Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

COVID vaccines saved more than 200,000 lives in the US over nine months: study

During the peak years of the United States’ armed involvement in the Vietnam War, more than 58,000 American soldiers lost their lives in combat. This sobering figure not only scarred the conscience of a nation but also shaped a generation.

If a new study is accurate, lives in excess of four times that number were saved by the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program during a nine-month span of the historic pandemic. It wasn’t an ordinary mass vaccination program — the scientists behind the first successful inoculations to reach the market had to utilize a revolutionary mRNA vaccine technology, one that was able to prove tremendously effective against earlier variants.

RELATED: COVID vaccines for kids under five are finally here. Here’s why it took so long

In the study, which was published this week in the medical journal JAMA Network Open, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other government agencies compiled data on COVID-19-associated hospitalizations that took place between Dec. 1, 2020 to Sept. 30, 2021. The figures were arranged by age, month and state. In turn, “these estimates were combined with data on vaccine coverage and effectiveness to estimate the risks of infections, hospitalizations and deaths.” The purpose was to analyze the data for information about mortality relative to vaccination rates, which in turn could be used to project how many lives were saved by mass inoculations.

Between the start of December 2020 and the end of September 2021 — a period encompassing both the peak of the largest winter 2020 pandemic surge and the delta variant surge in the 2021 summer — the U.S. vaccination program prevented an estimated 235,000 deaths, 1.6 million hospitalizations and 27 million hospitalizations.


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


“As vaccination coverage increased in 2021, the COVID-19 vaccination program increasingly functioned as intended, with the highest impact averting severe disease among older adults,” the authors wrote. “These age groups have not only the highest rates of hospitalizations and deaths but also the highest vaccine coverage.”

Lead researcher Molly Steele called the projections “conservative” in a statement to HealthDay. Additional lives were likely saved beyond those captured in the estimates, according to the CDC epidemiologist. 

“These estimates only account for benefits among those who were vaccinated and do not account for benefits to unvaccinated persons through reductions in disease transmission,” Steele said, adding that “therefore, our estimates of vaccine impact are conservative. Regardless, these estimates help to illustrate the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing infections and hospitalizations, as well as saving lives.”

Dr. Irwin Redlener, leader of Columbia University’s Pandemic Response Initiative, told Salon by email that the findings of the new CDC study were “a sad reminder of how many lives could have been saved that were lost because we let politics pollute science.”

To that end, Dr. Irwin Redlener, leader of Columbia University’s Pandemic Response Initiative, told Salon by email that the findings of the new CDC study were “a sad reminder of how many lives could have been saved that were lost because we let politics pollute science.”

When he spoke to Salon shortly after President Joe Biden’s inauguration, Redlener praised the new commander in chief’s decision to re-enter the U.S. into the World Health Organization (WHO), arguing that “it was totally irresponsible for us to withdraw in the first place. It is the only global organization working on this extraordinary global crisis.”

This week, Redlener echoed Steele’s observation that the study may have undercounted the number of saved lives, noting that “we did a study at Columbia in October 2020 . . . that suggested even at that point, there had been between 120,000 and 210,000 potentially avoidable deaths.”

Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told Salon by email that she agrees with the study’s conclusion. 

“COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations were inversely correlated to vaccination rates across states in the United States during the deadly delta surge,” Gandhi explained. “COVID-19 caused a pandemic because we had no immunity to this novel coronavirus that caused severe disease and immunity is the only way to gain long-term protection from a virus. T cell immunity protects us from severe disease and remains protective across variants from alpha to omicron. Vaccination was the safest way to gain immunity as opposed to natural infection, which can cause severe disease.”

Not everyone shared Gandhi’s full support for the study’s conclusions. Dr. Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus and professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told Salon in an email that while extrapolations based on these types of models “undoubtedly have some degree of validity,” he would still note that “they are based on extrapolations of unknown assumptions. All we really know about the vaccines come from their original carefully conducted trials that showed that the two mRNA vaccines reduced hospitalizations and deaths by over 90 percent.”

Sommer emphasized that “there is nothing wrong with the estimate other than it can never be more than that — a useful, working estimate.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, referred Salon to a March study by researchers from the National Taiwan University Cancer Center as a good example of a study that confirmed the efficacy of mass vaccinations.

When it comes to the new CDC study, Benjamin observed in writing that “these results are consistent with the initial research that shows the vaccines were very effective at reducing severe morbidity and mortality” and that “the estimate of 200,000 lives saved is a reasonable derivative of that calculation.”

Read more about vaccines: 

Trump melts down on Truth Social after Georgia DA says she may subpoena him in criminal probe

Former President Donald Trump published two posts on his Twitter-knockoff app Truth Social on Thursday indicating that he is extremely agitated about the criminal investigation into his infamous post-2020 election scheme to strongarm Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” nonexistent votes.

Trump called Raffensperger twice after victory was declared for President Joe Biden and strongly urged Raffensperger to, somehow, scrounge up 11,780 ballots – one more than the margin of Trump’s upset loss to Biden – so that he could be awarded the Peach State’s 16 Electoral College votes. It was one of, if not the most, glaring example of Trump’s efforts to manipulate the results of the presidential contest.

Last month, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis convened a grand jury to determine whether Trump had engaged in “the solicitation of election fraud, making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, and violation of oath of office,” all of which are felonies that carry severe penalties.

On Tuesday, subpoenas were served to seven Trump World confederates: Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who also phoned Raffensperger on behalf of the brooding soon-to-be-ex-commander in chief; Trump’s television attorney Rudy Giuliani and his associate Jenna Ellis; coup architect John Eastman (who was behind the coordinated campaign to send fraudulent slates of electors to Washington from multiple swing states that Trump lost); as well as three lesser-known lawyers – Jacki Pick Deason, Kenneth Chesebro, and Cleta Mitchell – the latter of whom was present for Trump’s clandestine chat with Raffensperger.

“During the telephone call, the witness and others made allegations of widespread voter fraud in the November 2020 election in Georgia and pressured Secretary Raffensperger to take action in his official capacity to investigate unfounded claims of fraud,” Mitchell’s subpoena says.

On Wednesday, Willis indicated that subpoenaing Trump himself is a real possibility and that more of his allies are in her sights.

“Anything’s possible,” Willis told NBC News while stressing that nothing is being rushed or overlooked. “We’ll just have to see where the investigation leads us. I think that people thought that we came into this as some kind of game. This is not a game at all. What I am doing is very serious. It’s very important work. And we’re going to do our due diligence and making sure that we look at all aspects of the case.”

These developments are having a noticeably negative impact on Trump’s psyche.

On Thursday morning, Trump defended his exhortative conversations with Raffensperger and repeated his Big Lie that the election was a hoax.

“BOTH of my phone calls to Georgia were PERFECT. I had an absolute right to make them &, in fact, the story on the one call was given a retraction, or apology, by the Washington Post because they were given terribly false information about it, & when they heard the actual call, they realized that their story was wrong. Thank you to the W.P. I, as does anyone else (just look at the Democrats!), have the absolute right to challenge the results of an Election,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “This one, CORRUPT, RIGGED, & STOLEN!”

The Washington Post article mentioned by Trump was not what he is making it out to be.

On March 16, 2021, the paper corrected a couple of misquotes that it had printed. It did not, as Trump claimed, promulgate “terribly false information” or perpetuate misleading data about the 2020 election.

Correspondent Erik Wemple noted that “in a time of much-overblown chatter about election irregularities, this call between the president of the United States and a state-level investigator was the real irregularity.” What mattered, Wemple continued, was that “the call happened; it was an abuse of presidential authority; and it failed to corrupt the investigators working under Raffensperger. But Trump wasn’t quite the plain-spoken rogue depicted in The Post’s story.”

Nevertheless, an hour after his first Thursday rant, Trump baselessly accused unspecified “others” of screwing him out of a second term.

“I did NOTHING wrong in Georgia, but others did,” Trump seethed. “They CHEATED in the 2020 Presidential Election, and those are the ones that should be investigated (and prosecuted)! Letter to follow.”

Meanwhile, the fallout from Trump going down to Georgia looking for 11,780 votes to steal is compounded by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, whose seventh public hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday at 10:00 a.m.

Its theme, according to the bipartisan panel’s announcement on Wednesday, will be the suspected coordination between Team Trump and white nationalist groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in the leadup to the violent insurrection.

How to clean your range hood filters, according to TikTok’s favorite grandmother

Clean Like You Mean It shows you how to tackle the trickiest spots in your home — whether they’re just plain gross or need some elbow grease. You’ll get the cleaning secrets we’ve learned from grandma, a guide to our handiest tools and helpers, and so much more. Pull on those rubber gloves and queue up the tunes: It’s scour hour!


What would we do without Babs, TikTok’s favorite grandmother? Have a dirty range hood, that’s for sure. Barbara Costello, aka Brunch With Babs, aka Nonna, is the queen of cleaning and cooking on TikTok, offering effective, no-fuss tips to her 1.7 million followers. And she was kind enough to walk us through her process for cleaning an often-overlooked area in the kitchen: underneath your range hood.

The filters on your range hood collect tons of grease and grime as you cook, yet many people (myself included) forget to clean them. One touch will reveal just how sticky and gross these metal filters can get, so grab your favorite purple cleaning gloves and follow Babs’ steps to get your filters looking as good as new.

The Babs method of deep-cleaning range hood filters

If you haven’t washed your range hood filters in a few months (or ever), you’ll definitely need to deep clean them to remove all the grease, grime, and lint. Luckily, the process is fairly simple and takes less than an hour. Here’s what Babs recommends:

  1. Start by filling your sink up with hot water (if your sink is too small to fit the filters, you may want to use the bathtub instead). Add a generous squirt of degreasing dish soap, such as Dawn, and 1/4 cup baking soda to help cut through all that grime. Swirl it all together, then submerge the filters in the mixture, and let them soak for 15 to 30 minutes.
  2. As the filters are soaking, use the time to wipe down the rest of your range hood, which can also get covered in a greasy residue. Babs recommends using a soapy sponge to wipe the face and sides of the hood and remove any film. Once it’s clean, you can use a microfiber cloth and white vinegar to wipe down the stainless steel and really make the metal shine.
  3. Once your filters have been soaking for several minutes, use a sponge or non-abrasive scrub brush to remove any remaining grease and gunk. Run the filters under warm water to wash away the residue, then let them air dry before reinstalling them over your stove. (Or, to speed up the process, Babs recommends drying them with a microfiber cloth — it’s one of her favorite inexpensive and versatile learning tools for the kitchen.) It’s that easy!

For a light, hands-off clean

You should be cleaning your range hood filters once a month or so, and if you keep up with this schedule, they won’t need such heavy-duty scrubbing every time. Instead, most metal range hood filters can simply be placed on the bottom rack of your dishwasher and run through a normal wash cycle for simple, hands-off cleaning. (Of course, you’ll want to consult your user’s manual before to make sure this is OK for your particular model.)

Wait, what about charcoal filters?

If you’ve read all this and thought to yourself, “Wait, my range hood filter doesn’t look like that,” don’t fret! Instead of metal filters, some range hoods have charcoal filters, which are black in color. These filters are commonly used in ventless range hoods, which are often found in apartments, and they help remove odors from the air above your stove before recirculating the clean air back into the room.

The good news if you have charcoal filters is that you don’t need to clean them. However, the bad news is that they need to be replaced regularly — most manufacturers recommend putting in new charcoal filters after 120 hours of use, which is around three to six months for most people. You’ll need to find the right type of filters for your particular range hood, and from there, it’s as easy as popping the new ones into place.

Dissenting Wisconsin judges rip court’s ban on drop boxes: “Downright dangerous to democracy”

Three justices ripped the majority opinion in the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision severely restricting absentee ballot drop boxes.

The 4-3 ruling means the drop boxes may be placed only in election offices and no one other than individual voters can return a ballot in person, and it goes into effect for the state’s Aug. 9 primary and fall election, and the minority blasted the conservative majority for saying drop boxes cause voters “weakens” faith in elections, reported The Guardian.

“The majority/lead opinion’s sky-is-falling rhetoric not only defies the facts, but also is downright dangerous to our democracy,” wrote Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in her dissent. “Absent evidence that supports its statements, the majority/lead opinion still lends its imprimatur to efforts to destabilize and delegitimize recent elections.”

“But concerns about drop boxes alone don’t fuel the fires questioning election integrity,” she added. “Rather, the kindling is primarily provided by voter suppression efforts and the constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated rhetoric in opinions like this one, not actual voter fraud.”

Fox News’ Laura Ingraham escalates the GOP’s war on learning: “Time to defund government education”

Anyone familiar with how Fox News gradually warms its audience up to an idea could see it coming. First, the network ran endless segments hyping the myth that school teachers were training kindergarteners to hate white people with something called “critical race theory.” Next came false claims that schools that accept LGBTQ teachers and students were “grooming” children to be sexually abused by pedophiles. Having implanted the idea that public schools are a scary place turning their grandkids into self-loathing sexual perverts, the end game was finally rolled out during the popular primetime program “The Ingraham Angle”: It’s time to end public education entirely.

“A lot of people are saying it’s time to defund government education or at least defund it by giving vouchers to parents so they can say, ‘No, we’re not doing this anymore,'” ranted host Laura Ingraham on Thursday. “And I think that just has to happen. We have to stop funding this madness.”

This is not the first time that Fox News has seeded the idea of shutting down public education entirely.

