attention to gender pronouns.

Several of these articles, at the Express and elsewhere, have quoted outraged Johnson supporters (largely unnamed) describing the parliamentary infighting that drove him from power as a “coup” or a form of “impeachment,” and observing that the entire process of ousting and replacing Johnson was undemocratic. First of all, those terms were imported piecemeal, and without much attention to detail, from contemporary American discourse, which is something of a tell. 

Second of all, there’s some justice to those observations, to be fair. But you have to wonder what country those people thought they were living in, and whether they believe they get to change the system just by whining about it. (And, goodness gracious, wherever would they have gotten such an idea?) 


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


Sometimes British prime ministers are removed from power through elections, to be sure. But at least as often it happens through an intra-party coup or a process approximately similar to impeachment, and especially so within the Conservative Party. (The Tories haven’t lost a national election since 2005, but have gone through plenty of internal drama during that time.) That’s exactly what happened to Johnson’s two predecessors, Theresa May and David Cameron. That’s what happened to Maggie Thatcher in 1990. It’s pretty much what happened to the most revered Tory PM of all, Winston Churchill, who was forced to “retire,” not altogether voluntarily, in 1955.

It’s hardly a secret that the British parliamentary system is at best an indirect form of democracy, and that the prime minister is not elected by the voters at large. He or she is leader of the party that controls a majority in Parliament, and until recently was chosen by the other elected members of Parliament from that party, with zero public input.

While both the Tories and the center-left Labour Party have “democratized” that process lately, both have been eager to avoid anything resembling the chaotic scramble of the American primary system. Johnson’s replacement as Tory leader (and, in effect, prime minister) will be chosen by an electorate of roughly 160,000 registered members of the Conservative Party — or about 0.3% of all U.K. voters — but only after the party’s MPs have whittled a field of eight or so contenders down to two finalists.

Boris Johnson, as noted in the headline above, would love to be more like Donald Trump. His shit-stirring suggestion that he may try to stage a comeback, before he’s actually left, may be the most overtly Trumpy thing he’s ever done. (He remains prime minister for the moment, and apparently will not resign until the new party leader takes over in early September.) But for better or worse, both British politics and British culture — including the enduring cultural politics of the supposedly-abolished class system — sharply limit the possibilities of balls-to-the-wall Trumpiness.

Johnson would love to have a Trump-scale cult of personality behind him backing everything he does — but a week’s worth of clip-job articles in the right-wing press won’t get that done. He’d love to be able to terrorize leading figures in his own party into silent acquiescence with the threat of political doom, even though they not-so-secretly hate his guts — but in fact his collapse came because dozens of prominent Tories decided he was a political liability and flung him to the curb. As noted above, Johnson’s final address to Commons was not full of blatant or outrageous lies — and in fact the numerous falsehoods that got him into trouble as PM have been of the penny-ante, prevaricating variety, and would barely even register on the Trump scale.

Johnson’s speech clearly implied that his fellow Conservatives had made a dreadful mistake in driving him from power, and the mini-bubble of “comeback” stories are no doubt meant as a trial balloon toward undoing that decision. To the extent that the left-behind Johnson supporters offer any sort of coherent narrative, it goes like this: 

In the leadership election that’s about to happen, his fans throw themselves behind Foreign Minister Liz Truss, a political chameleon and more or less a Johnson loyalist, over former Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, who despite his South Asian background is pretty much a dyed-in-the-wool tax-cutting conservative with a Stanford MBA and a Goldman Sachs pedigree. In a year or so, Truss bows out or flames out or loses an election, and the chastened Tories, yielding to the public outcry for more Boris, return to the embrace of their dishonorable schoolboy.

Johnson can’t claim that his political downfall was fake news and didn’t really happen. And he doesn’t need to claim that he fell victim to a conspiracy of backstabbers, since everyone knows that’s what happened.

