Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

In anticipation of the Super Bowl, new flavors coming from iconic snack brands Doritos and Cheetos

Two iconic snack brands are releasing new flavors this winter.

Cheetos is releasing a Cheetos Puffs Cheese Pizza flavor; in a statement provided to Food & Wine, Cheetos said "From mac ‘n cheese to Buffalo wings, Cheetos is known for leaving its orange-dusted mark on game day favorite meals. And now, the brand has mischievously set its sights on pizza . . . Combining elements of a classic cheese pizza — cheese, tomato flavor, and herbaceous notes of oregano and Italian seasoning — Cheetos Puffs Cheese Pizza Flavor gives fans a new way to enjoy this iconic dish."

As per Stacey Leasca with Food & Wine, this will be the first new Cheetos Puffs flavor in "more than a decade," even though it was a formerly released flavor that was discontinued back in 2005. 

In addition, the arguable king of chips, Doritos, has also announced a new product just weeks before the Super Bowl, dubbed Golden Sriracha. The brand said the new flavor contains a "one-two punch of tangy and sweet" and will further the "trendsetting and beloved taste of Sriracha for the next generation."

Tina Mahal, senior VP of marketing at PepsiCo told Food & Wine that "By keeping our finger on the pulse of trending and fan-favorite flavors, Doritos has developed a flair for putting an unexpected spin on beloved flavor profiles and elevating them to new heights. Doritos Golden Sriracha opens the door to an entirely new flavor that accomplishes a lofty task: putting a bold twist on Gen Z’s favorite hot sauce."

Fox News host touts that “people whose houses are burned down” will turn on Democrats

Hollywood’s elites have themselves to blame for Los Angeles’s deadly wildfires, Fox News host Rachel Campos Duffy insinuated on Monday.

In a discussion on Fox News’ “Outnumbered” on Monday, panelists cheered on supposed condemnations of California leadership from A-listers who lost their homes in a devastating blaze that has killed at least 24.

“It’s interesting to see them all turning on each other,” said Duffy, wife of Donald Trump’s transportation secretary nominee Sean Duffy, going on to say Democrats would face a messaging crisis in the wake of the blaze.

“The new one is ‘we’re going to blame Trump and [Elon] Musk.’ It's not going to work this time because their friends who amplify their liberal deflection messages just had their houses burn down. They’re mad as heck,” she continued.

Celebs like James Woods and Mel Gibson – not exactly Democratic darlings – have placed blame on California Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass for the fires, invoking conspiracy theories about planned burns. 

Panelists singled out criticism from Maria Shriver, wife of former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said the city “cannot go forward with the status quo” in a Sunday tweet.

Duffy noted the backlash from some against Newsom and Bass was not just an “indictment on these leaders” but on “liberal policies” as well, including environmental reforms.

The Fox host was all but giddy to connect the fires to the “liberal policies” that she claims exacerbated them.

“The environmental policies are also on display here. The people whose houses are burned down right now, they’re the ones who were funding all these environmental groups, to a large extent, and funding the Democrat politicians who are now responsible for the condition of LA,” Duffy said.

Rachel Maddow to resume nightly show for Trump’s first 100 days

Try as some might to disassociate from a second Trump administration, the president-elect will indeed be sworn in a week from today. But TV audiences will be getting another flash of déjà vu from 2017 — five weeknights of Rachel Maddow breaking it down.

MSNBC has announced that “The Rachel Maddow Show” will return to its full-time schedule for the first 100 days of Trump’s term. The show will air weeknights at 9 p.m. ET starting Jan. 20, the day of Trump's inauguration, and return to its weekly Monday night broadcast on May 1.

“Alex Wagner Tonight” typically airs on MSNBC weeknights Tuesday through Friday; during Maddow’s return, Wagner will report from around the U.S. for a new project, “Trumpland: The First 100 Days.” 

“The Rachel Maddow Show” first aired in 2008 and grew into one of the most successful primetime news shows of the mid 2010s. The show’s ratings soared past CNN’s “Larry King Live” among 25- to 54-year-olds within weeks of its premiere, eventually trailing only Fox’s “Hannity” viewership among other nightly news shows. 

The first Trump administration positioned Maddow as a leading critical voice in the mainstream media’s coverage of the president. In 2018, Maddow briefly surpassed Hannity to become the most-watched cable news host. The show achieved its strongest ratings in 2021, averaging 4.3 million nightly viewers — the highest 9 p.m. ratings in MSNBC’s history. 

In 2021, Maddow inked a new deal with MSNBC that added producing and developing new NBCUniversal content to her duties. The following year, Maddow announced she’d be stepping back from hosting duties

Despite that, Maddow remains “by a significant margin the most popular primetime host on MSNBC,” according to The Hollywood Reporter. 

The announcement comes as MSNBC aims to reposition itself outside of Comcast, which announced in late 2024 that it planned to spin off a number of its major cable networks into a new company. That company, SpinCo, will function as an independent company outside of Comcast. The company will be publicly traded; among the Comcast brands it’ll be adopting are MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network and E!, as well as Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes.

“Stark and troubling”: Trump whistleblower sounds alarm over National Security Council loyalty tests

President-elect Donald Trump is rooting out critics in the National Security Council.

In an unprecedented move, top incoming Trump administration officials are deploying loyalty questionnaires on career civil servants inside the national security advisory body. Questions focused on who bureaucrats voted for in 2024, their political contributions and whether they’ve made social media posts against the incoming administration, per The Associated Press.

Some are preparing to leave the agency when Trump takes office as Mike Waltz, Trump’s pick for National Security Adviser, eyes mass firings.

Waltz told Breitbart last week that he’d already begun the process of clearing out national security staffers from the Biden era and beyond.

“We’re taking resignations at 12:01 and we’re going to put the president’s team in place,” he said. “If anybody out there thinks I’m somehow now going to have a platoon full of Never Trumpers they’re full of it. It’s ridiculous.”

Former National Security Council member and Trump whistleblower Alexander Vindman slammed the political firings as a “stark and troubling” sign of Trump’s plans to consolidate power.

“By prioritizing loyalty above all else, the Trump administration will significantly undermine the foundations of good governance, jeopardize U.S. national security, and weaken U.S. democracy,” he said in a post to Bluesky.

Close Trump allies, including the authors of Project 2025, have urged the president-elect to replace thousands of career civil servants with pro-Trump recruits, even curating lists of potential hires. Trump is reportedly planning to reinstate Schedule F, a 2020 directive that allowed him to fire career bureaucrats and replace them with loyalists.

Beyond concerns over Trump’s preference for loyalists over competent civil servants, a mass exodus of experienced NSC staffers could pose security challenges. Per the AP, holdover national security adviser Jake Sullivan pleaded this case to incoming Trump officials.

“Given everything going on in the world, making sure you have in place a team that is up to speed, and, you know, ready to continue serving at 12:01, 12:02, 12:03 p.m. on the 20th is really important,” Sullivan reportedly said on Friday.

Arizona AG requests Jack Smith report to help in state fake electors case

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is requesting former special counsel Jack Smith’s findings in his probe of Donald Trump’s alleged election subversion plot, a week before the president-elect gains the power to shut down the report.

In a Sunday letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Mayes requested the full case, including Smith’s findings against alleged conspirators, in order to assist with her office’s efforts to prosecute Trump allies who allegedly facilitated a plot to overturn Arizona’s election results in 2020. Mayes also requested exculpatory evidence, as requested by defendant and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

A ruling from Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon blocking the Department of Justice from spreading the report beyond its offices was overturned on Thursday by a federal appeals court. Garland has yet to announce the full report’s release as Trump wages war in court to keep the findings under wraps.

But Mayes argues that federal law gives the DOJ “the authority to disclose grand jury information for use in Arizona’s criminal case” despite pending legal challenges. Her letter sets a deadline of Tuesday afternoon for a DOJ response to the request, just under a week before Trump's inauguration.

Mayes’ office’s investigation stems from a plot to send a slate of fake electors to Congress and has so far yielded more than a dozen indictments, including ex-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and one conviction. Mayes says the Smith report will allow her office to continue its work.

“Today, my office has one of the only remaining cases that includes charges against national actors. I have held steadfast to prosecuting the grand jury’s indictment because those who tried to subvert democracy in 2020 must be held accountable,” Mayes wrote to Garland. “Undoubtedly, disclosing Special Counsel’s file to my office will help ensure that those who should be held accountable are.”

Though federal cases, including those that stemmed from Smith’s investigation, can be largely stopped by Trump, his reach into state cases is limited. Mayes has vowed to continue to prosecute the state’s 2020 election cases, one of the few remaining jurisdictions to do so with Nevada and Georgia cases facing legal setbacks.

“A grand jury in the state of Arizona decided that these individuals who engaged in an attempt to overthrow our democracy in 2020 should be held accountable, so we won’t be cowed, we won’t be intimidated,” Mayes told MSNBC in November after Trump’s win.

With 18 initial grand jury indictments against attorneys aligned with the Trump campaign and state Republican leaders who allegedly signed on as fake electors, Mayes’ case is one of the most effective state-wide investigations into the 2020 fight. Loraine Pellegrino, a fake elector, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in August. 

Additionally, Trump ally Jenna Ellis, a former attorney for his campaign, agreed to cooperate with Arizona prosecutors last year. Trump himself was named an unindicted co-conspirator in that case, though grand jurors reportedly expressed interest in indicting him when presented with evidence.

How “The Last Showgirl” earns its “Total Eclipse of the Heart” needle drop

No matter how many times it has been massacred by drunk coworkers in karaoke bars after one too many eggnogs at the office holiday party, Bonnie Tyler’s massive 1983 hit, “Total Eclipse of the Heart,” remains a wallop to the chest. Its opening piano chords are enough to force a pause; whatever you were doing, good luck getting back to it anytime in the next seven minutes as soon as you hear those sullen keys ringing out. When Tyler’s duet partner Rory Dodd sings the words “turn around,” they’re not so much a request as they are a command. They put the “power” in “power ballad,” taking the listener up in its grasp and holding them there until the gamut of human emotion has been run through, putting us back down to heave sobs on the floor.

What initially feels cloying blooms into something utterly poignant as we watch these two Hollywood icons, playing fading Vegas stars, confront their heartbreak about the future.

That a song can still be so affecting 40 years later shouldn’t be taken for granted. Like the clothes manufactured by fast fashion retailers and knockoff products sold by dropshipping companies, music isn’t made to last anymore. Rather, most pop music is made to spike in popularity, to capitalize on a trending sound or subgenre in hopes that a streaming service algorithm might pick up the song before the trend peters out to make way for something else. The lack of true originality and sonic confidence is a major part of why audiences have flocked to Charli xcx’sBRAT” and kept Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars’ “Die With a Smile” climbing the charts months after its release: Ingenuity is fading, and people crave art that’s instantly timeless or outside of time and trend altogether. 

So, when those showstopping piano chords of “Total Eclipse of the Heart” play in Gia Coppola’s “The Last Showgirl” — a stirring story of a woman who realizes that the artistic era she had a small part in creating isn’t just ending, but is already a small speck in the distance — the needle drop feels almost too appropriate. The dearth of modern creativity, exemplified by the legacy of Tyler’s eternal duet, scores the affairs of those on society’s fringes, living in a Las Vegas caught in the past. Shelly (Pamela Anderson) and her best friend Annette (Jamie Lee Curtis) are, by Vegas’ standards, washed-up. Shelly’s burlesque revue on the Strip is nearing its final performance, and Annette’s attempts to gamble her way out of spending the rest of her life cocktail waitressing have proven fruitless. As both women stand at the brink, staring out into life’s abyss, the longing for sweet satisfaction in Tyler’s song starts to take on a saccharine transparency within the scene’s context.

That is until Coppola shoehorns in a subtle new layer of emotional resonance. The ensuing sequence extends just half the length of Tyler’s protracted song, but it’s all the time that the director needs to intricately craft a new layer of meaning for both her characters and the actors themselves. What initially feels cloying blooms into something utterly poignant as we watch these two Hollywood icons, playing fading Vegas stars, confront their heartbreak about the future. Like “Total Eclipse of the Heart,” this scene in “The Last Showgirl” wears the mask of cliché until it leaves the viewer helpless under the spell of bleeding-heart earnestness.