RELATED: Right’s new social studies plan vows to fight CRT, wokeness and the “overthrow of America”

Lisa Kennedy, a host for the daytime program “Outnumbered,” tossed the idea out in April, calling now a “great time in our country’s history where we rethink whether or not we have public schools,” and suggesting “we should not have the government involved in education at all.” 

There’s some truth to the saying that “knowledge is power.” That is precisely why the activist right doesn’t want the general public to be equipped with knowledge.

To journalists who have been closely observing the world of right-wing activism and think tanks, this escalation of anti-education rhetoric is no surprise. Salon’s Kathryn Joyce, for instance, has been reporting on the growing movement in elite right-wing circles to destroy public education as we know it so that it can be replaced with right-wing propaganda and/or no education at all for lower-income Americans who can’t afford to pay for private services. 


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


There’s some truth to the saying that “knowledge is power.” That is precisely why the activist right doesn’t want the general public to be equipped with knowledge. As I’ve written about before, ignorant people are flat-out easier to subject to authoritarian rule. They more easily believe fascistic propaganda and don’t have access to the critical thinking skills that can undermine the arguments that authoritarian leaders make. 

Schools are also a major threat to the anti-egalitarian politics of the right. At its most basic, the promise of public education is one where anyone who is smart and works hard can get ahead in society, by getting good grades and gaining entrance to a good university. That’s an ideal too often honored in the breach, as Ivy League schools are still way over-dominated by the children of privilege. But it’s also true that large numbers of Americans, equipped with moxie and public education, overcame class and race barriers to be leaders in business, public service, medicine, science and politics. The elites on the right would like very much to reverse that trend — and gutting public schools is the linchpin for that. 

RELATED: Why the panic over “critical race theory” is the perfect right-wing troll

As Joyce has heavily covered for Salon, the GOP has been attacking the “problem” of universal education from two major angles. One angle, which Ingraham’s rant touched on, is simply destroying schools by defunding them. The main avenue in this has been “vouchers,” i.e. a system to funnel money out of public schools and into private schools run mainly by right-wing religious organizations. In Arizona, for instance, the Republican-run government is offering $7,000 to any family who pulls their kid out of public school to enroll them in schools that “reflect their values.” The point of the program isn’t particularly obscure: Push enough kids — and funding — out of public schools into the right-wing private school system and public school systems will collapse entirely. After that, people who can afford to pay for private education will get it, but everyone else will be left basically illiterate. 

This strategy has gotten a major boost by the Supreme Court, which recently ruled against the state of Maine’s restriction on using public funds for religious indoctrination. Now the state will be forced to spend taxpayer funds on tuition for schools that explicitly reject enrolling LGBTQ students and non-Christians, and openly proselytize on behalf of a fundamentalist, right-wing view of Christianity. 


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


The other strategy, seen most prominently in Florida, is to replace real education with taxpayer-funded right-wing propaganda.

Right-wing think tanks have been developing “alternative” curricula that lie to students, downplaying the impacts of racism on American history and falsely asserting that the United States was founded to be a Christian nationalist society. (In reality, the founders were adamant about the importance of a secular government.) In Florida, a series of laws — the most famous being the “don’t say gay” bill — were passed to block teachers from offering reality-based information on everything from health to history. In the face of public outrage over their book-banning campaign, Republicans swore up and down that the left was overreacting and that there was no intent to censor teachers or deny kids education. 

Public disapproval is the biggest obstacle to the GOP’s goal to decimate public education.

Those reassurances were, of course, total lies.

As the Miami Herald reported, Florida teachers are now being instructed to offer students highly misleading “lessons” on American history that falsely teach both that the U.S. was meant to be a “Christian” nation and that the founders who owned slaves somehow opposed slavery. Reassurances that the “don’t say gay” law would only somehow ban explicit sex education in lower grades — which was already not happening — turned out to be lies, as well. Teachers are being told to out LGBTQ students to abusive parents. The pressure to conceal the existence of LGBTQ people has gotten so bad teachers are being forced to conceal the existence of same-sex spouses and the existence of pro-LGBTQ school clubs is imperiled. 

RELATED: How this tiny Christian college is driving the right’s nationwide war against public schools

This strategy is accompanied by a big dose of educator harassment, of course.

In Oklahoma, for instance, the Republican governor is using “audits” to abuse Tulsa public schools that have the temerity to teach their own history, including that of the biggest white supremacist riot in history. It’s a two-pronged approach: Censor teachers who speak the truth and force them to replace the truth with silly right-wing lies. 

Public disapproval is the biggest obstacle to the GOP’s goal to decimate public education. Not just from Democrats, either, who may be the majority of voters but who Republicans have sidelined through gerrymandering and other sleazy tactics. Most Republican voters also tend to support the concept of public education. A majority even tell pollsters that history should be fact-based and not a bunch of right-wing lies. After all, most Republican voters, like most Americans, can’t exactly afford elite private education, even with a voucher program that is certain to disappear as soon as its function (ending public schools) is fulfilled. They don’t want their own kids to grow up illiterate and unable to get decent jobs because of it. 

RELATED: School’s out forever: Arizona moves “to kill public education” with new universal voucher law

That’s why the propaganda apparatus of the GOP — with Fox News taking the lead — has come at the issue sideways. Instead of flatly making “libertarian” arguments against public schools, they instead feed on their audience’s fear of difference and, crucially, their fear that their own kids and grandkids will grow up to reject their narrow, bigoted worldview. There’s been a steady stream of nonsense demonizing modern curriculum for being “different” than what the Fox News audience grew up with, as well. Common Core, which is a mundane way of organizing national educational standards, has been painted as some evil incursion by right-wing media, largely by pushing the idea that the “old” ways of learning things like math are somehow better than newer strategies that have been affirmed by repeated research. Sexist stereotypes of uppity feminists are being applied to teachers and teachers’ unions to stoke loathing of educators in the right-wing audience. 

Schools are places where kids leave their nuclear family and are often exposed to ideas — and crucially, people — that are different than what they experience within the four walls of a family home. Even conservatives generally admit, on some level, that this is a good thing. Growing into an adult means being able to deal with people outside of your immediate family. But after decades of escalating anti-education rhetoric meant to provoke the insecurities of Republicans who don’t want their own kids to be “woke,” Fox News clearly thinks their audience is ready to consider the possibility of ending public education. Sure, it may mean your kids are unhireable and illiterate, but hey, at least they won’t cringe when you make a racist or homophobic joke, right? 

“Can I put my pants on?”: Video shows Trump official who pushed “Big Lie” detained in his underwear

CNN on Thursday broadcast bodycam footage from the Fairfax County Police Department of its early-morning search warrant execution at Jeffrey Clark’s home.

CNN’s Hannah Rabinowitz obtained the video, which shows the Trump DOJ official in his underwear and a dress shirt.

A female officer then informs Clark she is with the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General.

“Can you step outside with me, we have a search warrant and we need to speak to you,” she said. “So can I get you to step outside for me?”

“Let’s go, let’s step outside,” she repeated.

“Can I put my pants on first?” he asked.

“They are going to clear the house,” he was told.

Watch below or at this link.

“Morton’s should be ashamed”: Kavanaugh sneaks out backdoor of restaurant after protesters show up

According to a report from the Politico Playbook, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was forced to leave popular Washington D.C. eatery Morton’s through a back door after a group of angry protesters showed up out front after he had been spotted.

The initial report came from Twitter account @ShutDown_DC, which tweeted “We hear Kavanaugh snuck out the back with his security detail. @mortons should be ashamed for welcoming a man who so clearly hates women.”

Politico’s Daniel Lippman subsequently confirmed the incident.

“On Wednesday night, D.C. protesters targeting the conservative Supreme Court justices, who signed onto the Dobbs decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion, got a tip that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was dining at Morton’s downtown D.C. location,” the report states. “Protesters soon showed up out front, called the manager to tell him to kick Kavanaugh out.”

The report adds that a person “familiar” with what happened claimed the Kavanaughs “did not hear or see the protesters and ate a full meal but left before dessert.”

A spokesperson for Morton’s issued a statement confirming the incident and expressing outrage claiming, “Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant.”

The statement continued, “Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.”

The controversial Kavanaugh, needless to say, has been on the receiving end of attacks after he claimed in his confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade is “… settled as precedent of the Supreme Court… it has been reaffirmed many times,” only to vote to gut it weeks ago.

This is the secret to removing your peskiest stain

Treating stains is an art. Magazine and website articles offer recipes for exactly how to treat each type of stain (I’ve written some myself) and whole books have been written on the subject of laundry. Meanwhile, a photo of Martha Stewart’s laundry room reveals ten (!) supplementary stain-removing solutions — and that is not counting her main detergent. But all those careful instructions and specialty products are all for naught if you do not employ what I believe is the most important thing: patience.

Most people give up on stains too quickly! Patience and persistence are the true secrets to laundry success. In our fast-paced lives, it’s easy to think that to treat a stain is you just spritz some stain treater on the spot and then toss the garment in the wash. But the enzymes and other active ingredients in stain treatments and detergents need time to do their work. In fact, if you read the labels, most will tell you they need at least 15 minutes to sit on the stain before laundering to be effective. However, that recommended time on the label is a fraction of the time it may actually take to properly tackle a tough stain.

Writing in her book “Home Comforts: The Art and Science of Keeping House,” Cheryl Mednelson advises, “Some stains will respond gradually, so you will have to apply your remedy half a dozen times before you are completely successful. You may need all your patience.” Six rounds of stain treating may sound extreme, but if it saves a favorite garment or table linen, I’d say it’s worth the effort.

I should mention that you should not try to treat dry-clean-only garments at home. Rush those over to your dry cleaner ASAP. For anything you regularly launder yourself, instead of just spraying the product on and hoping for the best, try my patience-forward method. First soak the garment in cool water for half an hour, then work the stain treatment (or liquid laundry detergent) into the stain and let it sit for another 30 to 60 minutes. Next, gently scrub at the stain with an old, soft-bristle toothbrush and rinse. Examine the stain: If it hasn’t budged much, repeat. If it’s mostly gone, go ahead and move onto laundering, again in cool water. Do not let the stained fabric dry out between washings!

Regarding stain treatment products, I am somewhat agnostic about what you use. ShoutZoutResolve — you name it, I’ve tried it. Stick with whatever you like. These days, I’m a laundry product minimalist, relying on just my regular detergent and an oxygen brightener.

If I’m working with a durable natural fiber like cotton, linen, or hemp, I’ll sometimes prepare a bath of detergent and oxygen bleach, like OxiClean or Meliora’s Oxygen Brightener, and soak the garment overnight or even up to 24 hours. To do this, I fully dissolve a generous scoop of the oxygen bleach in hot water in a wash tub, add the liquid detergent, and fill the tub the rest of the way with cool water.

In my experience, soaking, treating, gently scrubbing, laundering, and sometimes doing that all over again can get almost anything out. Re-laundering might seem futile, but in my experience, a second or even third consecutive washing can be what finally gets that turmeric off your favorite napkin.

Time is also of importance when you are trying to get whites white. A long luxurious soak in a bath of hot water and oxygen brightener followed by a thorough wash is way more effective than a single laundry cycle. If you’re feeling ambitious, TikTok-famous laundry stripping is, at its core, a slow stain-removal process.

Whatever method you chose, always finish by laundering the garment to remove residues of both the stain and the detergent. And always, always, air-dry on a rack! Once something has gone in the dryer, the heat will set the stain. Finally, if you find that even patience cannot get your stain to budge, consider Mendelson’s sage advice, “In dealing with stains, the most important skill you can acquire is the ability not to be bothered by small imperfections you cannot fix.”

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.

Under pressure from the left, Biden to sign executive order on abortion access

Facing mounting backlash from progressive lawmakers and activists over his tepid response to the Supreme Court’s assault on reproductive rights, President Joe Biden on Friday plans to sign a limited executive order aimed at bolstering access to abortion for people living in GOP-led states that have rushed to ban the procedure.

The order, outlined in a fact sheet released by the White House, will come two weeks after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ended the constitutional right to abortion and set off a flurry of “trigger bans” on abortion in states across the U.S.

Biden’s executive action contains several major pillars, including “safeguarding access to reproductive healthcare services”—such as medication abortion and emergency contraception—and “protecting patient privacy and access to accurate information.”

Under the new order, Biden will instruct the Department of Health and Human Services to “take additional action to protect and expand access to abortion care, including access to medication that the FDA approved as safe and effective over twenty years ago.”

The order, as summarized by the White House, also expresses the Biden administration’s commitment to shielding the right of pregnant people to “travel safely to another state to seek the care they need” as Republican lawmakers look to bar residents from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion.

Biden’s unilateral action comes as members of his own party and advocacy organizations—which are relentlessly fighting abortion bans in court and mobilizing in the streets—are vocally criticizing the administration for failing to respond with sufficient urgency to the right-wing Supreme Court majority’s attack on fundamental freedoms.

“What the president and the Democratic Party needs to come to terms with is that this is not just a crisis of Roe, this is a crisis of our democracy,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said in a recent interview. “This is a crisis of legitimacy, and President Biden must address that.”

The White House’s outline indicates that the president is not going to utilize federal property to open abortion clinics in Republican-led states, a step that Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have urged him to take.

Warren and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., have also suggested that “federal agencies could explore opportunities to provide vouchers for travel, child care services, and other forms of support for individuals seeking to access abortion care that is unavailable in their home state.”