There are about 11 reasons why that won’t happen, starting with the fact that there will be a British general election in 2024 (if not earlier), and almost no one believes that a party led by Boris Johnson could conceivably win it. But even the fact that such a scenario lingers somewhere on the outer margins of plausibility, and that Johnson and his supporters dare to dream of short-circuiting the established political process by way of a popular uprising, speaks to the global legacy of Donald John Trump. 

But Boris Johnson isn’t Donald Trump, and really can’t be — and this is a moment where the general historical parallels between postwar British and American politics begin to break down. For all his mendacity, vulgarity and hunger for power, Johnson is a consummate insider, an upper-class populist of a sort stereotypically familiar to the British public. After he leaves office, he’ll be back at the bar at whichever exclusive London club he belongs to, cheerfully drinking excellent sherry with former allies and former foes and well positioned to make major bank in the private sector. 

Johnson cannot claim that his political downfall is fake news and didn’t really happen, only that it was a bad idea. He doesn’t need to claim that he was the victim of a conspiracy of backstabbing traitors, since that’s how the system works, and everyone understands that’s exactly what happened.

I’m not here, trust me, to deliver some anguished Anglophile cri de coeur about how at least the guardrails of democracy held up in Blighty and in the end the Conservatives showed they had some principles and, gosh, maybe we’d be better off with a parliamentary system. That’s not even remotely what happened: The Tories stood with Boris Johnson, giving him everything he wanted and ignoring his lies and ethical failings, right up to the moment they decided he was a loser. 

If Boris and his dead-end allies dream of terraforming an American-style system, in which a political party can be swamped by mob sentiment, a whole lot of prominent Republicans in the U.S. would love to import the British system, in which a party leader who’s gone sour — and who won’t shut up about how he didn’t really lose the last election, just for instance — can be junked without risking a massive primary rebellion.

I’m not sure that I would trade the American political system, compromised and paralytic as it currently is, for a constitutional monarchy with, um, no actual constitution and a distant-cousin relationship to actual democracy. But that’s not the point, and neither of our nations is in a position to point fingers at the other one just at present. 

There is, in the end, a continuing if approximate kinship: Boris Johnson’s downfall represents roughly the same kind of conditional victory for democracy as Donald Trump’s electoral defeat. Both men yearn for doubtful comebacks that remain, for the moment, out of reach — but the larger question of whether the tendency toward autocracy that both men represent can be defeated will not be answered anytime soon. 

Jennifer Lopez’s reinvention of the breakup

When Jennifer Lopez reunited with her former fiancé Ben Affleck after almost two decades, more than a few wondered: “What is she doing?!” Her fans hoped that she was not subjecting herself to more heartbreak; her detractors mocked her for thinking this time would be any different. 

But Lopez knew exactly what she was doing. “We’ve both grown,” she said in a Rolling Stone profile, just a few months before marrying Affleck. “We’re the same, and we’re different. And that’s what’s nice. Having a second chance at real love – we learned a lot. We know what’s real, what’s not real. So, it’s just — the game has changed.”

[Lopez] has proven again and again that she uses heartbreak as a catalyst for reinvention, not just personally but professionally.

Most people are saying the odds of her relationship lasting are worse than winning the most recent lottery. And why should we care? But there is a lot we can learn from J Lo’s journey.

As a psychologist who works with couples, and a single woman about the performer’s age, I have seen up close how it is possible to rise from the ashes of a breakup stronger and readier for love that lasts. In those vertiginous moments after losing love, when it is tempting to sink into self-pity and victimhood, there are valuable opportunities to gain clarity on what we might have unintentionally hidden from ourselves. But only if we can rise above the “why me” and “what ifs,” that swirl like vultures around the carcass of a failed relationship.

For some people, Lopez is easy to dismiss. But maybe it’s because they aren’t looking at her closely enough. She has proven again and again that she uses heartbreak as a catalyst for reinvention, not just personally but professionally.