Arriving almost exactly at the film’s halfway point, the “Total Eclipse of the Heart” sequence adds a perfect inflection point for the second act of “The Last Showgirl.” The audience has already spent a fair amount of time with Shelly and Annette, who have been taking turns leaning on each other through the years. They met while dancing in Le Razzle Dazzle, a Vegas cabaret show loaded with feathers, rhinestones and pretty women with blinding smiles. It’s one of the grand performances that used to draw hundreds of people every night but slowly became outmoded as the city and its tourist attractions changed. Similar shows along the Strip closed, and instead of raking in the dough when left without competition, Le Razzle Dazzle faded too, indicating a broader public disinterest in the kinds of dance and cabaret that Shelly spent her life eager to be a part of.


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


As Le Razzle Dazzle gears up for its final string of shows, Shelly looks back on that period. Her twenties and thirties saw her scraping by, trying to provide for herself and her daughter, Hannah (played as an adult in the film by Billie Lourd). Being a Vegas showgirl was Shelly’s dream, and even now, in her fifties, she’s reluctant to give up one of the few things that brings her real happiness. As a showgirl, Shelly can see the art in her beauty and the beauty in her art. Le Razzle Dazzle makes her feel like she’s a part of something bigger than herself, something important, something with history. “This show is famous, it’s a tradition, it has roots in France!” she tells her fellow dancer, Mary-Anne (Brenda Song), backstage. “It’s the last remaining descendant of Parisian Lido culture. You think 85 is a big cast? There were 160 of us back in the ’80s. American Express did a travel campaign…they shot me on the Great Wall of China. I was very special.”

“Las Vegas used to treat us like movie stars,” Shelly continues. “The iconic American showgirl, the Las Vegas showgirl. We were ambassadors for style and grace. The costumes! It makes you feel like you’re stepping out of the pages of ‘Vogue’ magazine. I think that’s why women like to come to the show: The glamour is undeniable.”

Here, Shelly trails off, relenting that maybe times are different now. Shortly after, Hannah attends one of her mother’s performances for the first time after years of estrangement. Backstage, Hannah can’t wrap her mind around why the show would ever be special enough to lose out on precious memories with her mother while she was still young. She besmirches Le Razzle Dazzle and tells Shelly none of it was worth putting above her daughter’s childhood. Shelly vehemently disagrees with Hannah’s perception of the show, telling Hannah that she always tried to do her very best. “I’m sorry you didn’t get what you wanted from me,” Shelly says. “But if you could forgive me anytime in your life, I would love that. But I can’t defend myself anymore.”

Through their confrontation, we’re afforded a high-stakes moment to understand just how important this is to Shelly. She is sincere and passionate to a fault. She adores her daughter but, for Shelly, giving up her dream to be a mother would be a life wasted. What kind of precedent would forsaking her happiness set for her child? Suddenly, their skirmish brings all of Shelly’s feelings about the show's ending and her regrets from the past to the surface. At the same time, Annette is facing eviction after gambling her money away, both because she’s reckless and because — as much as she says she’s willing to — she doesn’t want to die on the casino floor with someone else’s Jack and ginger in her hand. Far from her days as part of Le Razzle Dazzle’s cast, now with a crispy tan, visible wrinkles and no thigh gap, her appearance doesn’t even draw big tips from customers anymore. When she steps onto a platform in the casino and starts to dance as “Total Eclipse of the Heart” begins, the only people who look at her are those throwing judgment her way like daggers.

Annette’s movements are fiery and improvisational. She can feel every lyric of the song and every ounce of heartbreak in Tyler’s voice. The scene is intercut with glimpses of Shelly, anguishing in the unforgiving light of a Vegas afternoon, the type that tends to illuminate all of the ugly things you don’t want to see. When Tyler sings the lyric, “Every now and then I get a little bit nervous that the best of all the years have gone by,” the sequence opens itself up for the viewer. On paper, it is comical to see Jamie Lee Curtis thrusting and emoting while looking like Tan Mom. But onscreen, it’s an entirely different story. 

Anderson took back power in one of the few ways an actress could in the early aughts: by reducing herself to the caricature the public perceived her as.

Against the sonic backdrop of Tyler’s power ballad, we observe Shelly and Annette, but also Anderson and Curtis. These are two women who came to prominence within just a few years of each other in Hollywood, and two women who spent substantial portions of their careers fighting against being pigeonholed as mere sex symbols and scream queens, objects of titillation for male viewers. Anderson, in particular, fought for years to find scripts that suited her before resorting to winking cameo work that let people know she was in on the hot blonde joke. After the traumatic invasion of her privacy with the leak of her sex tape, Anderson took back power in one of the few ways that an actress could in the early aughts: by reducing herself to the caricature the public perceived her as. Is it any wonder that Anderson all but retired from the industry, choosing to spend her time as an activist and author rather than as a punchline?

I shudder to think that there was a part of me that ever thought this moment in “The Last Showgirl” would be corny when I heard those opening piano chords of “Total Eclipse of the Heart.” But I get another chill when I think of how easily some viewers might be reluctant to see it as anything other than a joke, or sneer at the song like it’s baiting them to have an emotional response. Tyler’s track evokes a sweeping, universal desperation, the kind of yearning that every single listener can relate to someplace deep within themselves. It’s showstopping and cinematic in a way that modern pop ballads rarely manage to be. The song earns its hold over us, and so does this scene in “The Last Showgirl.” Two real-life Tinseltown poster girls become one with their characters at this moment. They ask us to grieve for the way that they were treated by the industry and the public, and lament the culture that persists where seeing two middle-aged women actors in these kinds of roles still feels exceptional. Anderson and Curtis are at once saying that things have gotten better, but that they are changing too fast for everyone to keep up. Somebody somewhere will always be left behind. 

As Tyler’s gravelly voice sings out, “Forever’s gonna start tonight,” the viewer braces themselves for what might come next. Where will Shelly and Annette find themselves in the film’s latter half, as their dreams slip through their fingers? If only they could hold onto them, if only anyone else had given a damn, if only circumstances had been different in the years leading up to this crossroads. Their forever is uncertain, and as Tyler says softly in the song, there’s nothing they can do. Like “Total Eclipse of the Heart” itself, this scene in “The Last Showgirl” seems easy to refute until you realize you’ve started to cry and you’re relating to every word. A power ballad only seems cheesy until you’ve lived enough life to feel like Annette or Shelly. Then, you realize that time has helped you understand the ache of living so much better than you ever thought you could. It’s that insight that Coppola draws out from her stars, and watching it on shining display makes “The Last Showgirl” feel the way Shelly describes Le Razzle Dazzle in its heyday: a marvelous exhibition of style and grace, where the glamour is undeniable.

Why worker welfare is critical to truly “sustainable” wine production

Talk to grape growers and wineries about sustainability, and they’ll often tell you all about water conservation efforts, organic or biodynamic vineyard practices, and even bottle weight. But all too often, there’s one topic that remains so untouched, it feels taboo: workers’ rights. The fact is, many wineries are dependent, particularly at harvest time, on migrant workers, who often face difficult working conditions, struggle to find affordable housing in high cost-of-living wine regions, and lack the resources to build better lives for themselves.

More egregious labor violations have led to heatwave-induced deaths in Champagne, France, and instances of forced labor and blatant abuse, including housing overworked employees in abjectly poor conditions. Even in less severe instances, vineyard workers may struggle to find affordable housing close to their workplaces and suffer from a lack of stability due to inconsistent seasonal wages. In an industry so aligned with luxury, the workers that are perhaps most important to the operation are all too often neglected and exploited, if not outright abused. Many grape producers are aiming to shift to more sustainable vineyard practices, by reducing water and synthetic pesticide use, for instance. But isn’t it time that workers’ rights become a bigger part of the sustainability conversation in the wine industry, too?

Providing high-quality housing for essential vineyard workers

“We all speak so strongly about sustainability and regenerative farming, and one of the strongest caveats to it is the people, and it’s not just the people that own it … it’s the employees,” explains ​​Karin Wärnelius-Miller, co-owner of Garden Creek in Sonoma, California. “It doesn’t matter where you are, whether you’re in the office or in the winery or out in the field, … you have to take care of your employees.”

In Sonoma, where real estate prices are sky-high, finding affordable housing can be exceedingly difficult. Some employees working in the vineyards have to travel long distances before the early morning shifts that are often required during harvest time. But at Garden Creek, Wärnelius-Miller and her husband, Justin, prioritize providing housing not just for their workers but for their workers’ families as well and have done so since 1964, extending their sustainability efforts beyond their vines. Not only is this advantageous for the workers, but it’s also proved beneficial for the Wärnelius-Millers — particularly when blazing fires have threatened their vineyards and on-site employees jumped in to protect the vines.

Wärnelius-Miller points out that this is not an issue that’s specific to the wine industry. “It’s the same thing if you’re an office employee in downtown San Francisco affording an apartment,” she says. “You’re not going to take the job if you can’t afford it. And you’re not going to take the job unless you’re going to be happy where you live.” If more wineries followed Garden Creek’s example, the wine industry could lead the charge in building more sustainable working environments and living arrangements for employees.

Creating mutually beneficial working relationships

Providing housing is one way vineyard and winery owners can ensure better working conditions for their employees; innovative organizational models are another. At Feudi di San Gregorio in Campania, Italy, owner Antonio Capaldo wanted to ensure his workers weren’t just employed for a season but rather on a full-time basis. At his winery, he says, “The concept of seasonal employees doesn’t comply.”

Out of the winery’s 120 workers, most hold traditional full-time positions. However, 30 to 40 of those workers aren’t actually working every day. Instead, they work on a framework called “bank of hours.” At some points in the year, particularly around harvest time, these employees are working overtime. During less busy times of the year, though, they may be doing less work, sometimes only working three days a week. Despite their varied schedule, they’re still paid a fixed monthly salary. At the end of the year, if they’ve worked overtime, they get paid for the extra hours in addition to their base salary; and even if they’ve worked fewer hours than expected, there is no docking of pay — they still get their salary in full.

Capaldo credits his employees’ flexibility with this ability to institute such an organizational structure, but the fact that the winery produces other products also plays a role in this arrangement. Feudi di San Gregorio makes olive oil, tomato sauces and other edible products, which gives employees something to work on when there may not be much to do in the vineyard. He says that employees get “cross-functional training” that allows them to work in the vineyards, in the warehouse, in the olive-oil making process and beyond. “People are a little bit happier because they do different things, because they have stability of salary,” he explains. This stability of salary means that workers don’t have to rely on government assistance during the off-season (which is reportedly common in Italy and ultimately benefits neither the worker, the winery nor the taxpayer), and they can more easily apply for a mortgage and build stable financial lives for themselves.

Whereas some wineries will tout their sustainability initiatives as evidence of their apparent goodwill, Capaldo admits that offering this sort of labor arrangement is, to him, simply a sensible business decision. “At the end of the day,” he says, “we started it, yes, of course for the people, for the community, but also because … it’s a bit of a selfish thing. You do it because it’s better for you as well.”

When you treat workers well, says Capaldo, they’re more likely to stick around. “The more you go marginal … in the way you treat [workers] — so you consider them as an add-on on marginal activities, sometimes forgetting that the harvest is the most important moment for us as producers — the more you treat them marginally, the more you don’t get people that consider the employment central in their lives, and the more you get the people you find rather than the people you want to find or want to have.” This is especially important when it comes to high-quality wine production, which demands experience and skill in the vineyard. He hopes to retain his talent so the knowledge and skills they’re acquiring can continue to help the winery grow. “The sustainability program for us was not something for charity or for the beauty of going to a conference and saying, ‘Oh, I’m sustainable’ but actually was a very positive thing for the winery.”

Like Karin Wärnelius-Miller, Capaldo draws comparisons between the wine industry and other sectors of the economy, highlighting that the sustainability of working conditions necessarily touches all industries. Restaurants, too, which have in some parts of the world failed to provide stable working and living conditions for their employees, are also having problems retaining their workforces, just like many vineyards and wineries. “There is an issue in finding and keeping a qualified workforce. But the thing is that to find them and keep them, you need to find a different model of organization,” says Capaldo. “You need to understand that the system has changed, and you need to adjust.”