While Biden’s order is expected to make clear that paid sick leave is available to federal workers who need to travel to obtain reproductive care, the executive action appears to be limited to government employees.

Trump’s lawyer talks: Will Pat Cipollone follow in the footsteps of Watergate’s John Dean?

In the last 50 years, the United States has had two demonstrably corrupt presidents who egregiously abused their power, Richard Nixon and Donald Trump. The two are not similar in personality — Trump is an ignorant, gregarious, entertainer while Nixon was a smart, reclusive loner — but their characters are remarkably the same. As the January 6th investigation continues to unfold, exactly 48 years after the Watergate hearings riveted the nation, it’s more obvious than ever that our system of government is terribly vulnerable to such men and their allies.

The public shouldn’t have been so surprised by the Watergate revelations. Nixon’s character had been exposed during his many years as an elected official, first as a vice president accused of running a slush fund — his flinty, paranoia never far from the surface as when he petulantly blamed the press for his electoral losses. They didn’t call him “Tricky Dick” for nothing. Still, what came out over the course of many months of press exposés and investigations was a shock. The House Watergate Committee eventually voted for three articles of impeachment:

1) obstruction of justice in attempting to impede the investigation of the Watergate break-in, protect those responsible, and conceal the existence of other illegal activities;

2) abuse of power by using the office of the presidency on multiple occasions, dating back to the first year of his administration (1969), to unlawfully use federal agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as establishing a covert White House special investigative unit, to violate the constitutional rights of citizens and interfere with lawful investigations;

3) contempt of Congress by refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas

There were two other articles proposed that did not get a majority vote: Nixon’s tax fraud and the secret bombing of Cambodia. 

The corrupt character of Trump and Nixon defines the entire Republican Party.

It’s astonishing how many of these charges are similar to what we know Trump did throughout his one term — from enemies lists to foreign policy scandals. In fact, we just learned this week that “somehow” two of Trump’s targets, former FBI Directors James Comey and Andrew McCabe, were audited by the IRS under very suspicious circumstances. And we all know about Trump and his tax issues, which make Nixon’s look like child’s play. Trump’s blatant corruption while in office has no comparison in U.S. history. 

The corrupt character of Trump and Nixon defines the entire Republican Party.


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


The main difference between the two presidents is that Trump committed his crimes in broad daylight in front of everyone while Nixon tried to cover them up. And while it’s a dubious distinction, Nixon will at least not go down in history having attempted a coup and incited an insurrection.

Still, the parallels between the two sets of summer hearings are glaring even though they’re presented very differently. In the past you had the committee members, some of whom were allies of the president, questioning the witnesses for days on end on camera. Of course in those days, committee hearings still adhered to some sense of decorum and didn’t turn into circus sideshows the way they do now, so it was a more civilized event. Today, we have a multi-media presentation with a bipartisan panel questioning just a few of the witnesses in person. But in both cases, the committee investigators had interviewed them in advance and knew what they were going to say.

The big difference between the two sets of hearings, of course, is that Watergate was an impeachment inquiry and this is a fact-finding congressional investigation. Trump has the distinction of already having been impeached twice and was saved by his partisan supporters in the Senate in spite of ample evidence that he committed the impeachable acts he was accused of. The current investigation is focused on finding out the truth about the attempted coup and the insurrection on January 6th after which they will recommend reforms that might help prevent such a thing from happening again.

Today, the committee will be interviewing Pat Cipollone, the former White House counsel who was name-checked repeatedly by former chief of staff Mark Meadows’ aide Cassidy Hutchinson in the last hearing. He had been “cooperating” before but had not testified under oath. He was finally subpoenaed and will do so in videotaped testimony that will no doubt be played in a future hearing. It’s pretty clear that he will not follow in John Dean’s, Nixon’s White House Counsel’s footsteps, and lay it all out without regard to that amorphous concept of executive privilege. Cipollone has been very reluctant. But it is possible that he still believes that it’s wrong to lie under oath so one hopes that he will honestly answer questions that don’t relate to policy, which is really the only area that executive privilege applies. Coups aren’t covered. Neither are insurrections.

There are a couple of recent situations that point to the possibility of real cooperation. First, Cipollone’s predecessor in the White House counsel’s office, Don McGahn, refused to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee for years in a protracted court battle. He and lawmakers finally reached an accommodation in 2021 and he testified a little over a year ago confirming what he told Robert Mueller about Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice. His reputation among the Federalist Society in-crowd seems to have survived. Cipollone can also look to the testimony of former Attorney General William Barr, a close associate, fellow Catholic activist and nobody’s idea of a Democratic tool. His testimony was damning. If Barr can do it, Cipollone can do it.

On the other hand, Cipollone is also Fox News personality Laura Ingraham’s religious mentor, which gives you an idea of some of the other company he keeps.

So, who knows?

Nixon was on the ropes in the summer of 1974 and it wasn’t long before he ignominiously resigned from office. He was abandoned by his party which cut its losses and almost immediately turned to an up and coming superstar, also from California, Ronald Reagan. Today, the man on the hot seat is getting ready to announce his grand return from exile having created a cult of personality that sees him as their one true leader. He’s been impeached twice and weathered more scandals than all previous presidents put together and, whether out of cowardice or opportunism, his party won’t quit him. Trump is the front runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.

So there will be no great moment of catharsis as a result of these hearings like there was back then. All we can do is bear witness and hope that somehow, whether it’s some brave prosecutor or a wave of outraged voters, something finally forces this man out of the arena.  

Former Japanese PM Shinzo Abe’s assassination may be linked to “religious group”: report

Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated during a speech on Friday with a weapon that appeared to be homemade. The suspect said he intended to target a senior official of a religious group who was not present at the event, according to the Mainichi, a major Japanese newspaper.

Abe, 67, was campaigning for another politician in Nara, a city near Osaka, when a gunman shot him from behind with a shotgun-style weapon that appeared to be homemade, according to Japanese news outlet NHK. Abe was taken to the hospital and later pronounced dead.

Abe died from excessive bleeding and the bullet went “deep enough to reach his heart,” doctors at Nara Medical University said during a press conference.

Police arrested Tetsuya Yamagami, 41, on the scene. Video showed authorities wrestle him to the ground after the shooting.

The suspect admitted that he shot Abe but told police he “intended to target” a senior official of a specific religious group, according to The Mainichi, which did not specify the group. The official was not on the scene at the time.

“At the same time, the suspect has made nonsensical statements, and Nara Prefectural Police are carefully investigating whether he is mentally competent to be held criminally responsible,” the outlet reported.

Yamagami was a member of the Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force for three years, a defense official told reporters.

Abe, a Japanese nationalist, was the country’s longest-serving prime minister whose popularity rose after he resigned in 2020 due to health problems. He has remained a prominent political leader and frequently campaigned for other members of his party.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida called the attack a “despicable and barbaric act.”

“To lose such a figure in this manner is absolutely devastating,” Kishida said during an emotional press conference after the attack, vowing to go ahead with upper house elections on Sunday with beefed-up security.

“Elections are the foundation of democracy, which we must defend,” he said. “We cannot give in to violence. For this reason, we will continue to fight the election campaign until the very end. I hope the people of Japan will think about and work hard to protect this democracy.”


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


Japan has a history of political attacks. Former Nagasaki Mayor Ito Itcho was assassinated by a gunman in 2007. Former Prime Minister Morihiro Hosokawa was shot in 1994 but survived.

Guns are severely restricted in Japan and gun violence is incredibly rare. There were just 10 shootings in Japan last year, eight of which were related to the yakuza, the Japanese criminal network, according to the National Police Agency. Only one person died from gun violence in the country last year.

The assassin’s weapon did not appear to be a standard firearm.

“The box-like device is wrapped in black tape and smoke can be seen coming from the muzzle. It’s certainly no standard shotgun,” a former police detective told The Daily Beast after reviewing photos of the weapon.

The shooting could change the country “forever,” Nancy Snow, Japan director of the International Security Industrial Council, told CNN.

“It’s not only rare, but it’s really culturally unfathomable,” Snow said. “The Japanese people can’t imagine having a gun culture like we have in the United States. This is a speechless moment. I really feel at a loss for words. I pray for the best for the former prime minister. What this will do to the national psyche of a people who move about freely and have a social contract with each other, that they will not resort to this type of violence … I am devastated thinking about that.”

Abe was a vocal critic of China and sought to build close relations with the United States and former President Donald Trump. He stepped down before President Joe Biden took office.

“We are shocked and saddened to hear about the violent attack against former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe,” The White House said in a statement. “We are closely monitoring the reports and keeping our thoughts with his family and the people of Japan.”

“We are all saddened and shocked by the shooting of former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo,” echoed Rahm Emanuel, the U.S. ambassador to Japan. “Abe-san has been an outstanding leader of Japan and unwavering ally of the U.S.”

Read more

about Abe and the US

New American traditions born of violence: From Jayland Walker’s death to the Highland Park shootings

“They shot a cop in the county, just last night,” Mr. Spud said, scrolling through his phone, the light from his news apps reflecting in his thin clear frames. “I think he gonna live.” 

“Welp,” someone muttered. 

Mr. Greene shrugged and chugged his drink. I looked at the box of sticky glazed doughnuts on the table next to the empty bottles of Sunny Delight and wondered how these two men who lived off of sugary snacks and fake OJ are still healthy in their 70s. But none of us really responded to the news. The drama of the NBA finals — LeBron’s absence, suspense over whether the young Celtic team could put Golden State to bed — was more interesting. 

“I’m cheering for everyone except Boston!” I chuckled to the room of ex-gangsters. The men in that room represent over 200 years’ worth of time served in state and federal penitentiaries — all are Black, all are from Baltimore, and all have experienced police violence in one way or another. In meetings like these, younger reformed guys like me connect with the OGs to talk about storytelling, the system and the growing violence in our neighborhoods, with the hopes of using our collective scars and life experience to help the next generation. We do it without the police, because in our community, cops have done way more bad than good. Old school street fame and the trauma we faced on the tattered blocks of our city bonds this group of imperfect, intergenerational allies. 

“F**k that cop,” said Marcus, who is nearing 50 with the cleanest grey fade that matches the cleanest grey beard I ever saw. As he entered the room, he continued rant about the way police treat guys who look like us. The room erupted in cackles and chuckles, a dark cloud of rage masked in laughter. Well, everyone except me. I can’t laugh about it. Maybe I’m worn down by the mass shootings that go viral every week and the never-ending stories about police gunning down Black men. I don’t want cops shot, I don’t want civilians shot, I don’t want people who break the law to be shot, I don’t even want people who shoot other people to be shot. And to be clear, the OGs don’t want anyone shot, either. Violence prevention is what pulls us together. But when cops have long gotten away with shooting people who look like us, an OG might feel like, on some level, it represents a sort of evening of the shared pain score. And yet that’s another person with a family and a community, hurt or dead, all because of what I call “coward culture.”

Coward culture is the shared mindset that tells scared people to lash out with the intent to kill. And all of America’s guns make it possible. Gun violence stemming from coward culture, including the gun violence initiated by police, has been ruining my life since elementary school. By now we should all know that the philosophy of gun for gun, bullet for bullet doesn’t work. But I didn’t express my feelings to the room. I just leaned back in my chair and said, “Don’t count Bron out, he’s going to get the Lakers back in the Finals next year!” 

A few weeks later, in LeBron’s hometown of Akron, Ohio, Jayland Walker, a 25-year-old Black man, was shot more than 60 times by police officers over July 4 weekend as he ran from a “routine traffic stop.” He was unarmed at the time; a gun was found inside the car he fled. Police say they heard a gun go off before Walker exited the car and ran from them. 

Coward culture is the shared mindset that tells scared people to lash out with the intent to kill.

And, as it always goes after police officers kill an unarmed Black man, protesters link up and organize as the slain victim’s family calls for peace. This has become an American tradition, and its rituals also include the officers involved being placed on administrative leave while an investigation, usually opaque to the public, begins. Maybe a famous attorney arrives in the town that hosted this particular tragedy and prepares to sue on behalf of the family. And maybe the family is awarded a lump sum of money, and maybe the cops lose some pay, and maybe they are fired, and maybe they are even charged, and maybe some are convicted and go to prison. That all remains to be seen. 

There is only one certainty in this situation: Jayland Walker, a young man who, like all young people, had the potential to do the most amazing, transformative things with his life, is gone. He isn’t coming back. That chapter is closed, never to be opened again. 

The weight of all these stories, this American tradition of Black people dying violently at the hands of law enforcement — including George Floyd, Michael Brown, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, Breonna Taylor — is responsible for the rage shared by the group of men in that room I tried to distract with banter about the NBA finals. The systems that don’t hold cops accountable when they shoot Black people causes that rage to build, and it can’t grow past the idea of violence. 

Over the same weekend, another new American tradition played out its terrible rituals: a young white man — 21-year-old Robert “Bobby” Crimo III — was charged with multiple counts of murder, after confessing to the shooting spree that left seven dead and dozens wounded at a peaceful Independence Day parade in Highland Park, a suburb north of Chicago. Nearly 50 people were reportedly hit by gunfire. Survivors give their accounts to the media. Public mourning begins. Politicians on both sides of the gun control debate make their statements. The alleged shooter’s past is combed for clues. This time, the police take him into custody alive, just as they did with Dylann Roof, James Holmes, Robert Aaron Long and Payton Gendron.