Take her first marriage to actor Ojani Noa that ended in 1998. A year later she produced her debut album “On the 6,” which went platinum, won awards and helped propel the Latin pop movement. Not content with that success, Lopez became the ultimate crossover artist: conquering mainstream music audiences while also embracing acting. Post-breakup with Sean “Diddy” Combs in 2001, she starred in “The Wedding Planner,” adding a new accolade to her list of accomplishments: box office success. The same week, her second studio album dropped and still boasts arguably Lopez’s best-known hit: “Love Don’t Cost a Thing.” Oh, and why not open a restaurant, Madre, also?

From Fly Girl to pop star, from rom-com It Girl to producer, Jenny from the Block has proven herself capable not only of surviving setbacks but using them as springboards for stretching herself.

After her divorce from dancer Cris Judd in 2003, she met the future Bat-ffleck and began a very public romance, which ultimately could not survive the media storm that surrounded it or the scathing reception to their ill-fated rom-com “Gigli.” Despite the high-profile Bennifer breakup in 2004, just a year later she released her fourth studio album, tellingly titled, “Rebirth.” Seeing a pattern?

For a while, it seemed that Lopez had settled romantically, but was never stagnant in her career. During her 10-year marriage to “I Need to Know” singer Marc Anthony, she had twins, continued to record albums and act, and even transitioned to mentoring as a judge on “American Idol.” But eventually she did split with Anthony, which she addressed in her book “True Love” because of course you can add New York Times bestselling author to her resume. She’s continued to make headlines in the past few years as well, performing in a politically charged Super Bowl halftime show, starring in the acclaimed drama “Hustlers” and breaking up with baseball superstar Alex Rodriguez.

Naturally, after all this is when she reunited with Affleck, and in storybook fashion finally married him on July 16.

For the tabloids and gossip rags it’s easy to characterize this romantic track record as one of failure. But Lopez’s life trajectory says otherwise. From Fly Girl to pop star, from rom-com It Girl to producer, Jenny from the Block has proven herself capable not only of surviving setbacks but using them as springboards for stretching herself.

Marc Anthony and Jennifer LopezMarc Anthony (L) and Jennifer Lopez perform onstage during The 17th Annual Latin Grammy Awards at T-Mobile Arena on November 17, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Christopher Polk/Getty Images for LARAS)“For me, it’s always been very important to figure myself out,” she told Rolling Stone. “It fueled my artistic life, which is great in a lot of ways, because it made me want to overachieve. It made me want to do better and be successful and be better as an artist and grow, and I have.”

I am a year younger than Jennifer Lopez. Women of our generation carry the weight of feminist expectations on our shoulders. Perhaps even more than our mothers, we were supposed to be strong, independent, and fearless from birth, yet we remain burdened by a lack of opportunities, lower pay, and very often the assumption that we will act as the primary caregivers for our children.

I was married in my early 30s. After six years and a child together, saying to my husband, “I want a divorce,” felt incredibly risky. I thought if I left my marriage the underpinnings of my identity would fall away. But I was wrong. Ending my marriage was indeed devastating, but I realized that entropy, rather than synergy, could be the force that brought true enlightenment. Lost and alone, I felt more connected to myself than when my life appeared at its most together. Like Lopez, I suddenly felt free to pivot away from my regular work. As a result, I folded human rights work back into my life, something I had previously told myself I didn’t have time for or couldn’t afford. Neither fact was true, and that work has enlarged my identity.

What Lopez has shown us through her example is that our stories about who we are can, and even should be, a work in progress. 

Turning relationship loss into personal gain takes a tremendous effort of will, especially for women. I have found in my practice that framing a narrative, creating a story, is vital to this process. We all need narratives to ground us and make meaning from what’s happened. But stories are not fixed. They can be crafted to serve the future as well as explain the past. What Lopez has shown us through her example is that our stories about who we are can, and even should be, a work in progress. 

Her model raises essential questions, for instance: Should you allow trauma to keep you from being vulnerable? Does it need to define your choices, the way it does for so many? Do you have the temerity and courage to try something new that could change your life? These are questions that involve risk, and where one goes from that defines one’s narrative.