Utilizing local workforces

Many wineries around the world rely on migrant labor, largely because in much of the world, they can pay migrants significantly less than native-born workers. This is true of much of the agricultural industry. Oftentimes, migrant workers are more vulnerable — to harm and  exploitation — than their native-born counterparts.

So, for some vineyards and wineries, opting to hire locals doesn’t reflect a bigotry against migrant workers but rather a commitment to providing livable wages while fostering a connection with the community in which the wineries reside. According to Diego Cusumano, co-owner of Cusumano Winery in Sicily, Italy, hiring local workers just makes sense. “The majority of people working in our vineyards are local workers,” he says. “This is possible because in Sicily, there is a long tradition of viticulture, which for years has employed local people, and continues to do so today. With locals, it’s easier to maintain a lasting working relationship, and as a consequence, the same people return year after year.” Workers who have years of experience in the same vineyards hold valuable knowledge, which is why Cusumano sees an incentive to keep them coming back.

“Local workers are more deeply tied to the territories, they are closer and more easily reachable. They work not only for our company but to make the territory where they live more beautiful,” says Diego. In many cases, working with local labor might cost grape growers and wineries more. But it also displays a long-lasting commitment to the land and the community — and doesn’t involve the exploitation of foreign-born workers in the process.

Keeping production small

Many businesses consider growth as their main marker of success. But in the wine industry, quality is very often inversely correlated with production scale. To Capaldo, caring about one’s workers and the quality of the product go hand in hand. “I think there is a matter of where you position yourself in the value chain because if you have a high volume, low margin, low price production, then these kinds of things can seem a luxury to you,” he says. “Reaching out to migrants [and] cooperatives is probably less expensive [than ethically utilizing local labor].”

Wärnelius-Miller echoes a similar sentiment on the housing front. “I think it’s harder to maintain … the quality of housing in a way [when the scale of production gets too large],” she says. “As you grow bigger … it’s like anything else, you lose the human touch, in a way. … On our small family vineyard … We not only house the men, we house the families.”

Per Capaldo, “It depends on how much care you put into your products.” And by extension, that includes the people.

The state of workers’ rights in the wine industry is, in many regards, glum, due to low wages, difficult working conditions and lack of affordable housing in wine-producing areas. Just like in so many other industries — agricultural and beyond — profit all too often takes precedence over human rights and dignity. But the wine industry is not without solutions or models for a better, more ethical and more responsible path forward. It’s up to the owners and decision makers at vineyards and wineries around the world to recognize their workers’ value and provide them with not just adequate but dignified working conditions and lifestyles.

Walmart has put together the ultimate game day party food snack box

Looking to feed a ravenous crowd for a football watching gathering or start prepping early for a Super Bowl shindig? Walmart might be the one-stop shop for you.

Their newly announced game day box — which is said to feed eight people for $8 per person — consists of Pepsi, chicken wings, Frank's RedHot, frozen meatballs, BBQ sauces, mini smoked sausages, Pillsbury Crescent Rolls, Tostitos, roasted corn salsa, Doritos, Velveeta and Rotel for a veritable hodgepodge of top, go-to ingredients to ensure all of the party food staples are covered.

Best of all? The cost for the whole shebang is only $56.

Of course, you don't need to get together with seven pals — perhaps you and a buddy can even split the whole thing!

Regardless, it's a great deal for a football hang, an Oscars party, a Galentine's celebration or why not a random Tuesday night? Or, purchase the box and then use it for meals, snacks or sides over the course of a few days: chicken wings and RedHot one night, a stellar Velveeta and Rotel dip with Tostitos and salsa another night, then followed up with BBQ meatballs or pigs in a blanket to wrap it all up?

Clearly, Walmart has come in clutch with this curated collection. Get yours now, in-store, online or via your preferred grocery delivery service.

Taking supplements can be different for women — and what’s in the bottle may not always be accurate

The amount of supplements offered in local pharmacies and supermarkets is often enough to grant them their own aisle, full of brightly-colored bottles of all shapes and sizes promoting the wellness of hair and nails, the heart, sleep or bones. There are options for men and women, kids and “over 50s” in pills, powders or gummy formulations. Decades of research shows that getting the right amount of certain vitamins and minerals in the diet can ward off diseases, and dietary guidelines serve as the most accurate estimate we have for what the body needs to stay healthy.

But some say more research is needed to fully understand sex differences in how female and male bodies need and use these nutrients across the life cycle. As a result, some are calling for improved recommendations that take a closer look at the role that sex, hormonal changes, and body composition play into these nutritional needs. 

“Women live longer, they experience different things like pregnancy and lactation, menstruation and menopause, and they have different disease risks,” said Dr. McKale Montgomery, a nutritionist at Oklahoma State University. “But so often the difference between the men versus women’s [supplements] is the color of the bottle and not what is inside.”

Although people had been using herbal medicines to supplement nutrients in their diet for centuries, Polish biochemist Casimer Funk is credited with coining the term "vitamins" in 1920, referring to the substances not produced in the body that we supplemented by diet. (“Vita” means “life” in Latin and “amine” is a nitrogenous substance necessary for biological life.) Funk’s research also showed that the lack of certain vitamins would cause illness, including a disease called pellagra when the body lacked vitamin B3 and scurvy when it lacked vitamin C. 

This work culminated in nutritional guidelines in the U.S. called the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) values published at the turn of the 21st century that identify the amount of dozens of vitamins, macronutrients and minerals the body needed

"So often the difference between the men versus women’s [supplements] is the color of the bottle and not what is inside."

Several sex differences have been well-researched and are reflected in the guidelines. Women of reproductive age are recommended to take more iron at certain ages, and women, particularly in the postmenopausal period of life, are recommended to take more calcium for bone health. Men, on the other hand, are recommended to take more magnesium and zinc. In general men are recommended to take a greater quantity of many vitamins simply based on differences in body composition.

However, some have called for more research in women specifically in the dietary supplement space, said Dr. Abbie Smith-Ryan, a professor of exercise physiology at UNC Chapel HIll. Although women consume more supplements than men, supplement use hasn’t been as well studied in women, she explained.

“The majority of data, if there is data, is done in young men for many reasons,” Smith-Ryan told Salon in a phone interview. “That doesn’t mean that everything needs to be at different doses, but at the very minimum, we need to understand: Should those be recommended at a different dose or with different ingredients to enhance absorption, or some of those things.”

The National Institutes of Health acknowledged the need for more nutritional research for women in its 2020-2030 strategic plan, which listed nutritional differences in women, along with differences in nutritional needs during pregnancy and lactation and across a woman’s life cycle as some of its research priorities.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


“Nutrition plays an important role in many diseases and conditions that primarily affect women or that affect women differently than men,” it states. “Inherent within this plan and its implementation are research approaches and activities that address the roles of sex and gender in health and disease; promoting participation of women in clinical nutrition research; and integrating sex as a biological variable in basic, preclinical, and translational nutrition research.”

Instead of comparing men and women to understand differences in nutritional needs, it might be more useful to study how nutritional needs vary across a woman’s life cycle, Smith-Ryan added. 

“No two women have the same menstrual cycle or hormone profile … so the standardization is much harder and requires more time and money to capture,” she said. 

One particular population that nutritional differences are more pronounced is athletes, in whom getting the right nutrients can also reduce the risk of injury. While female athletes are less likely to not get adequate nutrients, they are also more likely to see the consequences of that, Smith-Ryan said. 

“Anytime you add in that extra stress and those extra caloric needs from exercise, you see more of an impact, meaning, if you're low on vitamin D or iron, you're going to feel that,” Smith-Ryan said. “Whereas, if you're more of a sedentary individual, you may not feel those as much because you're not stressing the body the same way.”

There is also limited research available on which supplements might help women during the perimenopause part of life in particular. Some evidence suggests B12 might be helpful to the nervous system and vitamin D is helpful for promoting bone growth. Magnesium might help with sleep problems, although the research behind many of these links is thin and the recommendations for these supplements don't currently differ by sex for this age group.

“Refining our recommendations for that decade would be really helpful,” Smith-Ryan said.

Vitamin D and calcium have been recommended among older adults to promote brain and bone health, especially among women who are affected by osteoporosis at four times the rate as men.

However, a draft recommendation by the United States Preventive Services Task Force released last month actually recommended against taking these two supplements at this age for both sexes for the purpose of reducing fractures. Although the agency clarified that supplementation with vitamin D and calcium could still be important for this age group for other reasons, some disagreed with the recommendation, noting that it didn’t take into account individual differences in whether people had vitamin D deficiencies.

“Dismissing supplementation as unnecessary for the general population undermines its value for those who need it most,” said Dr. Andrea Wong, the senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs at Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade organization that represents many supplement manufacturers, in a statement.

In general, nutritional changes to help menopause would work better if they began long before menopause anyways, said Dr. Mary Scourboutakos, a family doctor with a PhD in nutrition. For example, peak bone mass is determined in the teenage years, meaning vitamin D and calcium intake many years before menopause is what is important for bone health at that time, she said. 

“We tell women when they’re 60 years old that their bone mass is low and try to pump them full of calcium and vitamin D,” Scourboutakos told Salon in a phone interview. “But the reality is, it’s the calcium and vitamin D they didn’t have in their teenage years that lands them in this place in their 60s.”

We need your help to stay independent

While drugs are used to treat illness, nutrition’s purpose is generally to prevent it, Scourboutakos said. However, this operates in a different research paradigm than how the effectiveness of drugs are demonstrated. While drug research takes sick people to determine whether a drug works, supplement research often takes healthy people and sees whether supplements can prevent illness.

“It’s easier to prove that you treated something than if you prevented something, and nutrition often works over years and decades, so it’s hard to get research to fund such a study,” Scourboutakos said. “Everything about our scientific method makes it hard to prove these sorts of things.”

Supplements are regulated for safety but not efficacy by the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which is enforced by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission monitor companies to ensure they are actually selling what is being advertised, said Steve Mister, president and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition.

“We have our own requirements that I would classify as being somewhere between those for food and those for drugs,” Mister told Salon in a video call.

The way the current regulations work provides the industry with greater flexibility so that it can react more quickly to changes in research, Mister said.

“It’s left to the market to create the variability in formulations," Mister said. “That’s the beauty of the law that allows us to have some flexibility in how we develop the formulas for the products.”

Still, others have called for more regulations on supplements as the number of people taking them has exploded in recent years — with as many as 4 in 5 people reporting using them at some point in their lives

In pregnancy, women are recommended to take prenatal vitamins to ensure the body gets the right amount of folate, Omega-3 oils, and choline, among other vitamins like iron, vitamin D, and calcium. Although this population is one that has been studied to determine the benefit of these supplements, recent research has shown that many of these essential nutrients are missing from some products on the shelves.

One study found none of close to 50 samples of commercially available prenatal vitamins contains all of the recommended supplements for pregnant women, and up to 27% had less than the recommended amount of folate, which has been shown to protect against birth defects.

Ultimately, it’s largely up to the individual to stay up-to-date with their nutrient needs and make sure they check nutritional labels to ensure they are getting what they need from the supplements they do or not decide to purchase.

“A lot of time women don’t get that support or our health care providers don’t know the data,” Smith-Ryan said. “We need to encourage women to take care of themselves and advocate for themselves.”

Alaska’s SNAP failures highlight national struggles with food assistance

Facing a persistent crisis in providing food assistance, Alaska has once again fallen behind in processing applications for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), leaving thousands of residents waiting for help to put meals on the table. Despite initial progress — after a 2023 backlog that swelled to 15,000 applications prompted a state intervention — recent data shows the system faltering. By October 2024, only 72% of initial applications were processed on time, down from 89% in June.

A federal judge has now intervened, issuing a preliminary injunction that compels the state to take immediate action to meet federally mandated deadlines. The order, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason, mandates monthly progress reports and underscores the systemic challenges Alaska faces in delivering basic services to its residents, particularly in one of the nation’s most remote and resource-strained regions.