The contrast between the circumstances of Crimo’s arrest and those of Jayland Walker’s death is also what pushes men — who can see no good in a system that enables that contrast — to shrug at violence when it’s directed at police. 

Part of me wishes I would have broken up the bleak conversation at that OG meeting with some anti-violence rhetoric. I would never celebrate violence myself. But I can understand why those men scoffed at someone else’s pain. We need to reckon with the coward culture that brought us all to this point.  

For as long as I can remember, people in the streets like us mainly mourned tragedies that claimed the lives of people from the streets. Just as, I assume, people in law enforcement mainly mourned the tragedies that befell their own coworkers. But everyone’s afraid now of going to work — or to a concert, or to buy food, or to worship, or even to a small town holiday parade. These two violent American traditions that played out their rituals last weekend are undeniably connected — through coward culture that fosters the atmosphere of violence and through the guns that make it deadly. If we are all being forced to deal with this unbelievable amount of pain, why can’t we do something as simple as see each other? Can we start there? 

Read more

about America’s gun violence crisis:

Right’s new social studies plan vows to fight CRT, wokeness and the “overthrow of America”

In late June, a conservative education coalition called the Civics Alliance released a new set of social studies standards for K-12 schools, with the intention of promoting it as a model for states nationwide. These standards, entitled “American Birthright,” are framed as yet another corrective to supposedly “woke” public schools, where, according to Republicans, theoretical frameworks like critical race theory are only one part of a larger attack on the foundations of American democracy. 

“Too many Americans have emerged from our schools ignorant of America’s history, indifferent to liberty, filled with animus against their ancestors and their fellow Americans, and estranged from their country,” reads the introduction to “American Birthright.” (The “birthright” here refers to “freedom.”) And the fields of history and civics, it suggests, exemplify the worst of that trend. “The warping of American social studies instruction has created a corps of activists dedicated to the overthrow of America and its freedoms, larger numbers of Americans indifferent to the steady whittling away of American liberty, and many more who are so ignorant of the past they cannot use our heritage of freedom to judge contemporary debates.” 

RELATED: School’s out forever: Arizona moves “to kill public education” with new universal voucher law

While it claims to represent an ideologically neutral, apolitical history, the document holds that most instruction that references “diversity, equity and inclusion” or “social justice” amounts to “vocational training in progressive activism” and “actively promote[s] disaffection from our country.” It heralds Ronald Reagan as a “hero of liberty” alongside Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. Its proposed lessons in contemporary U.S. history include Reagan’s revitalization of the conservative movement, Bill Clinton’s impeachment, “Executive amnesties for illegal aliens” and the “George Floyd Riots.”  

American Birthright is just one of numerous recent right-wing efforts to overhaul public K-12 curricula to align with the dictates of current conservative ideology. 

Last week, the Miami Herald reported that Florida’s Department of Education has begun holding three-day training sessions for public school teachers around the state to prepare them to implement the state’s new Civics Literacy Excellence Initiative, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ flagship effort to create a more “patriotic” civics curriculum. The new Florida standards were created in consultation with Hillsdale College, a small Christian college that has become a guiding force on the right, and the Charles Koch-founded Bill of Rights Institute. 

Some Florida teachers say the state’s new standards promote a “Christian fundamentalist” understanding of history, and that trainers had told them the founding fathers opposed the separation of church and state.

As the Herald reported, a number of teachers who attended the first training, in Broward County, emerged with deep concerns. Some said the new civics standards appeared to promote “a very strong Christian fundamentalist way” of analyzing U.S. history. Others recounted that trainers had claimed that America’s founding fathers opposed strict separation of church and state, had compared the end of school-sponsored prayer to segregation and had downplayed the history of American slavery in misleading ways. (Slides from the training presentation noted that enslaved people in the U.S. only accounted for 4% of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, which both minimizes the number of people ultimately enslaved in America and suggests that other countries’ slavery practices were worse.)

Also last week, the Texas Tribune reported that a group of advisers to the state’s education board — which is adapting its own social studies standards after Texas’ legislature banned teaching about racism or slavery in ways that make students “feel discomfort” — had proposed that second-grade teachers call slavery “involuntary relocation.” (After a board member objected, the board voted to “revisit” that language.) 

Currently, a number of conservative activists and media figures are campaigning against the Civics Secures Democracy Act, a bipartisan bill recently reintroduced in the U.S. Senate that would provide funding for civics education research and programming. In multiple articles calling on conservatives to oppose the bill, the Civics Alliance charged that the bill would “transform civics education, injecting identity politics into K-12 classrooms around the country” and divide “Americans into mutually hostile factions.” The National Review called the bill a trap that would open “the door to the nationalization of CRT.” And last week, DeSantis charged that the bill was an attempt to “buy off states with $6 billion if they sacrifice American History for Critical Race Theory and Biden’s other political whims of the day.” 

But even in this climate, “American Birthright” seeks to distinguish itself through the scope of its ambitions. The document is not a curriculum but rather a model set of social studies standards, of the sort that state-level education departments adopt in order to guide and regulate individual school districts as they craft their own curricula. 

That’s by design. Civics Alliance describes its mission as “preserving and improving America’s civics education and preventing the subordination of civics education to political recruitment tools,” namely by writing model bills and social studies standards that lawmakers and activists can use to influence the curricula schools and school districts create. 


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


As the document explains, “We chose this form because state standards are the single most influential documents in America’s education administrations.” Not only do such standards have significant impact on public school curricula, they also affect those of AP courses, charter schools, private schools, homeschooling and textbooks used across the country. “American Birthright’s” authors charge that “far too many” state education departments “are set on imposing state social studies standards that combine…the worst of misguided pedagogical theory with the worst of anti-American animus.” So Civics Alliance is effectively bypassing them, taking their pitch directly to state governors, lawmakers and school boards, as well as grassroots activists who can pressure politicians to deploy the new standards. 

*  *  *

The Civics Alliance was created in 2021 as an offshoot of another entity, the National Association of Scholars, a conservative nonprofit aimed at reforming higher education which features right-wing leaders like Ginni Thomas (the suddenly-famous spouse of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas) on its board. NAS launched Civics Alliance after Joe Biden closed down the 1776 Commission — Donald Trump’s answer to the “1619 Project” — on his first day in office. In fact, the Civics Alliance seems to have consciously taken up the 1776 Commission’s professed mission. In “American Birthright,” the authors insist they aren’t seeking to create a uniform national curriculum, but cite the 1776 Curriculum — published in 2021 by Hillsdale College, from which two leading members of Trump’s commission were drawn — as aligned with their vision, along with the curricula of Great Hearts Academies, a “classical education” network, and the Black conservative group 1776 Unites.

Too many education officials, the authors claim, “combine the worst of misguided pedagogical theory with the worst of anti-American animus.”

NAS and its leaders have involved themselves in numerous contemporary education controversies. In 2018, Civics Alliance executive director David Randall took aim at Massachusetts education authorities after they revised the state’s social science standards. In a report with the Pioneer Institute, “No Longer a City on a Hill,” Randall charged that the new standards were “an exercise in progressive educational propaganda and vocational training for how to be a political activist” (a charge echoed nearly verbatim in “American Birthright”). As evidence, Randall wrote that the standards had subordinated the “Founding era” to the civil rights movement, used “politically correct vocabulary” such as “Native American” rather than “Indian,” noted that the Industrial Revolution had resulted in wealth inequality, and failed to recommend texts from right-wing icons like Phyllis Schlafly (on women’s rights) or Justice Antonin Scalia (on gun control).

This April, NAS released a brief warning conservatives that “social emotional learning” — at its most basic, a term for teaching students to regulate their emotions and play well with classmates — had been reoriented “toward teaching a radical political agenda and promoting student activism,” particularly around race. The Civics Alliance announced a corresponding initiative to build a network of state affiliates “dedicated to removing” SEL “action civics” from their states. DeSantis’ administration subsequently cited the use of SEL concepts as justification for rejecting nearly half of the math textbooks submitted to it for consideration by Florida schools.

This February, when NAS released a study ranking 15 different K-12 civics curricula, both the 1776 Curriculum and 1776 Unites received high scores, as did Florida’s new civics standards; NAS gave the “1619 Project,” predictably, an “F.” In a podcast interview last week marking the release of the standards, Randall said that he saw “American Birthright” as the sort of work Trump’s 1776 Commission might have created, had it continued. Indeed, a number of the same figures were involved in both. 

The list of groups and individuals involved in the creation of “American Birthright” reads like a who’s-who of U.S. right-wing policy advocacy, including think tanks like the Claremont Institute, the Family Research Council and the creationist Discovery Institute, and influential state groups such as Arizona’s Goldwater Institute and Massachusetts’ Pioneer Institute. The document gives prominent credit to Florida’s Department of Education, and its 2021 revised civics standards, and lists a department official among its expert consultants. 

Other coauthors, consultants and board members have played prominent roles in education stories Salon has tracked in recent months. There is Mari Barke, a California education board member and staffer at the right-wing California Policy Center, whose husband runs one of Hillsdale College’s charter schools. There is Richard Lowery, a University of Texas-Austin professor who helped propose a right-wing institute on the UT campus that Texas Republicans see as an antidote to CRT. There is anti-CRT activist Christopher Rufo, architect of the right’s education agenda for the last two years, as well as people like Parental Rights Foundation president William Estrada, Moms for Liberty cofounder Tiffany Justice, right-wing direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and multiple staffers associated with Hillsdale College and Schlafly’s Eagle Forum. 

More importantly, there are more than 20 state lawmakers and elected officials credited with helping create the standards, including, most prominently, North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson. Also listed is Arizona state Rep. Shawnna Bolick, wife of Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, who, as Salon reported last week, has been a leading figure in school privatization efforts.

*  *  *

“American Birthright” has yet to receive much attention from the mainstream press, but among conservative think tanks and media, it’s been heralded as the way forward, often by figures involved in its creation. City Journal, the publication of the Manhattan Institute, cheered the standards as a “Return to Lincoln.” Wisconsin’s MacIver Institute asserted that American Birthright “doesn’t train students to protest” but rather “to be students of history.” The Federalist Society declared, “Here’s what your child’s school should be teaching about American history and government.” David Randall himself wrote that the standards were necessary because, “If education reformers don’t act now, Woke social studies standards will teach a slanderous caricature of our history that prepares students to work to replace our republic with an illiberal regime.” 

Some of the claims made to bolster American Birthright have been misleading, as when the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions — another member of the coalition behind the document — suggested that Kentucky’s current standards mean students don’t learn about figures like Ben Franklin or Abraham Lincoln. 

“Woke social studies standards,” warns David Randall, “teach a slanderous caricature of our history” that could lead to replacing “our republic with an illiberal regime.”

That’s far from accurate, said Sarah Shear, a professor of social studies and multicultural education at the University of Washington-Bothell and coauthor of two national studies assessing state K-12 standards on U.S. history, civics and government. Most state standards are streamlined by necessity, says Shear, and the absence of individual figures from general standards doesn’t mean they aren’t taught. 

“I read every state’s standards, cover to cover,” said Shear. “And I’m just perplexed at the notion that the state standards are in any way radically left.”

What some have done, Shear continued, is open standards to more accurate and complex representations of history. “How does that threaten us as a nation, to know more and think more deeply about history, whether it’s Washington, Lincoln, the Constitution or the American Revolution?” she asked. “When we peel back the layers and reveal a much more detailed story of how the United States became a country, it’s not a story that includes everyone having freedom and democracy from the word go. That’s just not what happened here.”

“I often hear from people that telling the truth threatens the pretty story of the country we live in,” she continued. “But not telling the truth has harmed everyone, because it has not provided the capacity by which we could address the problems we still have.” 

Christopher Martell, a social studies education professor at the University of Massachusetts-Boston who wrote a Twitter thread about “American Birthright” last week, says another problem with the model standards is how they provide fixed answers to questions that social studies classrooms are meant to debate, such as the role of the free market or how to balance questions of religious freedom. 

Martell said he was particularly concerned about “a clear undertone” in American Birthright suggesting “that the U.S. is a Christian nation founded on Christian values and beliefs,” exemplified by passages calling for curricula to emphasize “the role of faith in sustaining and extending liberty” and describing America’s founding principles as “rooted in Christian thought.” 

Likewise, Martell pointed to the standards’ ubiquitous emphasis on Western civilization, evident in the document’s statement that “America’s ideas of freedom” come from “the long history of Western civilization” but also in the way both U.S. and European history, which are covered in depth, are contrasted with “world history.” 

While “American Birthright” presents Western civilization as a rich intellectual legacy that includes the creation of science and democracy, the non-European world is largely covered as the study of “migrations, clashes, massacres [and] conquests” undertaken by “small-scale tribes, nomadic societies, and villages that preceded civilization, whose warlike nature must be understood in order to comprehend the character and the magnitude of the civilizing process.” 

“To me, that is like trying to embed white supremacy in the standards without saying, ‘This is the white supremacy curriculum,'” said Martell. “It sends a message that Western society is civilization, and the rest of the world is not.” 

*  *  *

Much of “American Birthright” reflects recent education fights. For example, the document calls on the federal government to “withdraw from regulating or funding any aspect of K-12 education,” to pass legislation prohibiting “discriminatory pedagogies and action civics” (read: CRT and SEL), to require that high school studies classes teach “Western civilization” and that all academic standards be approved by state governors and legislatures, and to reform teaching licensure so as to “end the gatekeeping power of the education schools and departments.” 

That last point in particular has featured in several recent attacks on public education. In an April speech at Hillsdale College, Christopher Rufo called for state lawmakers to rescind requirements that teachers must hold education degrees and forecast a future when teachers with masters degrees will be shunned by hiring committees, who would correctly see such credentials as signs of radical left-wing politics. Just last week, journalist Phil Williams at Tennessee’s NewsChannel 5 reported on secret recordings of Hillsdale president Larry Arnn disparaging public school teachers as having been “trained in the dumbest parts of the dumbest colleges in the country,” during a private event with Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, who is rolling out Hillsdale programs across the state.

Similar to last week’s controversy around Florida’s civics training, which many participants felt minimized U.S. slavery, “American Birthright” instructs curriculum makers to teach that many more enslaved Africans were transported to Latin America or the Caribbean than the U.S. and suggests comparing U.S. slavery to “different forced-labor regimes, including Muslim slavery, Eastern Europe’s Second Serfdom, African slavery [and] American Indian slavery.” The standards also suggest that 19th-century European imperialism should be taught as a boon to colonized people, accounting for “Improved life expectancy and growing populations among colonized peoples” as well as the “Abolitions of slavery.” 

Neither Martell nor Shear see realistic prospects that “American Birthright” will find a broad reception, either at the national level or among individual teachers. Both worried, however, that the standards could find a path to influence through conservative state lawmakers, as Civics Alliance itself clearly hopes. 

“I imagine a bunch of conservative politicians handing this to state education agencies and saying, ‘We need to use this document to write our framework,'” said Martell. “Then teachers will have to address the framework when they are observed by their principals or when they talk about lesson planning with their departments.” 

Some states, such as Illinois, make standards decisions at the local level, said Shear, meaning conservative activists might also lobby to get something like “American Birthright” introduced locally. 

“It always comes down to who gets to control the narrative of whose experiences and whose voices matter,” said Shear. “When I see standards like Florida’s, or this ‘Birthright’ curriculum, it’s very much seeking a return to the narrative that privileges a particular identity and does not tell the entirety of the truth of what the United States has been in the past, is right now, or should be in the future. And that’s very worrisome to me.” 

“There’s a long game with what they’re doing here. There was a long game to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I think they’re doing that with education as well,” said Martell. “Twenty or 30 years ago, I couldn’t have imagined a neoconservative, Christian-influenced civics workshop for teachers being pushed by the state.” Now, he said, in Florida and beyond, that’s here. 

Read more from Kathryn Joyce on the right’s campaign against public education:

Donald Trump, Macbeth and the ruins of the Republican Party

Toward the end of Shakespeare’s tragedy “Macbeth,” Malcolm (the good guy) decides to give his ally, Macduff, a very strange test. 

Granted, Macbeth is the very embodiment of a murderous tyrant but, Malcolm says, he’s even worse. Compared to himself, Macbeth “will seem pure as snow.” 

“What are you talking about?” Macduff responds.  So Malcolm gives him a few examples. 

First, “there’s no bottom, none,” to his sexual appetite. Your wives, your daughters, your matrons, won’t satisfy him. Macduff’s response is, to say the least, surprising. That’s OK, he says. Even though sexual rapaciousness has justified the “fall of many kings,” nonetheless, “We have willing dames enough.” 

RELATED: “King Trump” dreams of a glorious return: It seems preposterous, but we laugh at our peril

So Malcolm ups the ante: avarice. He is so greedy that he’ll steal everyone’s land and jewels, and his “more having would be as a sauce / To make me hunger more.” The more he has, the more he wants. He’ll destroy everyone for wealth. 

Macduff again responds: that’s OK. Even though “this avarice / Sticks deeper” and kings have been offed for exactly this reason, Scotland has enough wealth. Better insane greed than Macbeth. 

Finally, Malcolm pulls out all the stops, and insists that he’s the worst person who ever lived, bar none. If he could, he’d “pour the sweet milk of concord into hell.” He demands, “Is such a one fit to govern, speak.” Finally, Macduff says that he’s reached his limit: “Fit to govern? / No, not to live.” 

But the damage to Macduff’s credibility is incalculable. If he’s willing to replace Macbeth with a sex-crazed greedy monster, then how much difference is there between the good guys and the bad guys? 

Shakespeare’s scene parallels the responses to three Republican witnesses to Donald J. Trump’s perfidy: Bill Barr, Russell “Rusty” Bowers, and Brad Raffensperger. 

All three have good reasons for unqualifiedly repudiating Trump. Barr, the former attorney general, has said that Trump’s belief that he won the election suggested that the then-president was “detached from reality.” Bowers, the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, was subjected to numerous calls from Trump pressuring him to replace Arizona’s Biden electors with Trump ones, a scheme he described as illegal and unconstitutional. As for Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, Trump asked him to “find 11,780 votes,” and when Raffensperger refused, Trump said that standing by the election results was “a big risk to you” and “a criminal offense.”

Yet all three of these men have said that they would vote for Trump again if he’s the Republican nominee in 2024. Even though Barr says he would prefer someone else, he pledged to vote for Trump if the twice-impeached ex-president winds up on the ballot. Bowers said the same: “If he is the nominee … I’d vote for him again.” Raffensperger was more evasive, refusing to rule out voting for Trump while not explicitly saying that he would. 


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


How is this possible? How can Barr think that someone who is “detached from reality” should have his finger on the nuclear trigger? How could Bowers, who expressed nothing but contempt and disgust for Trump when he testified before the Jan. 6 select committee, nonetheless affirm his intention to vote for Trump all over again if he’s the nominee? How could Raffensperger, whom Trump literally threatened with prosecution and imprisonment, avoid saying that he had no intention of ever voting for him again? 

The answer is that they are rather too much like Macduff: Better Trump, with all his flaws (in their view) than Joe Biden or the liberals. While Raffensperger did not offer specifics, the other two were quite open about their reasons. 

For Barr, Trump may be deranged and delusional, but the Democrats are worse: “I believe that the greatest threat to the country,” he said, “is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party.” 

How can Bill Barr believe that someone who is “detached from reality” should have his finger on the nuclear button? How can Rusty Bowers believe that Trump’s pre-pandemic record “was so good for the country“? 

Bowers thinks that Trump’s pre-COVID record was terrific: he will vote for him “[s]imply because what he did the first time, before COVID, was so good for the country.” That category of “what he did,” let us remember, includes the family separation policy, which the House Judiciary Committee described as “driven by an Administration that was willfully blind to its cruelty and determined to go to unthinkable extremes to deliver on political promises,” an effort to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, and the assertion that there were “very fine people on both sides” after antisemites and white supremacists rioted in Charlottesville. 

Even worse, these mini-Macduffs are not isolated examples. Even though Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony seems to have shaken Trump’s support among at least some top-level Republicans (former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told Fox News host that Trump’s encouragement of an armed mob to march on the Capitol “certainly changes my mind“), those seem to be the exception rather than rule. House Republicans who voted for impeachment, or for establishing the Jan. 6 committee, faced severe blowback during their primaries. Polling shows that Republican voters continue to support Trump, by and large, and in many cases (though not all) are likely to punish Republicans they consider disloyal. 

Shakespeare’s point in “Macbeth” is to show how little separates the murderous Scottish tyrant from the people who want to replace him, and that Malcolm and Macduff are hopelessly compromised. The same lesson applies here. The fact that so many, including Barr, Bowers and Raffensperger, continue to support Trump even though they understand full well that he inspired an insurrection and tried to suborn them into subverting the election, shows the depths to which the Republican Party has fallen. 

To disagree with Democratic policies or priorities is legitimate politics, of course. But if Republicans prefer an unprincipled and possibly treasonous liar who is, in Barr’s words, “detached from reality” — even when they know exactly who he is — then which party poses the greater danger? 

Read more from the continuing saga of America’s 45th president:

The fall of Boris Johnson: A moment of reckoning for Machiavellian politics?

Boris Johnson’s resignation as British prime minister is not just a portentous political event. His time in office — and the nature of his departure — throw up vital questions about democratic values and institutions.

Blaming the failings of an entire political culture on the moral deficiencies of one leader might make us feel righteous, but most of us know that the rot goes rather deeper than one flamboyant character. The fall of Johnson could be taken as a historical juncture to be built upon — and not just in the U.K.

RELATED: So what the hell happened to Boris Johnson — and can it happen to Donald Trump?

Some have argued that the political debate preceding the Brexit referendum was a nadir; that public hopes and fears were cynically exploited by politicians who did not even believe the substance of their own messages. Johnson’s premiership fell because it seemed to recognize no distinction between what is true and what is politically expedient. Once that distinction ceases to matter, democratic discourse becomes unsustainable and political communication becomes a matter of permanent decoding.

Integrity depends upon binding structures, such as codes of conduct and ethics committees. It also relies on a cultural commitment by politicians and citizens to call out intentional deceit, corrupt practices and hateful speech. The fall of Johnson is a good moment for explicit reflection on how far any democracy is prepared to tolerate, and even reward, Machiavellian tendencies.

Red-meat politics

The Johnson years highlight the important difference between a popular government and a government making meaningful difference to its people. Too often, attention-grabbing “red-meat” solutions have been proffered in response to intractable challenges. Flying refugees to Rwanda or declaring Brexit “done” may have made for ephemerally forceful headlines and opinion poll effects, but they are typically merely symbolic and often dangerously counterproductive.

Governing takes time and thought. And it calls for honest appraisal, followed by serious efforts to fix what does not work well. This is quite different from government by propaganda whereby every manifest failure is described as a success and critics are sidelined or mocked.


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


Parliaments, which are supposed to hold governments to account on behalf of the public, need to assert their power. The British Parliament may have acted to remove a prime minister who looked like an electoral liability but a more important role for Parliament to play is to challenge policy proposals that are clearly not thought through or are offered as mere crowd-appeasing gestures.

The Johnson government was far from unique in having promoted a number of simplistic policies. It was, however, perhaps unprecedented in its willingness to flirt with the policy rhetoric of populism.

Better discourse surely involves paying attention to the ways in which our current media ecology too often rewards the loudest, most contentious demagogues and enables politicians who know how to capitalize on the worst practices of the journalistic trade.

Oxbridge politics in a changing world

A final, important matter is how to bring a much wider range of voices and experiences into democratic politics. Recent events in the U.K. have included a damaging lobbying affair and multiple revelations of political figures breaking their own lockdown laws during the pandemic. Further, Johnson’s end came in the immediate wake of accusations of serious sexual misconduct against a senior figure in his government.

These might all have attracted a degree of weary popular interest in the Westminster soap opera. But the overall effect has surely been further erosion of the electorate’s already low trust in politics, fueling renewed motives for disengagement.

The end of any leader’s career is an opportunity to reflect on what expectations we have of our democratic representatives. During Johnson’s tenure, too much time has been spent discussing what the British public is willing to put up with. Johnson will soon be gone from Downing Street. The question instead should be what do the people want next — and how can they make it happen?The Conversation

Stephen Coleman, Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds

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

Read more on British politics and Boris Johnson’s collapse:

Someone mailed feces to the Ohio GOP caucus

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service has launched after all 25 Republicans in the Ohio state Senate were mailed “envelopes full of feces,” The Columbus Dispatch reported Thursday.

“The packages arrived after being sent almost a week earlier from a Cleveland post office,” the newspaper reported. “The packages were intercepted by Statehouse, Cleveland and Akron post offices before reaching the senators, according to a statement from Ohio House spokesman John Fortney.”

Republicans control the state Senate, which is led by President Pro Tempore Jay Hottinger, Majority Floor Leader Kirk Schuring, and Majority Whip Rob McColley.

Fortney seemed to suggest trial by combat.

“They should’ve just sent a selfie, because it’s the same thing,” Fortney said. “I’d be more than happy to explain it to them in a parking lot or cornfield of their choice.”

The newspaper interviewed Sen. Jay Hottinger (R), who said it was, “gross and stupid, immaturity at its highest level.”

But Hottinger seemed to take the whole incident in stride.

“Just another crappy day,” he said.

Watch coverage below:

Trump distances from social media company prior to federal subpoena

Former President Donald Trump quietly removed himself from the board of his budding social media venture shortly before it was hit with federal subpoenas “by both the Securities and Exchange Commission and a grand jury in Manhattan,” documents obtained exclusively by The Sarasota Herald-Tribune have revealed.

On Thursday, the Florida newspaper reported that on June 8th, Trump, the then-chairman of Trump Media and Technology Group, joined five other executives – “Kashyap Patel, Trump’s former point man in the White House; Scott Glabe, a former assistant to Trump who was counsel for the media company; and Donald Trump, Jr.” – in a mass exodus from the organization.

“The SEC served Trump Media and Technology Group with a subpoena on June 27th, according to a regulatory filing,” the Herald-Tribune learned. “Trump’s media company owns Truth Social, an app similar to Twitter. Trump was banned by Twitter for inflammatory remarks concerning the insurrection.”

Correspondent Chris Anderson uncovered another subpoena issued by the Southern District of New York on July 1st, suggesting that a “potential criminal investigation is in progress.” He explained that “the investigations appear to be related to a proposed merger between Trump’s media company and a blank-check company called Digital World Acquisitions Corp., according to a recent regulatory filing.”

What caught the attention of regulators, Anderson wrote, was that Digital World and Trump Media and Technology Group were engaged in “premature” discussions about fundraising for their merger, which is prohibited before a venture officially goes public.

The amount of money in play was not mere chump change, either.

Anderson pointed out that “the merger between the two companies could reportedly mean $1.3 billion in capital and a listing on the stock exchange for the new company, according to the New York Times.” He added that Digital World’s top brass received concurrent subpoenas.

“According to Digital World’s filing, the grand jury subpoenas served on Trump’s company were seeking a ‘subset of the same or similar documents demanded in subpoenas to Digital World and its directors,” Anderson found. “The SEC’s subpoena, according to a filing, seeks ‘documents relating to, among other things, Digital World and other potential counterparties for a business transaction involving TMTG.'”

Several unnamed TMTG personnel were also served, and while TMTG said that it “will continue cooperating fully with inquiries into our planned merger and will comply with subpoenas we’ve recently received, none of which were directed at the company’s chairman or CEO,” it never acknowledged Trump’s departure. It did, however, disclose who some of its leaders are.

“Former California Congressman Devin Nunes is listed as the media company’s CEO. A businessman named Phillip Juhan is the company’s CFO,” Anderson gleaned from the records. “They are now the only two board members listed, both using the same Sarasota office address.”

The physical location of TMTG is relatively sketchy too.

“A visit to the office by the Herald-Tribune on June 27th revealed Trump’s company name was not on the registry in the main lobby, nor was there any reference to the name at the office suite itself. There was no receptionist either, just a note to ring the doorbell for assistance,” Anderson discovered. “The visit to the office by the Herald-Tribune took place on the same day the SEC served Trump’s company with the subpoena.”

The absence of Trump’s name from the building’s roster – as well as the opacity behind why TMTG chose Sarasota – only adds to the curiousness of the circumstances, Anderson noted.

“It is still not known why Trump selected Sarasota as home to his company, though it is close proximately to Rumble, the video media platform company used by Truth Social,” Anderson wrote. “Rumble is located on Longboat Key, 11 miles from Trump Media’s headquarters.”

A four-ingredient dessert that tastes like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich

When it’s too hot to cook — and, frankly, even when it’s not — a parfait is just what the doctor ordered. This simple, layered dessert at once evokes childhood nostalgia (for me, it’s Dairy Queen) and a kind of adult elegance that says, “See? I have made some effort.”

I hadn’t much thought about parfaits until I binged my way through every episode of “Zoë Bakes,” the feel-good Magnolia Network baking program hosted by author and recipe developer Zoë Francois. As the star of the show confidently baked, battered and blowtorched her way through an array of festive sweets, I found myself mentally bookmarking her creations — and remixing them in my mind. 

RELATED: Of course Ina Garten’s ice cream hack is totally brilliant

In one early episode, Francois makes a strawberry fool with zesty lemon curd. In another, she whips up a peanut butter “beehive” cake that evokes the sweet sandwiches her dad made for her as a child. By mashing up the two desserts, I aimed to create an easy-tiered treat reminiscent of the lunchboxes of my own childhood. And with strawberries at their peak right now, it would be absolutely criminal not to forgo grape jelly for the beloved summer fruit.

If you’re feeling ambitious or perhaps chasing a little more of a project, reach for fresh whipped cream and homemade peanut butter cookies. However, you can also throw this together with the unmistakably evocative flavors of store-bought cookies and whipped topping. Whichever journey you choose, the end result is a breezy summer dessert that is crunchy, soft, tart and oh so sweet.

***

Inspired by Zoë Francois and For the Love of Cooking

Strawberry Peanut Butter Parfait
Yields
 2 servings
Prep Time
 5 minutes
Cook Time
 5 minutes

Ingredients

  • 1 can whipped topping
  • 6-7 Nutter Butter cookies, broken
  • Handful strawberries, washed and sliced
  • 4 tablespoons peanut butter 

Directions

  1. Into a pair of highball-sized glasses, add a generous squirt of whipped topping.
  2. Divide half of the broken cookies between the glasses, then top with some sliced strawberries.
  3. Add another layer of whipped topping, cookies and strawberries. Finish with one more blast of topping.
  4. In a microwave-safe bowl, warm up the peanut butter for about 10 seconds. Add a drizzle on top of the parfaits and serve immediately.

Cook’s Notes

If homemade whipped cream is your journey, feel free to use your own recipe. 

Feel free to improvise with other kinds of cookies and fruits. Ginger snaps and peaches would both be fantastic.


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


More of our favorite no-bake desserts:

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.

How to fix “Stranger Things” for its fifth and final season

The fourth season of “Stranger Things” ended with a bang – a reported more than 1 billion hours of viewing – and a whimper: the telltale dust of the Upside Down drifting gently upon the town of Hawkins like delicate ash from a ruptured volcano. It was not Mount St. Helens that blew, but a gash that appeared in the earth, rending the real world and allowing that monster-y dimension, the Upside Down, more entry. 

But not everyone was impressed. Critics and viewers alike found this season of the Netflix show at times thrilling, and at other times, a very frustrating watch.  

Beloved characters seemed to behave out of character. The show fell back upon old, easy habits, and brought back Hopper from the dead (or, the USSR) for no real reason other than to show he’s buff? Like Will, Mike and Jonathan, the story needs a haircut, desperately (listen: some of us lived through the ’80s, and sure the hair was big but it was never that bad). How can “Stranger Things” be fixed for its fifth — and allegedly final — season?   

We have a few suggestions

RELATED: The lure of “Stranger Things”? It’s not the ’80s – it’s forgotten childhood freedom

Get rid of the love triangle early

Stranger ThingsJoe Keery as Steve Harrington, Natalia Dyer as Nancy Wheeler and Maya Hawke as Robin Buckley in “Stranger Things” (Courtesy of Netflix)Start with the trim. A maddening part of this season was how, especially initially, closely bonded characters seem inexplicably angry with each other. This manufactured drama includes the relationship between (real-life couple) Nancy (Natalia Dyer) and Jonathan (Charlie Heaton), which has somehow derailed. Now in California, Jonathan is smoking a lot of pot and wants to go to community college, not college with ever-uptight Nancy. Long distance is always hard, but the destruction of Jonathan’s character is disappointing. 

“Stranger Things” loves to make martyrs of its men.

Enter redeemed Steve (Joe Keery). He’s changed from the popular boy bully of Season 1. He’s great with kids. He’s saved the world. A lot. And maybe he’s finally mature enough for Nancy. But is that really what fans want? “Stranger Things” loves to make martyrs of its men, and Steve appeared to be in danger this season (I sent my tween son, a Steve fan, a meme that read: “If Steve dies, we ride at dawn”). It’s gratifying he was spared, but the stringing along of his maybe getting back together with Nancy is grating. 

Of all the characters, Nancy has the most romantic tension with Robin (Maya Hawke). Whatever happens, put us out of our misery early, please. 

Handle Will’s coming-out in a thoughtful way

Stranger ThingsFinn Wolfhard as Mike Wheeler and Noah Schnapp as Will Byers in “Stranger Things” (Ursula Coyote/Netflix)In another stringing along news, is Will gay? “Stranger Things” wants to have it both ways, queerbaiting with the young character, coded as a “sensitive” boy and seen by the others as different, especially since surviving the trauma of the Upside Down, but the show does not directly address . . . anything. 

Given the time, it’s understandable that Will (Noah Schnapp) might not have role models or support, but the show’s scene of him sort-of disclosing to his brother Jonathan, who is nothing but loving and accepting, feels antiquated. What would be best for young viewers who might be questioning their identity as well as best for the character himself is for the show to be clear. Even if Will has to stay closeted for his own safety, “Stranger Things” doesn’t have to dance around queerness. That makes it feel shameful. 

If Will does come out to his friends, we can only hope the show handles it sensitively and thoughtfully.

Where’d the bullies go?

Stranger ThingsNatalia Dyer as Nanacy Wheeler and Mason Dye as Jason Carver in “Stranger Things” (Courtesy of Netflix)Some major threads were dropped this season, including the Satanic panic that gripped Hawkins like Saskatchewan, Canada in the early 1990s, and the ones who took up the torches and pitchforks of the misdirected, moral outrage: the high school jocks. Led by wealthy Jason (Mason Dye), the boyfriend of the murdered Chrissy, the athletes have made the Hawkins outcast kids their target, specifically obsessed with their Dungeons & Dragons group, the Hellfire Club. 

By repeatedly introducing new characters only to kill them, the story can suffer from low stakes.

But with the leader of that club now tragically dead, along with the leader of the jocks, will the bullies stop? There are few things scarier than a white American boy who believes he’s been wronged, and a scene where one of the jocks pins down Erika (Priah Ferguson), a very young Black girl, is distressing. So is the fact that the scene is not returned to for some time.

Erika escapes, but what happens to the rest of the team? Will they continue to seek vengeance in Season 5? Or are they just going to State and pledging Beta?

More screen time

Stranger ThingsEduardo Franco as Argyle in “Stranger Things” (Courtesy of Ursula Coyote/Netflix)“Stranger Things” has done a good job each season of introducing new characters. It’s not easy for an established friend group to expand, but the kids of Hawkins and the viewers of the show have welcomed the newcomers with open arms. This season, we have Argyle (Eduardo Franco) the most adorable stoner to ever mess up your pizza order, and equally lovable Eddie (Joseph Quinn), the metalhead with a heart of gold. 

Argyle in particular did not get enough screen time. At the close of the second half of the season, the main characters line up on the hillside in a kind of “Red Dawn” tableau except for Argyle who . . . is picking mushrooms in the woods? This pizza boy deserves better. He’s a nurturer, after all. When Will, Jonathan, Mike and Eleven plan her attack, he sets immediately to work cooking a pizza to give them strength. And that’s essential care. 

Have consequences

Joseph Quinn as Eddie Munson in “Stranger Things” (Netflix)Eddie met a tragic end this season. One of the characters was bound to, and yet by repeatedly introducing new characters only to kill them off (RIP Barb, Bob and Billy), the story can suffer from low stakes. A thrilling aspect of shows like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Peaky Blinders” was that any character, including a major one, could be killed off at any time (some: more than once, like Buffy). I held off watching the last few moments of “Peaky Blinders” because I so feared Thomas Shelby wouldn’t make it. 

The secret weapon of “Stranger Things” is not secret anymore. Nor is it particularly interesting.

“Stranger Things” lacks that kind of investment. We were worried about Steve, but we also knew it wouldn’t go there. For the show to really make an impact, it’s going to have to go there. It can’t just keep bringing people back (as wonderful as David Harbour is). A pattern the story has fallen into the last couple seasons is to introduce new “bad” men like Billy and Eddie, redeem them, then kill them. As moral arcs go, it’s rather obvious. 

It makes the most sense, story-wise, for Will to be the death of the final season. He may have escaped Vecna from the very beginning (remember how he sang “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” over and over — and music repels One?). He was the first to go into the Upside Down; he might be the last. 

The danger of having Will die is that this lands squarely in the “bury your gays” trope, an outdated and overused device where queer characters are killed, particularly if they’ve found love, peace or happiness. 

Another idea? Max.

Sadie Sink in “Stranger Things” (Courtesy of Netflix © 2022)

No battle came close to Max’s war.

Max (Sadie Sink) ends Season 4 in a coma, the half-hearted way to off a character. Eleven (Millie Bobby Brown) stepping into her mind and finding only dark, wet nothingness may indicate Max won’t come back. But that doesn’t seem like the Duffer Brothers’ style. It seems far more likely that Max will wake up, and make some kind of monster contact while she’s in her “A Nightmare on Elm Street” dream warrior state.

We don’t need another hero

Stranger ThingsMillie Bobby Brown as Eleven in “Stranger Things” (Netflix)The last suggestion for the final season of “Stranger Things”? Eleven needs to stop being the inevitable hero.

At first, it was surprising and moving: this tiny, abused little girl standing up to big bullies, overpowering them. But it’s not a surprise anymore. Eleven has powers. Frustratingly, her powers keep changing, almost as inconsistently as her sentence construction. (She can heal or resurrect people now?)

When you have a superhero who can end every battle, the tension dries up like that swimming pool in the Upside Down. The secret weapon of “Stranger Things” is not secret anymore. Nor is it particularly interesting.

What would be much more interesting is if a character like Max rises to take Eleven’s place as the closer. A person without superhero augmentation, without powers beyond inner strength, love and her friends. The best part of this season of “Stranger Things” was, unquestionably, Max escaping Vecna. That overwhelming emotion was missing from the last half of the season. No battle came close to Max’s war.


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


Sure, Eleven doesn’t exactly win at the end of Season 4. But she doesn’t exactly lose either: all her old friends are alive, if in danger. If “Stranger Things” doesn’t explore Eleven really losing, it’s missing a huge opportunity, as it is if the story doesn’t do more with a complex and compelling character like Max.

To close out this dark fable of childhood, we don’t need another hero. At least, not of the “super” variety. We need a human girl, a survivor, kicking ass. 

More stories like this 

Bags of cookies sold at Target stores are being recalled following a packaging mix-up

J&M Foods is voluntarily recalling certain bags of Favorite Day-branded lavender shortbread cookies in the wake of a packaging mix-up, which resulted in the correct allergens not being disclosed. The 7-ounce packages of cookies were distributed at Target stores nationwide. 

Instead of being filled with shortbread cookies, a select number of containers were mistakenly packed with chocolate chip cookies, according to an announcement posted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because the packaging for the shortbread cookies doesn’t specify the presence of either eggs or soy, this could pose a risk to individuals with extreme allergies or severe sensitivities to these food items. If consumed, they run the risk of a potentially “serious allergic reaction.”

RELATED: A protein powder is being recalled due to the presence of undeclared milk

The recalled cookies were sold in purple bags that can be identified by a UPC code of “0-85239-28609-8” and a best-by date of April 18, 2023.

The packaging error was brought to light by a customer. At the time the recall notice was posted, no illnesses or complaints had been reported.


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


After being notified about the issue, Target posted a recall announcement on its website and pulled the affected products from its shelves, both in stores and online. 

If you purchased one of the impacted items, you may contact either J&M Foods or Target by phone to request a refund. A list of the phone numbers is available here

This isn’t the only recall to be aware of right now. Last week, Blount Fine Foods, a prepared foods and soup manufacturer based in McKinney, Texas, voluntarily recalled a limited amount of Panera-branded soups over an undeclared wheat allergen. Here’s everything you need to know

Read more:

Post-Roe, waiting periods for abortions will be even more dangerous

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, there have been many questions around where abortion is legal and under what parameters as abortion access is now in the hands of the states.

Currently, the landscape around this is changing quickly state by state as abortion advocates try to stall or block state bans. According to The New York Times’ tracker, abortion is prohibited in eight states— many of which have no exceptions for incest or rape. And trigger laws prohibiting abortion are coming soon for at least five more states in the next few days to weeks, as a handful of bans are being held up or blocked by the courts. As the situation unfolds, the role and purpose of a “waiting period” —  which is the amount of time a person seeking an abortion must wait to undergo an abortion after an initial consultation — in these laws is being revisited.

RELATED: The hell and high water of forced birth

For example, in Iowa, the overturn of Roe v. Wade coincided with a state law requiring a 24-hour waiting period which is expected to go into effect this month. Some states where abortion is still technically legal, like Minnesota, Michigan, and Florida, also have 24-hour waiting periods. In more extreme cases, like North Carolina, some states have 72 hour waiting periods. In an era where people will now be forced to travel out of state for legal abortion access, doctors fear these waiting periods will only prove to be more harmful in a post-Roe world when time is of the essence.

“Requiring a waiting period adds to the already high burden that exists to access abortion care for people who are pregnant,”  Dr. Melissa Simon, an obstetrician gynecologist at Northwestern Medicine, told Salon

“Requiring a waiting period adds to the already high burden that exists to access abortion care for people who are pregnant,”  Dr. Melissa Simon, an obstetrician gynecologist at Northwestern Medicine, told Salon via email. “This burden falls on people who have lower resources, those who are already facing distrust with the medical system, those who are in rural areas, those who identify as sexual and gender minority, those with disabilities, and those who are minoritized.”

 Louise King, vice chair of ACOG’s Committee on Ethics, agreed.

“With access compromised, waiting periods make accessing care even more burdensome,” King told Salon. “Consider someone having to travel to another state where abortion is available, but requires a waiting period— that adds cost and time.”

As of July 1, 28 states have mandated waiting periods that range from 24 hours to 72 hours, according to Guttmacher Institute. Fifteen of those states require people seeking an abortion to be counseled in person before the waiting period begins, requiring two separate trips to the facility. As Guttmacher explains, these waiting periods serve no medical purpose and are almost not required for any other medical procedure.

“There is no medical benefit to forcing a person desiring or needing an abortion to wait,” Simon said. “In fact, requiring a wait period is a dangerous practice.”


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


In 2018, an expert panel summoned by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that requiring a waiting period before receiving an abortion increased the risk of complications and the cost of the procedure. There are cases where they could be life threatening, too, especially in a post-Roe world.

“Adding a waiting period to the travel required to go to a state that has no abortion ban could pose serious risk to a pregnant person’s life,” Simon said, providing an example of a pregnant person who has an underlying medical condition and will need a termination of pregnancy to protect the mother’s health and or life. “Severe pulmonary hypertension or some types of Marfan Syndrome with substantial dilation of the Aorta are two examples of conditions which pose high risks of dying as the pregnancy progresses.”

Dr. Jonas Swartz, an assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and a researcher in reproductive health equity issues, said in a statement prior to Roe being overturned that he was concerned about how additional restrictions — on top of a 72 hour waiting period— could further restrict abortion access in North Carolina.

“North Carolina has a three-day waiting period, which is among the longest in the nation, where women have to receive counseling and then can receive an abortion,” Swartz said. “When we want to perform an abortion for someone whose health is highly at risk before that three-day window, we need the certification of two doctors; those sorts of restrictions make people scared to practice good medicine.”

In North Carolina, people are allowed to get an abortion up to 25 weeks— but as Swartz alluded to, it’s not easy. Biased counseling and a state-mandated script, as explained by NARAL Pro-Choice America, is required. As the local newspaper Port City Daily reported, North Carolina is expected to see an influx in people from out of state seeking abortion care. Waiting periods started to pop up in various states as a response to widening abortion access after Roe v. Wade gave Americans the constitutional right to an abortion. Since then, many waiting periods are coupled with biased, anti-choice counseling.

“Mandating delays for abortion implies that women who seek abortions do so without adequate reflection and are incapable of making reasoned, moral decisions regarding their health and future,” the The American Civil Liberties Union states. “In reality, almost all women, by the time they arrive at a clinic, are very clear about their reasons for wanting an abortion.”

Indeed, King reiterated in the case where someone is traveling— a person’s decision has been made.

“If [a] patient has reached their decision with enough certainty to travel a great distance to access care, surely a waiting period is of little utility except to delay or hamper access to health care,” King said.

Read more on the Supreme Court leak and the end of Roe v. Wade:

“Girl in the Picture”: The 6 most horrifying revelations in Netflix’s true crime doc

Netflix’s latest true crime feature “Girl in the Picture” wastes no time in revealing the horrific details of the alleged hit-and-run-death of a 20-year-old woman named Tonya Hughes.

Tonya’s body was discovered in April of 1990 by a group of men, who noticed strange amounts of debris accumulating at the side of the road while driving along an Oklahoma City highway. Tonya suffered from head injuries and was taken to a nearby hospital, where doctors found her covered in old bruises. Five days later, she was pronounced dead.   

RELATED: The 6 most disturbing John Wayne Gacy moments from Netflix’s “Conversations with a Killer”

Discovering her identity was just the beginning of uncovering the web of mysteries, deception and tragedy that surrounded her life. And as the documentary delves deeper, the revelations become increasingly shocking and horrifying.

On the surface, it seemed that Tonya had worked as a dancer at Passions, a strip club based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She was married to Clarence Hughes, a man who was significantly older than her, and together, they had a 2-year-old son named Michael Anthony Hughes. Friends of Tonya remembered her as a kind, affectionate and hard-working young woman. But what they didn’t know was that her identity — along with the identity of her so-called “husband” — were all fake. The real Tonya Hughes had died 20 years prior, at just 18 months of age.

So who was Tonya really? And why was the hoax perpetrated?

The ensuing investigation grew murkier a few years later, when Michael was kidnapped by an estranged Clarence. Underneath these string of crimes was a darker story of fabricated relationships, violence and longstanding sexual abuse.

Here are some of the most disturbing revelations from from “The Girl in the Picture” 

01

Tonya’s injuries

The Girl in the PictureTonya in “The Girl in the Picture” (Netflix)

Karen Parsley, a fellow dancer at Passions and a close friend of Tonya’s, said she grew suspicious of Tonya and Clarence’s relationship after seeing Tonya’s bare body while changing in the strip club locker room. Parsley noted that Tonya had bruises along her entire back, which got worse over time. 

 

“She said she’d slipped and fallen, but I knew different,” Parsley recalled sadly. “And it was bad. And it got worse. It kept getting worse.”

 

Parsley was one of the few individuals who visited Tonya at the ICU following her fatal accident. There, she noticed Tonya had scratch marks across her chest, as if someone had tried to claw her.
  
“To me, it looked like she had been in a fight,” Parsley said, adding that the nurses also suspected the situation to be foul play and not a hit-and-run. 

 

“Her vital signs were stable. But she seemed to have a sinking spell and it . . . it was a mystery to me,” said Dr. Charles Engles, a neurosurgeon who treated Tonya. 

02

Michael’s paternity test

The Girl in the PictureMichael in “The Girl in the Picture” (Netflix)

On May 1, 1990, just one day after Tonya’s death, Michael was sent to go live with his new foster parents, Merle and Ernest Bean. The decision greatly upset Clarence, who fought hard in court to gain custody of Michael.  

 

“My son is punished for wanting to see his dad,” Clarence claimed in an old clip from a court hearing. “Locked in his room, and his toys are taken away, and he’s told that his dad’s a mean man.”

 

Clarence still had visitation rights but according to the Beans, Michael did not enjoy seeing his father. When it was time to go visit Clarence, Michael would oftentimes hide under the Bean’s piano bench and murmur, “That mean man. That mean man. That mean man.”

 

It was assumed by the local townspeople that Clarence was Michael’s biological father. But when Oklahoma Department of Human Services ordered the Beans to take Michael for a paternity test, the results were then crystal clear: Clarence was proven to not be the child’s biological father.
 
Clarence’s parental rights were soon terminated, which fueled his violent attempts to get back Michael. Merle and Ernest said Clarence regularly stalked their family and drove in circles around their house to intimidate them. In September of 1994, Clarence kidnapped Michael along with his school’s principal, James Davis, at gunpoint. Davis was later found in the woods, handcuffed to a tree with duct tape across his mouth.

03

Clarence Hughes’ aliases

The Girl in the PictureClarence in “The Girl in the Picture” (Netflix)

Joe Fitzpatrick, a special agent with the FBI, found that Clarence tried to collect Tonya’s life insurance policy back in 1990 and used a social security number that didn’t match with his current name. The number he provided was for a man named Franklin Delano Floyd, which turns out to be Clarence’s real name. 
 
Floyd’s additional aliases included Trenton Davis, Warren Marshall, Preston Morgan, Kingfish Floyd and Brandon Cleo Williams.

 

His criminal records revealed that in 1962, when Floyd was just 19 years of age, he abducted and raped a young girl. He robbed a bank in 1963 and was released from a halfway house in 1972. In 1973, Floyd attacked a woman and was subsequently charged with kidnapping. He was then arrested and posted bail but failed to appear in court for trial. According to Fitzpatrick, Floyd had been on the run ever since and remained a fugitive for almost two decades.  

04

Tonya and Clarence’s troubling relationship

The Girl in the PictureClarence and Tonya in “The Girl in the Picture” (Netflix)

Like Floyd, Tonya had several aliases. One of the names she went by was Sharon Marshall, which she used while attending high school in Georgia. Tonya’s childhood friends — three of whom are featured in the documentary — said it was both shocking and confusing to watch news reports of Sharon, who was commonly known as Tonya.

 

Jenny Fisher, one of Tonya’s close friends from summer camp, said Tonya grew up in a strict yet strange household. She recalled that Tonya only lived with her father after her mother was killed in a car accident. Jenny also noted that Tonya oftentimes grew anxious when around her father, who kept her under lock and key at home.   

 

In the documentary’s most horrifying moment, it’s revealed that the man who had acted as Tonya’s father was . .  . Floyd. And the confusion doesn’t end there. In Oklahoma, Floyd (a.k.a. Clarence) and Tonya were husband and wife. But in Georgia, Floyd, who went by the name Warren Marshall, and Tonya (a.k.a. Sharon) posed as father and daughter.

And the FBI discovered that in 1989, both Sharon and Warren changed their names to Tonya Tadlock and Clarence Hughes before getting married in New Orleans.

 

Later, it’s finally revealed that Tonya — whose birth name is Suzanne Marie Sevakis — was kidnapped as a young girl by Floyd, raised as his “daughter” and later became his wife by force.

05

Jenny Fisher and Tonya’s sleepover

The Girl in the PictureTonya in “The Girl in the Picture” (Netflix)

Fisher recounted a sleepover at Tonya’s house, where Tonya displayed her collection of suggestive lingerie, which was all given to her by her “father.” 

When the two girls were changing into their pajamas, Floyd stormed into Tonya’s room — which only had a thin curtain for a door — holding a gun and maniacally yelling at both Fisher and Tonya.

 

“And I looked at Sharon and she . . . just laughed,” Fisher said. “‘Oh Daddy’s just being silly.'”

 

After the girls finished changing, they were once again confronted by Floyd, who was still holding his gun. He ordered Fisher to lie down on a sleeping bag and put a pillow over her head, which she did. Floyd then proceeded to rape Tonya at gunpoint while Fisher listened, only a couple feet away. 

      

“We didn’t talk after that. He got up and he left. And I . . . just laid there,” Fisher continued. “The next morning she [Tonya] came over and gave me a big hug, and she said, ‘Daddy’s just like that.’ She said, ‘I’m OK. You’re OK.’ She said, ‘Just let it go.'”

06

Michael’s death

The Girl in the PicturePerson holding Michael’s photo in “The Girl in the Picture” (Netflix)

Floyd finally confessed to FBI investigators that he murdered Michael the same day he had kidnapped him.

 

“I shot him twice in the back of the head to make it real quick,” Floyd told FBI agents Scott Lobb and Nate Furr.

 

Floyd also said he buried Michael near the Oklahoma-Texas border but 20 years later, neither the body nor its remains have been found by investigators.  

 

Floyd is currently on death row for an unrelated murder.

Watch the official trailer for Netflix’s “Girl in the Picture” below, via YouTube:

More stories you might like:

“Murina” filmmaker: “You need to be a ‘dangerous’ woman in Croatia to survive”

Antoneta Alamat Kusijanovic’s fantastic feature debut, “Murina” won the Palm d’Or at Cannes last year and boasts Martin Scorsese as an executive producer. This intense drama has the teenage Julija (Gracija Filipovic), wriggling under the thumb of her controlling father, Ante (Leon Lucev), and docile mother, Nela (Danica Curcic). When Ante’s rich friend, Javier (Cliff Curtis), arrives in Croatia to consider buying Ante’s land, Julija sees Javier as a ticket out of her trapped life. But Ante is not going to let his daughter go so easily. 

The film artfully shows the power dynamics between Julija and her father from the very first scene where they are spearfishing. He pushes his daughter out of the way to catch the murina (moray eel) of the title. It is a metaphor for the deal with Javier. But while the film plays up the slippery relationship between Javi and Julija, “Murina” also includes a love triangle between Javier, Nela, and Ante. 

Kusijanovic — who directed the 2017 short film, “Into the Blue” which also starred Filipovic as Julija — addresses issues of toxic masculinity, class, and teenage sexuality with grace, making Ante as hateful as Javier is appealing to a sheltered 17-year-old girl. Filipovic’s strong, internal performance communicates so much of her thoughts with her eyes and body language. This is why viewers root for her to claim her independence. 

The filmmaker spoke with Salon via Zoom from her great grandmother’s house on the island where she shot both “Murina” and “Into the Blue.”

Julija is described in the film as well as your short, “Into the Blue” as being “dangerous.” But one of the key sequences has Julija isolated and alone, afraid, and vulnerable. What is it about her character is “dangerous”? 

Dangerous is an adjective for so many things in Croatian. It means independent, opinionated, having strong convictions, and self-respect. I love that word. You need to be a “dangerous” woman in Croatia to survive.

Water is where Julija feels safest. Can you talk about water as a metaphor in “Murina”? There are many critical sequences in and around the water, such as the diving episode, which shows Julija’s bravery, Javier’s admiration, Nela’s regret, and Ante’s impotence. 

Water is always in juxtaposition of what is above the water. Above the water is a place without shade, where there is no release from the rocky land and the burning sun. Underwater, there is release — it’s dark and murky, but there are other limits — you can’t communicate, and you can’t breathe. It’s a completely different universe. It is in between those two impossible worlds, both inhabitable, which is where Julija lives, where she can exist in between, once she surfaces.

Water is also subconscious and where Julija allows herself to feel desire, to spill blood, and take actions she would never do above water. That is her freedom for me — for her to act on her desire — like a sea creature. She can be threatening underwater in a more serious way then when she is above ground because that is her playground. 

MurinaLeon Lucev and Gracija Filipovic in “Murina” (Kino Lorber)

The film is incredibly taut as Julija struggles to defy her father. What decisions did you make about his character and their relationship? The angrier he is, the more we want her to escape.

It is interesting. In Croatia, when you have a daughter, you call her your “son.” Both the mother and the father address their daughter as “my son”; that’s the way of the language. This is how Ante would be with his daughter — he would treat her like a son. Through her sensuality, he sees danger. Through her being a woman, he sees betrayal. Through his own incapacity to succeed, he takes it out on her. All of these things you mentioned are his reactions to Julija, but they are a more of a reaction to his own dissatisfaction with himself and the world he created.

Also, if Ante controls Julija, he controls both women in the family. If Julija leaves, Nela will leave. He is not only taking his daughter hostage, he is, in his way, saving or protecting his family — but it is really self-protection. It is not for the benefit of the whole; it is for self-benefit out of fear. When men start to get scared in their “second coming of age,” it is so dramatic. There can always be a movie about that, and depending on how much is expressed, it can be comedic or horrific. I laugh a lot when I watch “Murina,” especially in Croatia, where they don’t see it as violence, but mentality.

What other observations do you have about his character?

I don’t think Ante cares about money. He just wants success so he can live the way he does. Everything in his life is inherited, and he wants to erode it for next generation. It is a horrible place for a man to be. It is a place of no creation or imagination. There is no support for him to generate more than he is given. He is impotent. 

The film is all about manners, as each character puts on a face for others, masking their true selves to avoid conflict. The strength of your film is that viewers can see each character clearly. Thoughts?

I think that the characters have a certain level of awareness, but they are also unaware.  They are intuitive and impulsive. I thought of them as kids when I was writing the characters. That was the starting point: What if the only adult is this teenage girl and the other three adults are like kids? That’s not too far from reality. We are always coming of age at every age. There is some sort of hormonal imbalance. You can have a midlife crisis or confront the life you’ve built so far, or the life ahead of you, or face your fears. There is always conflict within us and around us. It never stops. It is unfortunate that we are only allowed to express it at 17 when society accepts it. It is so unfair to the old kids within us. 

What is Javier’s motivation? He seems to play up to each of his hosts, flattering them, enticing them. But he is not exactly a white knight who can save them from themselves. 

As a man who can afford any experience, Javier allows himself to play family with other people. He does not account for other people’s lives. If he is called upon for something, he will solve it with money. That’s a huge blind spot. Javier can only solve things that way, even within his own family. That’s why he is envious of Ante, and that is what brings him back to [Ante’s] family with so much desire. 

What can you say about Nela’s loyalty to Ante? She seems to resist Javier’s flirtations, but they have a history, and she is conflicted in her desires. 

Nela has so little freedom in her life that she allows herself to fantasize, and Ante allows her to fantasize. More than that, Ante endorses Javier’s fantasy because that gives Ante something that Javier can never have. Because Javier has everything else. That is what makes them equal.

What is interesting to me is that Ante is so confident of his wife Nela, that, he can use her as a tool for Javier. That level of confidence in that marriage is very exciting — even when she is walking that thin line; he knows she will never cross it.

What can you say about ideas of social mobility, which seems to infuse the film?

Ante’s wealth is beyond his knowledge. Having the land is worth more than anything. That is something I am commenting on. The Croatian economy is based on people owning their homes and their land. That wealth, or inheritance, is eroding, progressively, because people are selling their [inherited] land for a lot of money. In some of these people’s minds, wealth is something different from what they already have. I see Ante as very wealthy. 

He wanted to sell his house on the bay to buy an apartment in Zagreb!

It’s not a holiday life. It’s a hard life to live in that environment in the summer and winter. It’s a harsh nature. But it is where they grew up, and what they know. The oppression — yes, nature is harsh — but the oppression is more psychological than physical.

Julija is often seen spying on David (Jonas Smulders) a young man on a pleasure boat that she crushes on and even kisses in one point. Is she using her sexuality to escape her father?

I didn’t think that. Julija is so isolated away from anyone her age, and her responsibility to this life is so beyond what it should be. She should have freedom and fun and be able to fool around. Meanwhile, she’s waking up at 5 a.m. and fishing with her father. [David] provides another outlet for her to express her desire for a connection underlining the isolation. The only people she sees are those [like David] who stumble in the bay in a boat. 

Sexuality is something natural for a girl her age, and something she is confused about. The question of being attracted to someone has never arisen before until that summer. So, the father figure who endorses her, [Javier] or someone her age who can be a lover, [David] can be exciting for someone who is 17. Julija doesn’t understand or have a perspective on the world outside at all. She just wants to be away from Ante. Ante knows his place in the world, and Julija can be the way she is because she doesn’t. She has the reliance and power and exuberance and cluelessness of a teenager that is so essential. For her, everything is possible, and the best is yet to come. 


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


Both your feature and your short featuring Julija are films about the loss of innocence. What points to you want to make regarding teenage girls, sexuality, and independence?  

Female teenage sexuality really depends on role models: Who we are going to replace or run away from? Not every girl wants to find a man that is like her father. There is an expression in Croatia that everyone is looking for their father. That is a lie. Why would women continue looking for tyranny? That is how this lifestyle and mentality are endorsed. Both women and men want to continue lineage of violence. Regardless of mentality of chauvinism and misogyny, it is a confusing time to be a 17-year-old girl in any culture. It is such an insecure and sensitive time. Any compliment from a stranger, any encouragement from an adult, and attraction has so much value. It is a whirlpool of desire and fear. 

Julija wants to be in presence of men who make her feel good. I don’t think she knows what she’s doing, honestly. She just knows this guy Javier has certain power and conviction that her father does not. She has not seen that level of confidence and power and she wants to be near it because Javier makes her feel better. But that is so naïve and clueless because life has layers and is more complicated. There is an obvious lack of wisdom we have as teenagers — and adults as well — but especially at that age. You figure something out and feel you know everything.

“Murina” opens July 8 in New York before expanding. Watch a trailer via YouTube.

Read more

about this topic

 

How to prune tomato plants like you know what you’re doing

You can Grow Your Own Way. All spring and summer, we’re playing in the vegetable garden; join us for step-by-step guides, highly recommended tools, backyard tours, juicy-ripe recipes, and then some. Let’s get our hands dirty.


One of the first things I learned when I started growing vegetables was that pruning your tomato plants is among the three most important tasks for a successful gardening season (the other two being watering and fertilizing). Tomatoes grow so quickly and vigorously that they can become outright overwhelming if you neglect pruning.

When you buy tomato seedlings or seeds, always check whether the variety is determinate or indeterminate. Small, compact, or dwarf varieties (for container-growing) such as Celebrity or Glacier varieties are usually determinate tomatoes, which only grow to a certain size and develop all of their fruit at one time. Pruning these is not necessary. However, the majority of tomatoes, including Beefsteak, Brandywine, as well as most heirloom tomatoes, are indeterminate varieties that not only need regular pruning, but benefit from it.

Why you should prune your tomato plants

Indeterminate tomatoes need pruning for several reasons. If you let the plant grow in an uncontrolled way, it will put all its energy into growing foliage instead of fruit (and if you do get fruit, it will be much smaller). You’ll end up with a jungle, very little sunlight and air flow within the plant, and will be encouraging the spread of plant diseases. Confining the plant in a tomato cage makes it worse — the wet foliage of tomatoes is highly susceptible to fungi (that’s why you are supposed to water tomato plants from the base and not from above) and the thicker and denser the foliage, the longer it will take to dry out.

Also, an unpruned tomato plant is almost impossible to support and tie to its stake — and will invariably collapse. The stake you put at planting time should be very robust, such as a steel fence post, or 1-inch by 1-inch wooden stake with an installed height of five feet. You can also build a cage trellis, or use a readymade trellis, as long as it is large enough to accommodate a mature tomato plant and you keep pruning the plant.

What you need for pruning tomatoes

While you can pinch off smaller side shoots with your fingers, it’s best to use sharp shears or scissors for larger shoots because you are less likely to rip off part of the main stem. Remember: every little injury can be an entry point for plant disease and insects.

Tomato leaves and stems can also trigger allergic reactions, such as itching, burning, and redness. If you are sensitive, try not to touch the plant with your bare hands at all. I get such a rash from tomato foliage that in addition to using pruners, I wear gloves and long sleeves when tending to the plants.

It’s also a good idea to sanitize your tools with a 10% bleach solution (one-part bleach to nine-parts water) so you don’t spread diseases from one plant to another. I do this more towards mid-summer when devastating tomato diseases such as blight make the rounds, but if you want to play it safe, have a bottle with the bleach solution and a clean rag available so you can wipe the blade as needed.

Lastly, make sure to have heavy cotton twine ready so you can tie branches to your supporting stakes or trellis while you are pruning.

Early-season pruning: Get those suckers

After you have planted your tomatoes, you will soon see side shoots growing in the angle between the main stem of the tomato plant and a branch (looking like a ‘v’). These are called suckers and they are the ones you are after. Ideally, you remove them when they are still tiny, so you need to keep a close watch to catch them early, and remove them regardless of their size. Very small ones can be pinched off with your (gloved) thumb and index finger, while larger ones that are over two-inches long should be cut with pruners.

The earlier and the more frequently you prune out the suckers, the better. If you wait until the suckers have grown into large side branches, and you remove a lot of foliage at once, it can stress the plant. Also, the cuts will be much bigger, leaving larger surfaces for diseases and insects to attack.

Branches that are touching the ground should either be tied to lift them up (because contact with the soil can transmit bacteria, fungi, and viruses to the plant), or they need to be pruned. Also, remove any leaves touching the ground. Keep pruning the plant this way every few days, and at least twice a week.

Late-season pruning: Maximize light and air circulation

At some point in the summer, even if you have diligently tended to your tomato plants, they will look a bit unruly because it is difficult to catch all the suckers as the plant continues to grow. That’s perfectly alright but there is still some pruning you can do to maximize the ripening of the remaining tomatoes on the plant.

Pruning tomato plants late in the season should be more aggressive than early-season pruning: your aim is to improve airflow and let more sunlight in. All branches that have no tomatoes or flowers on them, or just a few, are fair game. If it’s late in the season, you can also remove any branches with flowers that are unlikely to develop into mature fruit by the time the first fall frost hits in your area, which is the unofficial end of tomato season.

When pruning late in the season, sanitizing your pruning tool is crucial because the likelihood of diseases is much higher. To prevent the spread of diseases, it is also very important to remove any of the pruned plant parts out of your garden for disposal in the trash — and not in your compost.