In my practice, I help people be brave enough to create those new stories. So what if you’ve never lived on your own – what’s the worst that could happen? What can you explore living alone that you never could before? Do you want to know whether you can do it? So what if your husband cheated on you – are you going to allow that to define you? And, more importantly, do you want to know what a different sort of intimacy would feel like? So what if you have never come out as gay even though you are 72 – do you want to try to have good sex for maybe the first time? When the bottom drops out, possibilities arise.


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


J.Lo seems to understand that being who you are, the truest version of yourself, is the most important ingredient in any relationship. Every decision she has made has not just bolstered her career, but also her self-esteem. And, when her relationships have ended, she has not shied away from embracing the unknown. “Sometimes you have to explore the darkness to get to the light and get back to who you are,” she wrote in “True Love,” a book made possible from her many breakups and self-reflection.

Marry MeJennifer Lopez as Kat Valdez in “Marry Me” (Universal Pictures)If anyone doubts that Lopez’s many success are the result of her deliberate choices, they only have to look at her latest rom-com “Marry Me.” The incredibly meta film, which Lopez also produced, seems to be a riff on her life. In the film, Kat Valdez (Lopez) is twice divorced when she is humiliated publicly by her much younger fiancé – a composite of Alex Rodriguez and Marc Anthony – just before she had planned to say “I do” during their on-stage livestreamed concert/wedding.

The parallels aren’t subtle, and it’s clear that Lopez is self-aware enough to not only poke fun at her image, but to also embrace portraying a woman who takes control of her own happiness despite such a catastrophic split. And yes, Kat eventually finds a single dad to love (foreshadowing J.Lo’s reconciliation with Affleck?) but only after turning inward to reconstruct her identity by making meaning from her past.

The power to change, make better choices, and ultimately forge stronger relationships lies precisely in those moments when our lives seem most out of control. 

Lopez herself seems very familiar with that healing technique. In “Halftime,” her June 2022 documentary, she explains why five years earlier she wouldn’t have been able to give her now famous Super Bowl performance: “I didn’t know myself enough — I didn’t understand myself.” Understanding herself, continuously reinventing her story, appears to be her superpower.

As a society we mourn the end of relationships, treat them as tragedies, pity those who are left behind. But what if we are thinking about it all wrong? Is it possible that in the rubble of a collapsed relationship the many opportunities for growth are missed because we focus on what has been lost? Lopez seems to think so.

She told W in 2016, “When my marriage ended, it was not easy to find forgiveness. It wasn’t the dream that I had hoped for, and it would have been easier to fan the flames of resentment, disappointment, and anger.” What Lopez understands that too many of the rest of us do not, is that the power to change, make better choices, and ultimately forge stronger relationships lies precisely in those moments when our lives seem most out of control. “Ultimately,” she says, “we can never change someone else’s behavior—we can only change our own.”

“You learn from the past, you do things better the second time,” Lopez told The New York Times. I hope that is true in her new marriage to Ben Affleck, and that she finds great joy with him. I admire her ability to keep crafting and recrafting her narrative. In a world that feels increasingly out of control, I aspire to be that bold.

This president denounced sharks as “monsters” — but did they take a bite out of his voters?

Humans have a long and (mostly) unjustified fear of sharks, and politicians are no exception. During his single term in office, for instance, it famously emerged that Donald Trump is "terrified" of sharks, prompting predictable snickers from his opponents.

Yet more than a century before Trump's inauguration, a different president was also bedeviled by the ocean's most unfairly maligned pariah — and he may have actually lost votes because of it.

The president in question was Woodrow Wilson, infamous for his white supremacist ideas and willingness to throw political dissidents into the clink. His problem? The Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916.

RELATED: Land shark? Why more shark encounters are likely coming and how "humans are not on the menu"

Between July 1 and July 12, 1916, four people were killed and a fifth individual was injured all along the coast of New Jersey, from Beach Haven to Matawan. Historians and scientists remain uncertain to this day as to either the number of animals that committed the attacks (some argue it was just one, others multiple) or the exact species involved (bull sharks and great white sharks are the most popular suspects). Yet no one denies that the shark attacks had a profound impact on American culture: Peter Benchley's hit 1974 novel "Jaws" was arguably inspired by the attacks, and the blockbuster movie based on the book released one year later directly references them. Newspapers suddenly warned nervous readers about a ferocious fish, as ancient as the dinosaurs that prowled the seas in search of human flesh.