The lawsuit that prompted the injunction highlights a host of deficiencies in the state’s administration of SNAP, a federally funded program designed to help low-income families afford food. Plaintiffs allege that the state has failed to process applications within the required 30-day timeframe, neglected to provide adequate language access for applicants with limited English proficiency, and failed to notify individuals of their right to appeal delays. These failures, plaintiffs argue, not only violate federal law but also infringe on the constitutional rights of Alaskans seeking assistance.

The court's ruling follows a turbulent period for Alaska’s SNAP program. As reported by Anchorage Daily News, after the 2023 backlog led federal officials to temporarily waive an interview requirement to expedite processing, the state initially showed signs of recovery. However, with the waiver’s expiration in October, progress stalled, leaving many families facing extended waits for food assistance.

For Alaskans, the stakes are high. The state’s geographic isolation and high food costs make SNAP an essential lifeline for tens of thousands of households. Advocates have long warned that the program’s failures disproportionately affect rural communities and those with limited access to alternative resources.

We need your help to stay independent

In its defense, the state has argued it has made “considerable efforts” to address the backlog, including by hiring a consultant to create new staffing patterns to address understaffing, as well as overhauling an online system to streamline applications which, according to Anchorage Daily News,  is expected to be fully running in July 2025 “after more than $54 million was appropriated in 2023 to overhaul the Division of Public Assistance online system.” 

However, Gleason said those changes were not sufficient. “While these efforts are commendable, there is at present no indication that these efforts will successfully bring (the Department of Health) into full compliance with the processing deadlines,” she wrote.

Her injunction seeks to provide immediate relief while the broader case unfolds, and the motion outlines three primary directives. 

First, the state is urged to process all SNAP applications and renewals promptly, including those eligible for expedited processing and those currently overdue, in accordance with federal regulations. Second, the motion calls for written notice to be provided to individuals whose applications are delayed beyond the required timeframes, offering them the opportunity to request a fair hearing. Lastly, the filing seeks to establish accountability measures, allowing plaintiffs’ attorneys to flag instances of delayed or mishandled applications, with the state required to investigate and respond within three business days, naming the employee responsible for resolving the issue.

"Doing nothing for another three or four years while hundreds of families go hungry is just not an acceptable status quo."

James Davis, an attorney with the Northern Justice Project —the firm that had brought the original suit — said the reporting requirement would add a layer of accountability to the state.

“Doing nothing for another three or four years while hundreds of families go hungry is just not an acceptable status quo,” said Davis.

In the meantime, the ruling casts a spotlight on the challenges of maintaining a reliable safety net in Alaska and raises questions about the state’s ability to deliver critical services in times of crisis.

Alaska is not the only state grappling with a severe backlog in processing food aid applications. Colorado, too, has faced criticism for delays in its SNAP and other food assistance programs, with federal officials placing the state under a corrective action plan in 2024. According to The Colorado Sun, Colorado had ranked among the bottom five states in processing food aid applications on time, leaving many families waiting for weeks — or even months — for critical support. The delays, compounded by a surge in applications since the pandemic, left residents struggling to put meals on the table.

“These aren’t just numbers to us. They are people,” Shelley Banker, director of Colorado’s Office of Economic Security, told the Sun at the time. “We know that feeding people is important. That’s why we’re working with our partners in the counties to really dig into this and to understand what is happening.”

The situation in Colorado mirrors the challenges faced by Alaska, highlighting a broader national issue of states struggling to meet federal requirements for timely food assistance processing. Both states underscore how the pandemic, staffing shortages, and surging demand have pushed safety net programs to a breaking point, leaving vulnerable families to bear the brunt of systemic failures.

Meghan Markle postpones release of Netflix show “With Love, Meghan” due to L.A. fires

Meghan Markle has pressed pause on her new Netflix show, "With Love, Meghan," because of the Los Angeles fires.

The lifestyle show — previously set to premiere on Wednesday, Jan. 15 — will showcase the Duchess of Sussex's cooking chops, gardening tips and hosting advice alongside some of her buzzy celebrity friends like Mindy Kaling and "Suits" co-star Abigail Spencer. Even her husband, Prince Harry, makes an appearance.

However, in the wake of the destructive wildfires in the Los Angeles area, the Angeleno requested that Netflix push back the release date. Now, "With Love, Meghan" will premiere on March 4.

“I’m thankful to my partners at Netflix for supporting me in delaying the launch, as we focus on the needs of those impacted by the wildfires in my home state of California,” Markle said in a statement to Variety.

Markle and Prince Harry have stepped in to help alleviate some of the devastation for the people affected by the fires. On Friday, the Sussexes visited the Pasadena Convention Center with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wife Jennifer. The couple also posted a statement on their website urging people to "give back" and “open your home. If a friend, loved one, or pet has to evacuate and you are able to offer them a safe haven in your home, please do."

The Los Angeles-area fires have become one of the most destructive fires in the state's history with 24 confirmed deaths, more than 10,000 structures turned to rubble and tens of thousands displaced.

“I see them as heroes”: Kim Kardashian supports pay bump for incarcerated L.A. firefighters

Kim Kardashian is using her platform to fight for fair wages for incarcerated firefighters working to protect Los Angeles, as fires continue to engulf the city.

The beauty mogul advocated for the firefighters in a series of Instagram stories explaining that these first responders put themselves in harm's way for just $1 an hour. Kardashian stated that since the fires crept into other parts of the city last week, she has had multiple conversations with the first responders on the ground.

"Hundreds of incarcerated firefighters get paid almost nothing, risk their lives, some have died, to prove to the community that they have changed and are now first responders. I see them as heroes,” Kardashian said.

Since 1984, wages for incarcerated firefighters have “never been raised with inflation. It’s never been raised when fires got worse and many died. A recent agreement to raise it to $5 an hour was reportedly ‘shot down last minute,'” Kardashian stated.

The criminal justice reform advocate urged California Gov. Gavin Newsom to raise their pay so it's “a rate that honors a human being risking their life to save our lives and homes.”

According to The Hollywood Reporter, while Kardashian has highlighted their low pay, The Department of Corrections website said that wages for these first responders can include "a bonus dollar per hour in time of an active emergency." 

Alongside the bonus for emergencies, “Depending on skill level, conservation camp incarcerated fire crew members earn between $5.80 and $10.24 per day, paid by CDCR,” the website said. 

For several years, Kardashian has been a staunch proponent of criminal justice reform in the U.S. and has met with figures like President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris on larger reform in the prison system. Kardashian has even gone to law school and passed the First-Year Law Students' Examination, sometimes referred to as the "baby bar."

Republicans see the LA wildfires as an opportunity to punish California

I live in Santa Monica, California, and as you can imagine, the last few days have been traumatic. We are lucky to live a couple of miles away from the fire zone and are not currently in any danger. But I know many people who were evacuated and some are still waiting to go back to their homes because the danger remains acute. Everyone I know knows someone whose house has burned; one of my closest friends lost everything and literally escaped with just the clothes on his back. We're all still on alert here waiting to see if the winds pick up as predicted next week, praying that the worst is behind us.

All natural disasters are frightening. I've been through a few earthquakes and one big hurricane. But I have to say that watching a firestorm threaten America's second-largest city right on my own doorstep is a particularly terrifying experience. These are the scenes we saw on every local television station in Los Angeles for the first 24 hours:

A friend of mine texted me asking what it was like to be in the middle of it all. "Is it like 9/11?" I wrote that nothing can really compare to the shock of watching those two skyscrapers come down in the middle of America's premiere city but I don't think it's entirely dissimilar. The difference is that the perpetrator of this particular horror isn't a foreign terrorist — it's us.

The existential threat of climate change has become very, very real — a slow-rolling "War of the Worlds," relentless and seemingly unstoppable. We know what to do but we just won't do it, and the consequences have arrived. Yes, these fires will eventually be tamed and people will pick up their lives and carry on just as New Yorkers did after the attacks. But this isn't going to end with that. These extreme weather events are happening with increasing intensity and frequency not just here but all over the planet. Anyone who pretends that this is normal is either fooling themselves or is lying to everyone else.

And when you're sitting in front of your TV waiting to find out if you have to run for your life, once again realizing that we have just empowered an ignorant, mendacious cretin who's planning to not just dismantle every attempt to mitigate the damage but actually exacerbate the threat, you just dissolve into despair and anger. How can we just let this happen?

Californians are used to being bashed by Republican politicians and some of their supporters. It's always popular to mock us and use us as the poster children for everything that's wrong with America. I don't think most of us really care much about that, which is probably one reason they're so frustrated with us. We know that despite our problems, as any place that has nearly 40 million people in it would have, it's a really pretty great place and those who don't care for us are welcome to their opinion.

But I confess that I am shocked at the monumental lack of grace, empathy and compassion coming from the right as this horrific emergency unfolds. I know that it's human nature to point fingers and there are no doubt many mistakes that we will find as the city recovers. It is also natural in such fast-moving emergencies that wrong information will be disseminated even by officials you rely on. (At one point an evacuation notice went out to all of LA County by mistake!) But no disaster response operates perfectly and a thorough after-action investigation, reforms, accountability etc. are all to be expected. If heads have to roll then they will, I'm sure. But the right-wing media, influencers and Republican politicians have been stunningly callous about this ghastly event, even for them.

We need your help to stay independent

It's way beyond the usual social media trolling, although that's been relentless and cruel. And even the sexist and racist "DEI" catcalling, as my colleague Amanda Marcotte wrote about, isn't the worst of it. It's the misinformation and climate denialism that's the most chilling. The consequences of this intentional crusade to mislead the public on this subject are going to have repercussions far beyond this one firestorm.

They say that we had no water because Gov. Newsom refuses to "turn on the water" that the hydrants were all dry, there was no preparation and, yes, that the whole fire department is a bunch of "DEI" hires who know nothing about firefighting. All of it is wrong. (Here's a thorough fact check from the governor's office.)

Newsom addressed some of the lies and delusions in this podcast:

Everyone who knows anything about California fire hazards and water (or even if you've ever seen the movie "Chinatown") knows that there are issues in this drought-prone area. We've been fighting over water for decades. But as Newsom says in that clip, Donald Trump is convinced of some truly delusional nonsense. Just take a look at this "weave" from the last California GOP convention. 


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


Where does this madness come from? As historian Rick Perlstein pointed out in this piece from back in 2016, Trump likely got it originally from conspiracist Alex Jones. More recently, as you can see from that speech, it was former congressman and current CEO of Trump's Truth Social media platform Devin Nunes who apparently filled his head with a simplistic tale about a big "valve" that Newsom (and Gov. Jerry Brown before him) refused to turn on to fill Southern California with all the water it could ever want because they want to save a "little fish." (This piece at Vox lays out what this is really all about if you're interested but suffice it to say that nothing Trump, Jones or Nunes said applies to Los Angeles or these wildfires.There was enough water in the reservoirs but the system was overwhelmed by the sheer, unprecedented scale of the fire so they lost water pressure for a time. The air tankers (which can scoop water out of the nearby reservoir called "the Pacific Ocean") couldn't fly because of the hurricane-level winds. One fire department chief told Katy Tur of MSNBC they could have had an army of firefighters and they wouldn't have been able to stop those houses from burning because they were all going up at once from the flying embers in 80 mph winds. It was literally a perfect storm.

Yet, here's a small example of the grotesque commentary spewing forth from Donald Trump's social media feed as the crisis was unfolding:

Not one word of sympathy for the victims of the fire or any promise to follow through on federal help for the area. And one lie after another.

Californians are used to being bashed by Republican politicians and some of their supporters. It's always popular to mock us and use us as the poster children for everything that's wrong with America.

He's already got Republican politicians vowing to demand that California follow Trump's orders about how to deal with wildfires if we expect to get any help once Biden is gone. Sen. John Barasso of Wyoming had this to say on Sunday:

Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Oh., also weighed in:

I presume that if they deign to help out us undeserving Americans, we'll all be out raking the forests and watching helplessly as they demand that we uselessly seed clouds when there is 5% humidity And they'll turn that big valve on to release the 2% of water that's not already diverted to the farmers and watch the Sacramento delta turn to salt water and destroy the entire ecosystem and the salmon fisheries. But that's a small price to pay to prove that climate change doesn't exist, own the libs, and make sure the fossil fuel industry is well protected.

Meanwhile, there will be more and more extreme weather events. Here in America, virtually every climate change mitigation program will be reversed by the new administration. There will be more destruction and death increasing in frequency and intensity. Fingers shouldn't be pointed at brave firefighters or political leaders in the trenches who are tasked with saving lives and helping people recover from catastrophes caused by an existential threat to the entire planet. They should be pointed at the people who refuse to do anything about the real crisis we're facing.

Trump inauguration committee sells “candlelight dinner” access for $1 million

Access to President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance at the Jan. 20 inauguration will come at a historic cost.

Donors hoping to buy a chance to meet with Trump and Vance at a handful of exclusive events will have to cough up $1 million, per an inaugural committee fundraising document obtained by The Guardian. 

A seven-figure pledge grants access to a pair of intimate dinners with the VP-elect and the president-elect days before they take their oaths of office. A “candlelight dinner” with Trump and an intimate experience with JD and Usha Vance are the most sought-after events.

Such access is twice as expensive as it was during Trump’s first inauguration, when $500,000 would have secured a benefactor dinner with Trump and his former running mate, Mike Pence. 

The high price tag hasn’t discouraged deep-pocketed business leaders from seeking to buy access. Trump’s second inaugural fund has raised almost $200 million, nearly double the record-breaking sum Trump brought in for his first inauguration.

Guest lists for some inaugural events are full already, even for the richest Trump backers, The New York Times reported earlier this month. Seven-figure donors are reportedly being told they can’t secure VIP passes for the most intimate experiences due to what the Times described as “extraordinary demand.”

Though the business world is always eager to chip into inaugural festivities, hoping to earn goodwill with an upcoming administration, this year’s has set a new bar. Major companies, even ones without a history of such donations, have put up massive sums. Apple, Meta, Amazon, Ford and others have given the fund at least $1 million each.

Trump’s seemingly pay-to-play system for White House access attracted scrutiny during his first term, but guardrails on the extent of presidential power and the lines of ethics rules have since weakened. The hefty inaugural rates may be an indication of the cost of doing business with his administration.

Los Angeles wildfires could be the costliest in history

Wildfires still raging across Los Angeles County are projected to be among the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history.

Early estimates of damage and economic losses total between $250 billion and $275 billion, according to AccuWeather, which revised previous estimates of $135 billion and $150 billion. The new estimate is the same for Hurricane Helene, which affected six southeastern states last fall.

AccuWeather factors in damage to homes, businesses, infrastructure and vehicles, immediate and long-term health care costs, lost wages and supply chain interruptions, per The Associated Press.

“This will be the costliest wildfire in California modern history and also very likely the costliest wildfire in U.S. modern history, because of the fires occurring in the densely populated areas around Los Angeles with some of the highest-valued real estate in the country,” said Jonathan Porter, AccuWeather's chief meteorologist.

The fires have killed at least 24 people and burned more than 12,000 structures since Tuesday, media outlets reported. AccuWeather meteorologist Alex DaSilva warned of another "incredibly dangerous week near the fire zones and across much of the Los Angeles region as stronger wind gusts return."

Other entities projecting the disaster to be among the costliest include insurance broker Aon PLC and Moody's, per The Associated Press. A firm estimate of the financial losses won't be known for several months.

CNBC reports the insured losses from the fires may exceed $20 billion, according to estimates published by JPMorgan. That would surpass the damage from the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California, the costliest blaze in U.S. history.

That disaster is now estimated at $12.5 billion, adjusted for inflation. It killed 85 people and destroyed about 11,000 homes.

The LA conflagration: It is now painfully clear what matters

The helicopter blades beat through the smoldering air no more than a couple hundred feet above my head. At ground level, the scent of fire brings back memories of fire pits I’d seen at “Cement City” during the Gulf War. As the helicopter passes overhead on the way to the nearby fire, my middle son, his wife, their son and daughter, hurry to pack the car and leave their home near West Hills, California, after the outbreak of the Kenneth Fire. Neighbors pack up and move out as well. Traffic in the area is at a standstill. 

And while the residents packed and fled, firefighters scrambled to give those fleeing extra time to do so even as the fierce winds whipped up the fire in a drought-stricken land, making any effort to contain it problematic at best and futile at worst. Those in LA spearheading the effort to put out half a dozen wildfires apparently diverted some of the air resources from the Palisades and Eaton fires to assist, slowing the growth of the West Hills fire which still grew from five acres to nearly 1000 acres in a matter of hours. After burning more than 1,000 acres in the San Fernando Valley since Jan. 10, the Kenneth Fire has now been 100% contained. 

The day before, the Pacific Palisades fire had prompted the evacuation of my oldest son and his fiancée from their home in Santa Monica. This monstrous fire, which began Monday and reached nearly 24,000 acres by Sunday evening, had destroyed some of the most expensive and picturesque residential real estate in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. As the sun set Thursday, the fire's eerie red glow and thick acrid smoke smell permeated everything from Malibu east through the Palisades and Santa Monica. Ash fell in Santa Monica which contained burned paper and rubbish and looked like snow on a cool winter night.

The Santa Monica police were in tactical mode — every officer worked 12 hours on and 12 hours off. Police and fire fighters worked around the clock, not only trying to stifle the growing conflagration but keeping watch for potential looters. I spotted one man with a hammer and a flashlight looking furtively around my son’s neighborhood. Another man approached my son’s open car when he went inside to grab more clothes.  The man looked inside the car and didn’t see me standing nearby or my son when he walked out of his apartment. “Hey, what’s up?” I asked. The man stopped. My son, walking out of his apartment, captured the man’s attention. After looking at us both, he turned and walked away without saying anything.

Police in the street told me looting was quickly becoming a problem and they cautioned against staying in the area. “The atmosphere is toxic and it’s a wildfire. Right now, we have no way of knowing where it will go.”

With the Santa Ana winds reaching hurricane force, the fires that began last Monday have not only proved difficult to control but difficult to predict. It is taxing infrastructure, personnel and patience. Frustrated and angry, denizens of Los Angeles have taken to accusations and speculation about the cause of the fires and the effectiveness of the firefighting efforts.

Ross Palumbo, a former White House reporter now reporting for KCAL in LA, asked Mayor Karen Bass Thursday night during a news conference about accusations that she had bungled the efforts and calls for her to resign. She chuckled and said she would do a “deep dive” into the efforts after the fires were extinguished but was pushing forward with relief efforts in the interim.

That has not stopped idle speculation that the Palisades had been targeted by arsonists to bring down the area’s richest neighborhoods, or that angry arsonists had started all the fires. Rumors are thick and furious, with some claiming they saw undocumented immigrants with blow torches, and even President-elect Donald Trump claiming that Governor Gavin Newsom is somehow omnipotent, or an arsonist, and is responsible for the fires.

“It’s too perfect. It’s like someone’s following a script,” Tony, a baseball coach at a local community college, told me. “It’s too much of a coincidence, fires don’t just start like that spontaneously.” Actually, they can and do. 

Our inability to work together will ultimately be our undoing, and the fires in Los Angeles remind us that politics as usual doesn’t fly when the flames are that high.

Officials with the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water said hurricane-force winds, combined with electric wires and swaying trees produced more than two dozen disruptions of the power grid in the Palisades last Monday when the fires began. “Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by reality and facts,” I was told.

No kidding. The reality is that parts of Los Angeles today look like Dresden after being bombed in World War II. It is difficult to fully understand the scope of the conflagration without driving through the affected areas (and access is severely limited) or without talking with people who’ve suffered. What you can read in the press and see on television is just a pale shadow of the reality people are facing. And the fact is that, as is often the case these days, that type of suffering is fertile ground for politicians to take advantage of and manipulate.

The numbers don’t tell the whole story — and political affiliation cannot explain it away either.

We need your help to stay independent

Friday morning Donald Trump was sentenced for his conviction of 34 felonies in Manhattan. Judge Juan Merchan unconditionally discharged the case saying it was the only thing to do out of respect to the office of the President of the United States. Not the man. The office. At the same time, Trump made a rambling statement about the tiniest slap on the wrist he received by the only court to hold him accountable for any of his alleged illegal actions over a long lifetime of grifting as a case of “lawfare” against him. In rambling, typical Trump fashion, the president-elect referenced the deadly southern California fires as a reason the legal actions taken against him were ridiculous.

Many others have politicized the fires while forgetting that wildfires just don’t care what your politics are. The fire burns Republicans, Democrats, Christians, atheists, blacks, whites, members of the LGBTQ and straight community without prejudice. 

As I helped my son evacuate, I thought about that; how we have more in common with each other than we realize. In times of crisis, I often think of the Trump supporters and detractors who have suffered. Nobody cares what your religion is when you’re in the foxhole. Everyone in LA is in that foxhole now. 

And that brings me to last week’s funeral for former President Jimmy Carter. He was eulogized by President Joe Biden. “Now, it’s not about being perfect, because none of us are perfect. We’re all fallible. But it’s about asking ourselves: Are we striving to do things, the right things? What values? What are the values that animate our spirit? To operate from fear or hope, ego or generosity? Do we show grace? Do we keep the faith when it’s most tested?”

Biden continued: “For keeping the faith with the best of humankind and the best of America is the story, in my view, from my perspective, of Jimmy Carter’s life.” 

If we were all battle-tested and kept our faith, if not in God at least in each other, you have to wonder what position we’d be in today as a nation. We certainly would not be as divided as we are now. Perhaps we’d be a little bit closer.


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


The fires in LA this week have highlighted the best and the worst of us. How little do you think of yourself and other people to walk through a disaster zone and steal from people who’ve lost their homes and perhaps loved ones? Then again, you can be brought to tears watching ordinary citizens of different races, creeds, political persuasions and religions join with police and firefighters, including currently incarcerated inmates, to  help people they don’t know. 

Local firefighters in the Eaton Fire even helped residents, when it was obvious their homes couldn’t be saved, pack up some of their belongings and furniture. “Just to ease their pain a little,” a firefighter said. Overall I’ve seen the best of humanity far outweigh the worst in this disaster. To paraphrase Jimmy Carter, they were doing what they could with what they had for as long as they could. As the smoke plumes resembling volcanic eruptions rose to the north, east and south of the San Fernando Valley, it was painfully clear what mattered.

President Joe Biden showing up and vowing to help definitely mattered. You could tell he was moved by what he saw. His speeches didn’t matter. It was the action. Donald Trump’s speeches don’t matter. His actions will, and here is where I truly hope he learns from the past — if he is capable of doing so. I have hope, but it is tempered by reality — Donald Trump doesn’t care. 

He is already manipulating the fire in a horrible political stunt and giving rise to conspiracy theorists like Mel Gibson who sounds more and more like his character Jerry Fletcher in the movie “Conspiracy Theory.” He went on Joe Rogan’s show spouting his latest brand of bad baloney and I waited for him to quote himself from the movie; “A good conspiracy is unprovable. I mean, if you can prove it, it means they screwed up somewhere along the line.”

Make no mistake; this was a natural disaster. But there is a huge human component. It wasn’t Gavin Newsom’s fault. It isn’t Joe Biden’s and it isn’t Donald Trump’s. It is the industrial revolution that led to climate change, the oligarchs who do not care if in pursuit of fistfuls of sweaty cash they rape the planet and the average person who denies the science and reality. Climate extremes which include stronger hurricanes, more intense winter and summer storms, horrifying wildfires, droughts and floods were all predicted 30 years ago by scientists. Some of the results have come later than predicted and some sooner than predicted. 

There is another human component as well, one that is more sinister and gives rise to conspiracy theorists. It is represented by the looters and unfortunately by suspected arsonists. There is no need for any dark conspiracy though politicians and others who want to manipulate the events have suggested several. It is distasteful and disgusting and speaks to the worst part of humanity — but there need be no evil cabal behind it, just well-meaning bureaucrats who screwed up, ineffective infrastructure that broke down, climate change that exacerbated the weather conditions which caused the fires, people who panicked, people who kept their calm, people who wanted to take advantage of the situation and ultimately a spark that brought it all together.

Thus, the fires in Los Angeles are a harbinger of our own doom on this planet if we do not learn to work together. As it turns out humans are the existential threat to humanity. Our inability to work together will ultimately be our undoing, and the fires in Los Angeles remind us that politics as usual doesn’t fly when the flames are that high. No lives matter. The Universe doesn’t care about us. But we should care about all of us.

Look around at the devastation and witness it firsthand. Your mind might be changed. As the state motto of Kentucky reminds us: “United We Stand. Divided We Fall.”

Why the legacy media suddenly sound like Bernie Sanders

"I think Senator [Bernie] Sanders has somewhat of a point.”

In defeat, Democrats, like longtime political strategist James Carville, are finally admitting that the independent senator from Vermont just might get it. “There are things Sanders favored that we could have put more front and center," Carville acknowledged in a post-election interview. 

The comment itself was not shocking, but the messenger was. After all, Carville had been a leading voice in the news media’s efforts to diminish Sanders’ influence on the Democratic Party during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns. In 2020, after referring to the senator as a “communist,” Carville warned it would be the “end of days” if Sanders secured the 2020 Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. After 2024, Carville was not the only person in legacy media to move from critiquing to entertaining Sanders-style politics. 

Indeed, the 2024 presidential election post-mortems saw many in the press cope with Donald Trump’s victory by tacitly admitting that Bernie Sanders was right. Since 2016, much of the legacy media has embraced the establishment’s disdain for Sanders’ style politics. During his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, Sanders advocated for a return to 1930s-style democratic socialist policies, including progressive taxation, robust regulations on corporations, increasing the minimum wage to a living wage, universal healthcare, and trust-busting. These ideas conflicted with the donor class, and the Democratic Party establishment, which abandoned such policies in the 1990s to curry favor with corporate America. Consequently, when Sanders, a political independent, joined the Democratic Party in 2015 so he could participate in their primary, he faced a coordinated effort by the Democratic Party and legacy media to marginalize his influence.

In 2016, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) actively suppressed Sanders’ campaign, something they have since admitted, by giving Hillary Clinton advance notice of debate question; fabricating stories about Sanders’ supporters throwing chairs; and counting delegates’ votes before they had been cast to make Hillary Clinton’s lead over Sanders appear larger than it was. The legacy media amplified these tactics by claiming Clinton was more “electable” than Sanders, despite evidence to the contrary; and incorrectly asserting that his supporters were all white men with the pejorative label “Bernie Bros,” Similarly, studies documented the "Bernie Blackout," where Sanders received 23 times less coverage than Donald Trump and significantly less than Clinton during the 2015-2016 campaign. 

In 2020, the media onslaught continued with Sanders receiving the most negative coverage of any candidate, accused of being unelectable despite evidence to the contrary, having his polling misrepresented or completely invisiblized in legacy media reporting, being smeared as a Russian stooge despite flimsy evidence, style of politics compared to communist executions by MSNBC’s Chris Mathews, and receiving attacks based on unsupported claims such as CNN siding with Democratic Primary rival Elizabeth Warren in a “he said/she said” debate with Sanders. 

During both of those election cycles, the legacy media largely maintained that Sanders’ appeal to the working class would alienate key constituencies — particularly people of color, women, and the LGBTQIA community – for the Democratic Party because it was racist and sexist. This was summarized with Hillary Clinton’s retort to Sanders’ proposal to trust bust the big banks, “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow….would that end racism? Would that end sexism?… Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community? Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?” In response, the crowd chanted “No!” The speech and the crowd's reaction reflected the party’s belief in the 'demographics are destiny' theory of electoral politics. This theory suggests that Democrats do not need to introduce a working-class agenda because they will experience long-term electoral success due to historically marginalized communities becoming a larger proportion of the voting population. This approach to politics was embraced by Carville — the person who popularized the phrase “it’s the economy stupid” — in 2009, when he predicted that the nation was getting less white, and since his party attracted the growing population of people of color, the Democratic Party would rule for the next 40 years. 

It is unlikely that legacy media will ever directly admit their assessment of the electorate over the previous decade was wrong.

Sanders, his supporters, some scholars, leftist media commentators, and progressives in Congress (known as “The Squad”) disagreed with the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the working class. They argued that all working people, including those key constituencies, would abandon the Democratic Party and enable Trump to assume and maintain power, unless the Democratic Party engaged in a working-class “revolution.” Leaders of the Democratic Party fired back, with Sen. Chuck Schumer arguing in 2016: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” Sanders’ referred to this approach as “political malpractice.”

The results of the 2024 election forced a reckoning in legacy media, where they had to confront the fact that they were wrong and Sanders was right when it came to electoral politics. After all, despite a decade of major media outlets such as New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, and CNN hammering home the narrative that Trump’s wealth, xenophobia, felony charges and convictions, sexual assault allegations and convictions, repeated racist and sexist remarks, and role in the January 6th insurrection would prevent his electoral victory, Trump is more popular in 2024 than he has ever been.  Also in 2024, the Republican Party took control of the presidency, House of Representatives, and U.S. Senate, while securing the popular vote (something no Republican has done since 2004), building a multi-racial working-class coalition, and making notable electoral gains among women and voters of color

We need your help to stay independent

Given that it directly contradicted their political theory, the Democratic Party was shocked by the outcome of the 2024 election. A post-election HuffPost headline captured the mood of Democrats after Trump’s 2024 election victory: “Shell-Shocked Democrats Stumbling For Answers After Loss To Donald Trump.” Similar reactions reverberated across major legacy media outlets. CNN reported, “Still-stunned Democrats begin to squint toward their future,” while NBC noted Democrats were trying to figure out “What Went Wrong?” Telegraph’s Michael Lind explained that “Shocked Democrats thought they’d create a permanent majority. This election proved them wrong.” The Atlantic noted that Democrats lost because they were “delusional.” 

Sanders and his supporters were not blindsided by the election, however, and used the election as an opportunity to remind audiences that his assessment over the last decade was correct. In a widely circulated post-election op-ed for Boston Globe titled “Democrats must choose: The elites or the working class,” Sanders reiterated this point that the Democratic Party had failed to attract or energize the working class, and lost the election as a result. 

Given the overwhelming evidence that the Democratic Party not only lost, but was losing key parts of its base – young people, women, Muslims, and people of color – legacy media figures such as Carville had no choice, but to tacitly admit that their political theory was wrong. Columnist David Brooks, who once wrote a 2020 op-ed titled “No, Not Sanders, Not Ever: He Is Not a Liberal, He’s the End of Liberalism,” changed his tune after the 2024 election, writing that “maybe Bernie Sanders is right” about inequality, especially in education. Similarly, in December of 2024, MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid and Jason Johnson discussed the need for healthcare reform—a cornerstone of Sanders’ campaigns- referring to the health care system as “unfair.” In response, Reid chided voters for not supporting regulations on the health care industry. However, missing from their conversation was any self-reflection about how they helped stifle support for Sanders’ agenda, which included universal health care. Back in 2020, Reid had dismissed Sanders’ health plan as a “tough sell,” argued his messaging failed to attract “poor people,” and declared that his campaign should accept that the “war is lost.” Meanwhile, Johnson, who wrongly predicted Sanders would not finish in the top five in the 2020 Iowa Primary (he finished less than half a percent behind the recognized first place winner Pete Buttigieg), helped convince audiences that support for Sanders was racist. During the 2020 campaign, Johnson dismissed the African-American women working on Sanders’ campaign as an“island of misfit black girls.”. He was briefly suspended from MSNBC for this remark.

It is unlikely that legacy media will ever directly admit their assessment of the electorate over the previous decade was wrong. The shift in rhetoric from figures like Reid, Johnson, Brooks, and Carville represents the closest thing to “you were right” that progressives will receive from the establishment. After all, news media personalities believe that protecting their brand and outlet from the potential damage caused by admitting the truth is more important than objective reporting. This was made painfully clear in the Dominion-Fox News Channel lawsuit, which documented how Fox News Channel knowingly reported falsehoods about the 2020 election being stolen (which it was not) to retain their audience. Similarly, legacy media prioritizes audience capture and access to power over integrity. This dynamic explains why personalities like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went from hosting a program where they justified comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler to seeking to build a relationship with him once it became clear he was re-elected to the presidency.

Fortunately, audiences are beginning to catch on. Both cable and newspaper legacy news media outlets have seen their audiences dramatically dwindle, with MSNBC losing 61% of its key demographic, since Election Day. This decline reflects a growing awareness that consuming legacy media only perpetuates its deceptive practices and leads audiences to vote against their interests. Hopefully, audiences will continue to gravitate toward those who understand the electorate and electoral politics rather than the James Carville’s of the world, who propagandize audiences until, long after the damage is done, they are forced to admit that they are wrong.

Is it seasonal influenza or bird flu? Here’s how to tell

Last month, researchers published a report in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) detailing how a 13-year-old in Canada fought for her life after contracting a severe bird flu infection from an unknown source. In addition to going on life support with an ECMO machine, the teenager received a plasma exchange and multiple antiviral treatments. But her case didn’t initially start severe. Her symptoms began with double conjunctivitis, also known as pink eye, and turned into a fever and coughing. When she first went to the hospital she tested positive for influenza A — but not the seasonal subtype. Further testing suggested she had a high viral load of a novel influenza A infection, which researchers eventually discovered to be avian flu caused by the H5N1 virus.

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explains, bird flu is a disease caused by the influenza A virus. At the same time, recent CDC data shows that seasonal influenza A is rising across the U.S. — specifically the H1N1 (swine flu) and H3N2 strains. While it may just seem like a tiny change in numbers, these differences in flu viruses can mean they are more pathogenic and deadly. But how do researchers know that if a person tests positive for influenza A, it’s not H5N1 avian flu?

“We don’t have the ability to differentiate through quick, antigen tests at this time,” Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist and author of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist, told Salon. “So, in other words, we don’t know.”

Jetelina elaborated that when it comes to rapidly discerning whether or not a person is infected with H5N1, or another type of flu A, people are reliant on clinicians to decide whether or not further testing is necessary. This is usually triggered by symptoms — like red eyes for H5N1 or a history of having exposure to sick animals. According to the CDC, 66 humans have been infected with H5N1 in the last year. On Friday, the San Francisco Department of Public Health reported a presumptive case of H5N1 bird flu in a child, which the CDC hasn't confirmed yet. The patient experienced symptoms of fever and conjunctivitis but did not require hospitalization and have since fully recovered.

While a majority of those cases occurred from contact with infected poultry or dairy herds, two sources of infected cases remain unclear. To date, most cases haven’t been severe. But last week the CDC reported the first bird flu death in the United States. 

Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Salon H5N1 and other avian influenza viruses are a type A influenza virus. 

"We do need subtype confirmation to make sure it's ‘H5,’ and sub-type testing is not widely accessible."

“Many people, when they are formally diagnosed with influenza, undergo rapid antigen testing that just differentiates between influenza A and influenza B,” he said. “If a person has a laboratory-based PCR test done for influenza and an influenza A virus is detected, the virus is subtyped to determine if it is an H1 or H3 or untypeable.”

Tests are submitted to the CDC for confirmation. According to the agency, over 77,000 specimens have been tested that could have been H5N1, and only three have been detected through national testing since February 25, 2024. Notably, it is not uncommon for flu A to be the more dominant type in fall and winter.

As H5N1 cases have mostly been confined to those with either bird or cattle exposures, and experts maintain there has been no evidence of sustained human-to-human spread, almost all influenza A cases that are occurring in the world are either H1 or H3, Adalja said.

Dr. Rajendram Rajnarayanan of the New York Institute of Technology campus in Jonesboro, Ark., told Salon to think of testing for influenza A or B as like a “triage testing.”


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


“These tests are easily accessible,” he said. “However, we do need subtype confirmation to make sure it's H5, and sub-type testing is not widely accessible. But most labs can easily implement this.”

With flu A increasing in prevalence across the U.S. while the bird flu crisis escalates, one concern, Rajnarayanan noted, is that there could be a mutation that happens and leads to a more dangerous H5N1 strain. 

“The segmented nature of the H5N1 genome creates a genetic lottery where reassortment with seasonal flu viruses could potentially lead to the emergence of new, more dangerous strains,” Rajnarayanan said. 

He noted that both B3.13 and D1.1 — the two main genotypes of H5N1 that are circulating in dairy cows and poultry and wild birds respectively — have emerged “via reassortments of circulating viruses.” In Louisiana, the patient who died had reportedly contracted H5N1 after exposure to a combination of a backyard flock and wild birds. Through genetic sequencing, researchers found that she was sickened by the D1.1 strain of the bird flu virus. The CDC recently said a genetic analysis suggested the virus mutated inside the patient to possibly make it a more severe illness in humans.

We need your help to stay independent

“It's prudent to closely monitor testing and genomic surveillance to monitor this, especially all hospitalized patients with the virus and their contacts,” Rajnarayanan said, emphasizing that we need, “At the population level, continued wastewater surveillance and bulk testing of dairy milk and other associated products.”

While the situation surrounding bird flu might be concerning to some, even causing them to prepare for an inevitable pandemic, Jetelina had some advice on how people can protect themselves right now. 

“Don’t drink raw milk, don’t touch sick birds or animals, and find trusted sources of information that can bring you along for the scientific discovery ride,” Jetelina said. “I would say that I’m a bit worried too, but there are a whole lot of people that are laser-focused on doing what they can to prevent another pandemic."

 

“Fair Shake” describes pivotal year ahead for women’s economic freedoms

The past year has been tumultuous for women’s rights and economic freedoms, with the presidential election and incoming Trump administration causing a lot of uncertainty across the country for women’s health, wealth and financial independence.

Written before the election, the book “Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy,” by Naomi Chan, June Carbone and Nancy Levit is more timely than ever.

Published last May, the book aims to imagine what the “just economy” or an equal economy would look like in America, what’s holding it back and why it’s taking so long for women to have access to the same economic freedoms as men.

It also shows that women’s progress in the U.S., while slow, has been nuanced. The total number of women participating in the labor force has grown to 79 million — almost 2 million more than before the pandemic — but the overall participation rate is nearly the same compared to the pre-pandemic levels. Just over 57% of women were employed in May 2024 compared to 58% in February 2020, according to U.S. Chamber of Commerce data.

That’s somewhat of an improvement, but some things remain a consistent burden in women’s lives, unchanged for decades. Home and child care is the top reason for non-participation in the labor force today — the same issue as in 1989. 

We need your help to stay independent

Here is a transcript of my conversation with co-author June Carbone, edited for clarity and length.

Your book opens with a Tesla lawsuit, Elon Musk and the “winner take all” mentality that you describe as dominant among male business leaders. You wrote the book before the election and now see how Trump's administration will include Musk and potentially other billionaires. What do you think it means for women and the impact on the economy?

The same techniques we described in business — from [the late Sam Walton, [founder of Walmart] to [the late Jack Welch, CEO of GE] to all of corporate America — are really now present in the political sphere, and Trump exemplifies [it]. [The goal is to] make everyone feel insecure, pit people against each other. The personalized leader's power is personalized, not institutionalized, and what matters are results in the short term, the economy and how you get there, how you accomplish the results. Those are the techniques that we describe in every chapter of the book. So what we see Trump doing in the political sphere is the same thing. It's the same tactics.

"This is a system that invites predatory behavior"

What do you think is holding back progress? Trump was elected with a majority of the popular vote.

My bottom line is, the worse off people are, the more likely they are to vote for Trump and for Republicans. Our book is about how women's progress is stalled, but the group in society who has suffered the biggest losses are blue-collar men, and blue-collar white men in particular. Black men aren't doing better either, and if they're blue collar, they have the same loss of opportunities white men face. They just haven't fallen as far. And this is a system that invites predatory behavior. 

How do you think the trends and forces you describe in the book will play out under the Trump administration?

What we see is going forward, instead of thinking of capitalists vs. workers, we think of it as the regulated vs. not regulated. The institutionalized part of corporate America may well have a set of interests that are different from the cowboys. I think that those differences will exacerbate, and at some point they're going to lead to a blow-up. A blow-up may be a global depression, but it may discredit these forces more effectively than a Kamala Harris win could have done.

It's a pivotal time in history for women's rights. What kind of factors do you think it's going to come down to, and what can bring about change?

At the grassroots level. One thing to be optimistic about is the reproductive rights agenda on the ballot mostly won. They confuse people, but mostly they won. I find that optimistic. What I see — and this is the thesis of the book — is that we need to talk about abusive power, not sex discrimination. And when you talk about abusive power, first of all, it's ugly. If you make it visible, you win.

“There will be strings attached”: GOP Sen. says Los Angeles wildfire aid won’t be “blank check”

GOP lawmakers are already considering how they can use the Los Angeles wildfires to extract concessions from California.

In a Sunday stop on CBS' "Face the Nation," Wyoming GOP Sen. John Barrasso said the wildfires were a symptom of "gross mismanagement in California by elected officials" and imagined hearings ahead of any congressional approval of federal aid.

"There can’t be a blank check on this, however, because people want to make sure that as rebuilding occurs… that these sorts of things can’t happen again," he said. "The policies of the liberal administration out there, I believe have made these fires worse.”

Barrasso went on to envision an aid package with "strings attached."

Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., voiced his disgust over Barrasso's comments on X.

"This is disgraceful. Disaster aid should never come with strings attached," he wrote. "Zero strings. Every damn time no matter where they live."

Republicans and MAGA media outlets have painted the wildfires as the direct result of liberal policymaking. Conservative narrative-shapers like Libs of TikTok and Fox News hosts like Jesse Watters have both blamed the fires on diversity initiatives

"California is committing suicide before our very eyes. DEI is deadly," Watters said earlier this week, before claiming that the state was "scrub[bing] white males from the fire department.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has pushed back against the claims from conservatives and President-elect Donald Trump, saying on Sunday that misinformation doesn't "advantage or aid any of us.”

“We have troops in Greenland”: Vance nods at using military to get Trump’s expansionist deal done

JD Vance is open to any angle that could help close a deal on Donald Trump's desired annexation of Greenland

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," the vice president-elect hinted at a potential flex of the United States' military muscle on the Arctic island. Host Shannon Bream wondered if Trump would be willing to use the military in his designs on the Panama Canal, Canada and Greenland, causing Vance to laugh and point out the extensive nature of the country's hidden empire. 

"We don't have to use military force, Shannon. The thing that people always ignore is we already have troops in Greenland," Vance said. "Greenland is really important for America strategically."

Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede has said he's "ready to talk" with Trump. However, he emphasized that he's seeking an independent Greenland, free from both its current rulers in Denmark and the United States. 

“Greenland is for the Greenlandic people. We do not want to be Danish, we do not want to be American. We want to be Greenlandic,” he said on Friday, according to a report from Axios.

Trump refused to rule out the use of force in his stated plans to annex Greenland and the Panama Canal while speaking to reporters earlier this month. 

“We need them for economic security. The Panama Canal was built for our military,” Trump said after refusing to rule out a war. “Look the Panama Canal is vital to our country. It’s being operated by China, China.”

In that same chat, Trump floated the idea of annexing Canada using economic pressure. Outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau joked about Trump's schemes on Sunday during a visit to MSNBC's "Inside with Jen Psaki." 

"When I started to suggest there could be a trade for Vermont or California, he immediately decided that it was not that funny anymore," he quipped.

Doechii’s “Denial Is A River” narrates the anxiety Black women live with every day

“So we're gonna try a breathin' exercise, okay? (Alright, word). When I breathe (okay), you breathe,” hip-hop artist Doechii says in her song “Denial Is A River.”

She sharply huffs and puffs, attempting to rid herself of the big, bad wolf named anxiety. But the breathing exercise doesn’t conquer what weighs heavy on the Florida rapper’s chest – it only exasperates the anxiety.

The 26-year-old, born Jaylah Ji'mya Hickmon, is one of the year’s most singular Black female rappers in the game. Even the self-proclaimed King of Rap, Kendrick Lamar, called her “the hardest” rapper out there. Her uniqueness is slowly infiltrating and occupying space in pop music because of the artist's attention to detail and intention.

Doechii's third mixtape, “Alligator Bites Never Heal,” was released in Aug. 2024 but seems to be gaining momentum nearly six months after its release. Some of this new traction and attention is because Doechii was nominated for three Grammys in November, receiving the nod for Best New Artist. 

Since then, Doechii has dropped an exhilarating Tiny Desk performance for NPR, released a ‘00s Black sitcom-inspired music video for “Denial Is A River” starring Zack Fox — the rapper and “Abbott Elementary” favorite — and influencer Rickey Thompson, and furthered the success of the track via a collaboration with Issa Rae — who voiced the singer’s inner monologue, which paralleled Rae’s “Insecure” character's own coping mechanism – rapping to herself in the mirror to quell her anxious, irrational and instructive thoughts.

That’s the battle most Black women grapple with – a fight within themselves and nobody else. At least that’s what it feels like in my mind as I’m in weekly therapy to assuage my clinical anxiety. But Doechii’s “Denial Is A River” is the closest a person has come to describing the rollercoaster ride of emotions anxiety can take a person through – especially if you are actively trying to ignore the incessant voices.

“Denial Is A River” is a portrait of a Black woman in distress

In the conversational track, Doechii’s flow takes a trip to the ‘90s. The old-school hip-hop song is very reminiscent of the spoken word cadence of Lauryn Hill.

The self-aware rapper goes shot for shot between herself and her subconscious. Doechii opens the track telling herself, “You know it's been a lil' minute since you and I have had a chat.” This version of herself is worried about her so she asks, “Why don't you just tell me what's been goin' on?”

That’s when the floodgates blow wide open and Doechii becomes undone. It’s almost like the first time I ever had a real good cry in therapy, realizing the traumatic sources of all my pretzeled thoughts, or when I experienced a funeral for my past selves, which my therapist called “a type of ego death.”

She rattles off, “nice, clean, n***a did me dirtier than laundry (Than laundry).” Then the rapper chronicles that her ex-boyfriend cheated on her with another man and she “got my lick back, turned a n***a to a knick-knack (To a knick-knack).”

If more Black women were honest about their mental health journeys, we'd all be able to loosen the grasp of the unattainable need for perfection and validation-driven anxiety.

But her inner monologue interjects again, telling Doechii to be present and “take a second and kind of unpack what's happened to you/You know, this guy cheated on you and—” However, Doechii continues rapping like nothing’s affected her because she is finally finding success in her career. “Nah, f**k it,” she says.

The disconnection from her emotions to her body is clear when she says, “I'm movin' so fast, no time to process/But we ain't got time to stop, the charts need us (And they do).”

She hops to 2023. Her career is thriving, she has multiple TikTok hits and her financial success and freedom fuels her. She raps, “I'm stackin' lots of cheese and makin' money/My grass is really green,” but suddenly her internal world shifts like a crack in the Earth’s core.

She relents, “Honestly, I can't even f***ing cap no more/ This is a really dark time for me/I'm goin' through a lot.”

At this point in the song, Doechii’s anxiety and depression are palpable, beating alongside the song's production. She begins to argue with herself and becomes defensive when asked about her vices.

So she rattles off a laundry list of her coping mechanisms in the fast life. She raps:

“I mean, f**k, I like pills, I like drugs/I like gettin' money, I like strippers, I like to f**k/I like day-drinkin' and day parties in Hollywood/I like doin' Hollywood s**t, snort it, probably would/What can I say? The s**t works, it feels good." 

But it all crumbles like a Hidden Valley granola bar when she admits, “My self-worth's at an all-time low.”

Letting go of the anxiety, from the perspective of an anxious Black woman

This is a reality Black women are all too familiar with in their day-to-day lives. A study from the National Institute of Health found that 14.6% of Black women have depression, 23.7% have anxiety and overall nearly 40% have a mental disorder. However, the Psychiatric Times unveiled that even though Black women have these mental disorders, “Black women are only about half as likely to seek care” in comparison to white women.

Just like Doechii gradually sinking under the weight of her depression, neuroticism, trauma and even ambition, I too also spent most of my adult life (I’m only 25) pretending like I had it all figured out – like I was too cool to feel anything. Or that if I ignored my anxiety just like Doechii, I could pretend I was thriving.

Maybe because I was told as a child to stop crying or that mental health issues are usually prayed away in my upbringing and community. But I was never allowed the luxury to stop and feel because of the incredibly high standard everyone had for me and that I had for myself. The burden felt like a weighted blanket placed around my body and mind. It was like a mental escape room and I repeatedly chose the wrong exit.

For a split second though, I’d ponder if I should let all the noise around me quiet and really feel the emotions under the surface . . . What would it feel like? Would it be like an emotional bomb radiated through my own body? Would I be able to go on if my emotions trumped everything?

With the help of my Black female therapist, I've begun working on this. Therapy has aided me in uncovering that unrelenting strength is beautiful but sometimes for Black women it is a projection of fear and debilitating anxiety. 

This is why for the first time in my adult life, I’m starting to accept that maybe life’s ambiguity is actually what makes it so devastating but also exhilarating. To feel those highs and lows, Black women shouldn’t default to living in a state of numbness. 

It may be easier said than done, but if more Black women were honest about their mental health journeys like high-profile figures like Doechii or even Megan Thee Stallion, we'd all be able to loosen the grasp of the unattainable need for perfection and validation-driven anxiety. Sometimes there's no respectable way to say you're struggling but that's the thing about vulnerability — it can't be neatly packaged up. 

Sometimes you just need to repeat a Megan Thee Stallion bar like "I'm a bad b***h, and I got bad anxiety" and realize you don't have all the answers but life's better that way — it's brighter that way.

“A truly evil guy”: Bannon bashes Musk as MAGA infighting continues

Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon doesn't like the man who currently has the president-elect's ear. 

Bannon went nuclear on Elon Musk in an interview with Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera earlier this week, telling the outlet he wants to have Musk "run out of here by Inauguration Day."

“He is a truly evil guy, a very bad guy. I made it my personal thing to take this guy down,” Bannon said, according to English excerpts published by Breitbart. “Before, because he put money in, I was prepared to tolerate it; I’m not prepared to tolerate it anymore.”

Bannon and Musk's feud began over the Tesla head's support of H-1B visas, and Bannon still cites that as his biggest problem with the nebulous Trump appointee.

“This thing of the H-1B visas, it’s about the entire immigration system is gamed by the tech overlords, they use it to their advantage, the people are furious,” Bannon shared, before saying that Musk should "go back to South Africa."

"Why do we have South Africans, the most racist people on earth, white South Africans, we have them making any comments at all on what goes on in the United States?” he asked.

Bannon said that Musk has "the maturity of a little boy" and worried about the billionaire's meddling in other countries' elections, saying Musk is implementing "techno-feudalism on a global scale."

"I don’t support that and we’ll fight it,” Bannon said.

Fruitless efforts? Not anymore. How to actually eat more fruits and vegetables in 2025

I heard an ad the other day about something called "Quitter’s Day," which falls in early January. It’s apparently the day most people give up on their New Year’s resolutions after a few challenging and seemingly fruitless weeks. (Get it?)

For me, learning about this so-called holiday only strengthened my convictions. While I didn’t make a specific resolution this year, knowing about "Quitter’s Day" would make me even more determined to stick to one if I had.

For many, resolutions often center on dietary change — like eating more fruits and vegetables. If your goal this year is to boost your produce consumption, you’ve come to the right place.

To help you keep your resolution (especially if it’s diet-based), Salon spoke with Nichole Dandrea-Russert, a dietitian and author of “The Vegan Athlete’s Nutrition Handbook”and creator of Purely Planted. She shared tips on increasing your fruit and vegetable intake — whether it’s currently middling or nonexistent — diversifying your options, appealing to picky eaters, and more.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. 

For those especially opposed to vegetables, what are some good gateway' dishes or recipes that might work for them?

Soups are a fantastic way to incorporate vegetables into your diet, especially for those who might be opposed to them. Cooking vegetables, such as leafy greens, not only softens their texture but also reduces bitterness, making them more palatable. When combined with flavorful ingredients like herbs, spices or plant-based proteins, the vegetables blend perfectly and can even enhance the overall flavor of the dish.

Blended sauces, spreads and dressings are another creative and tasty way to include vegetables. For instance, a kale pesto can deliver boatloads of nutrients while masking kale’s natural bitterness with the robust flavors of basil, garlic and olive oil. Similarly, vegetables like squash or cauliflower can be cooked and blended with vegetable broth or plant-based milk to create creamy, velvety sauces. Add ingredients like nutritional yeast, garlic and spices to craft a nutrient-dense, cheesy sauce that’s both indulgent and packed with health benefits.

Speaking of blending, smoothies are a tried-and-true method for sneaking in vegetables like spinach or kale. A handful of fruits such as mango, pineapple or banana can effectively mask the earthy flavors of greens, creating a naturally sweet and nutrient-rich beverage.

Finally, vegetables can be incorporated into mixed dishes such as casseroles, stir-fries and stews. These dishes often include a variety of complementary flavors and textures that balance out and enhance the vegetables, making them more palatable (and perhaps even enjoyable!) for even the pickiest eaters.

Is fruit always healthier raw versus uncooked? Or are you also getting great benefits from, say, an apple pie?

Consuming fruit in its whole, raw form with the skin intact (when edible) generally provides the most nutrient-dense option. The skin of fruits like apples, pears and peaches contains a significant amount of fiber, antioxidants and phytochemicals that contribute to their health benefits. For example, the skin of an apple contains quercetin, a powerful antioxidant, along with much of the fruit’s dietary fiber. Whenever possible, try to leave the skin on when preparing or eating fruit to maximize its nutritional value.

That said, incorporating fruit into baked dishes or desserts is a fantastic way to increase fruit intake, especially for those who may not enjoy it raw. Making healthier versions of apple pie, fruit muffins or berry pancakes can make fruit more appealing and accessible, especially for children or picky eaters. When baking, consider leaving the skin on fruits like apples and pears whenever the texture works for the dish — it’s a small step, but can help retain more fiber and nutrients.

It’s worth noting that cooking fruit can lead to some nutrient loss, particularly water-soluble vitamins like vitamin C and certain B vitamins, which are sensitive to heat. However, many other beneficial compounds, such as antioxidants, can remain intact or even become more bioavailable during cooking. For example, cooking tomatoes increases their lycopene content, a powerful antioxidant. While the same may not apply universally to all fruits, baked or cooked fruit can still offer plenty of nutritional benefits.

Ultimately, the best way to consume fruit is the way that works for you and your lifestyle. Whether raw, cooked or baked into a dish, the important thing is to include a variety of fruits in your diet to enjoy their diverse flavors, textures and health benefits.

How much vegetable and fruits should you be eating per day?

The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended consuming at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day, which equates to about 2 cups of fruit and 2 to 3 cups of vegetables for the average adult to acquire sufficient nutrients for optimal health. That said, research suggests that increasing this amount can provide even greater health benefits.

It's also important to focus on a variety of fruits and vegetables to maximize nutrient intake. Different fruits and vegetables offer unique combinations of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and fiber. For example:

  • Dark leafy greens like spinach and kale are rich in vitamins A, C and K.

  • Orange and yellow vegetables such as carrots and sweet potatoes are excellent sources of beta-carotene.

  • Berries and citrus fruits provide high levels of antioxidants and vitamin C.

Incorporating a rainbow of fruits and vegetables into your meals not only ensures nutritional diversity, but also keeps your diet interesting!

For those struggling to reach these amounts, simple strategies like adding fruit to breakfast, snacking on vegetables with hummus or incorporating extra vegetables into soups and sauces can help you meet the daily recommendation. Aim to incorporate fruit at every snack and vegetables at every meal. 

What are some of your favorite vegetable dishes? 

Stuffed peppers are one of my favorite ways to pack a variety of vegetables into a single, flavorful dish. The pepper itself serves as the perfect edible vessel and roasting it transforms its flavor into a sweet and smoky dreamy delight! The stuffing options are endless, making this a versatile dish for any cuisine.

For a Mexican-inspired dish, fill the peppers with onions, spinach, black beans, brown rice and a blend of Mexican spices. For a Mediterranean flavor profile, try stuffing them with couscous, white beans, chopped asparagus, olives and tomatoes, seasoned with Mediterranean herbs and spices. Or, for an Asian-inspired variation, use a mix of carrots, bean sprouts, broccoli, brown rice and edamame, paired with Asian spices and sauces.

Stuffed peppers are not only fun to make but also a creative way to mix things up in the kitchen while ensuring you’re eating a variety of vegetables. Plus, they’re customizable enough to suit different tastes and dietary preferences.

Another favorite way I love incorporating vegetables is in soups. A hearty vegetable soup is perfect for using up produce that’s nearing the end of its shelf life. Toss in whatever vegetables you have on hand — like carrots, celery, kale or zucchini — along with herbs, spices and a flavorful broth. It’s an easy, comforting and waste-free way to enjoy a nutrient-packed meal. Not only does this help you minimize food waste, which is great for the planet, but it’s also a smart way to save money while making the most of your groceries.

Finally, I personally struggle with consuming fruit daily. One way I incorporate fruit is by tossing juicy pomegranate arils into salads or topping plant-based yogurt with berries for a sweet dessert-like treat. 

Is it enough to just grab a banana or a peach a few times a week and call it a day, as far as fruit intake goes?

While grabbing a banana or a peach a few times a week is a great start, it's generally not sufficient to meet the recommended fruit intake for optimal health. USDA My Plate recommendations suggest consuming 1 ½-2 cups a day as part of a balanced diet for adults. (For children, up to 1 ½ to 2 cups is recommended and for toddlers, ½ to 1 cup is recommended.) 

Fruits are rich in essential nutrients like vitamins and fiber that support various bodily functions, including immune health, digestion and lifestyle disease prevention. They’re also abundant in antioxidants, which fight inflammation.

Incorporating a variety of fruits daily ensures you receive a wide variety of nutrients. Different fruits offer different health benefits — for example:

  • Berries are high in antioxidants, which can help combat oxidative stress.

  • Citrus fruits are excellent sources of vitamin C, supporting immune function.

  • Bananas provide potassium and fiber, supporting heart health and digestion.

So, while enjoying a banana or a peach a few times a week contributes to your fruit intake, adults should aim for 1 ½-2 cups of fruit each day to fully support their health and well-being.

We need your help to stay independent

For especially pesky eaters — or children — what are some good strategies to boost their fruit and vegetable intake?

A great way to encourage picky eaters, especially children, to eat more fruits and vegetables is to incorporate them into their favorite dishes. For example, add finely chopped or puréed vegetables to macaroni and cheese, pasta sauces, tacos or pizza. The familiar flavors of these dishes can help mask the vegetables, making them more appealing.

Another fun strategy is to create DIY food stations. Lay out a variety of colorful vegetables and let kids choose their own toppings for pizza, tacos or even a salad or grain bowl. Giving children the freedom to build their own meals from healthy options not only makes eating more interactive and enjoyable but also empowers them to make nutritious choices. This approach fosters a sense of autonomy and helps establish healthy eating habits they can carry into adulthood.

By combining creativity with flexibility, you can make fruits and vegetables a natural and enjoyable part of their daily diet.

In addition to fruits and vegetables, what else should ideally be prioritized? Nuts, seeds, grains, fish, lean proteins? 

Adopting a plant-forward or a fully plant-based approach to eating is essential for overall health and well-being. Numerous studies consistently highlight the benefits of incorporating more plant-based foods into your diet, including reducing inflammationimproving gut healthlowering the risk of chronic diseases and contributing to longevity.

Plant-based foods like legumes, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds are incredibly nutrient-dense, delivering a variety of vitamins, minerals and fiber in every bite. Unlike animal-based proteins, plant-based proteins — such as legumes, tempeh, nuts, seeds and protein-packed whole grains, like quinoa and buckwheat — contain dietary fiber, which is essential for digestion and maintaining a healthy gut.

Additionally, plant foods are rich in phytochemicals, natural compounds produced by plants that provide powerful health benefits. Many phytochemicals act as antioxidants, helping to reduce inflammation and support heart, brain and gut health. Prioritizing a diet rich in these plant-based options not only fuels your body with the nutrients it needs to thrive but also offers long-term protection against lifestyle-related diseases.