Based on their analysis, the shark attacks reduced Wilson's vote share in affected counties by more than 3 percentage points, and hurt his overall vote share in the 1916 election by roughly 0.5 percentage points.

This was far from true, of course — sharks almost never attack humans unless they're confused, provoked or starving, and the Jersey Shore incident is notable precisely because the sharks behaved very uncharacteristically — but it sold great copy. And it put the president in a bind.


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


In the years since the 1916 election — during which Democratic nominee Wilson (a former New Jersey governor) faced off against the Republican nominee, former Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes — some scholars have argued that the president lost some votes because people irrationally blamed him for the shark attacks. Yes, you read that right: Woodrow Wilson lost votes because he was blamed for shark attacks. 

Why did voters blame Wilson? One theory is that, on some subconscious level, voters assume that a president's seeming inability to confront natural disasters reflects deeper flaws in their leadership skills. In 2002 scholars Christopher Achen and Larry M. Bartels — who studied how the shark attacks impacted Wilson's election — came up with a neologism to define voters' sometimes illogical tendency to determine a president's stewardship over their welfare: "blind retrospection." In the case of Wilson's re-election campaign, Achen and Bartels controlled for Wilson's vote share in the previous election and compared how it changed in both beach and non-beach counties in New Jersey.

Based on their analysis, the shark attacks reduced Wilson's vote share in affected counties by more than 3 percentage points, and hurt his overall vote share in the 1916 election by roughly 0.5 percentage points. Achen and Bartels conclude that their statistics "show that voters in the affected communities significantly punished the incumbent president, Woodrow Wilson, at the polls."

To be clear, the Achen and Bartels paper is controversial. In 2016 scholars Anthony Fowler and Andrew B. Hall argued that there were flaws in the Achen/Bartels paper's analysis, including the fallacy of "forking paths" — namely, that they could have interpreted their data in any number of ways that would have seemed to give it statistical significance, and could have simply chosen one that conformed with their preferred hypothesis.

Yet even if the Jersey Shore shark attacks didn't cost Wilson a single vote, the president's response to the prospect that they would — even if that possibility seemed far-fetched — remains relevant today.

Soon would-be heroes were flocking to New Jersey with boats, fishing gear and dynamite, killing countless innocent sharks in their hunt against the so-called "man-eaters."

Convening an emergency cabinet meeting as the public became increasingly hysterical, Wilson ignored the scientists who had previously implored him to view the shark attacks as the anomalies that they were. Given that Wilson was an educated man (to date, he is the only president to have had a PhD), it is likely that he understood the marine biologists' concerns and simply deemed political expediency more important. Then again, no one can know for sure: Perhaps Wilson was more genuinely alarmed by the Jersey Shore shark attacks than the mayor from "Jaws" was during the fictional attacks in Amity Island.

All we know for sure is that Wilson ordered a Coast Guard cutter to "fish for the monsters" and sent out an anti-shark message so strident that the Washington Post could accurately declare in its headline, "U.S. War on Sharks." Soon would-be heroes were flocking to New Jersey with boats, fishing gear and dynamite, killing countless innocent sharks in their hunt against the so-called "man-eaters."

While there are obvious lessons in this story for today about the importance of conservation and relying on accurate science, perhaps the most important takeaway involves the need for basic common sense. Because Wilson was afraid that he would be harmed by irrational thinking (being blamed for shark attacks), he responded with a policy motivated by a different form of irrational thinking (declaring a "war on sharks"). It is unlikely that anyone was safer as a result, and virtually certain that sharks as a species were worse off.

It was baseless fear that caused the anti-shark hysteria — and a different type of baseless fear that made things much worse for sharks and humans alike.

Read more Salon articles about ocean life: