2024

GOOD EATS:

Cooking Peppermint Chiffon Pie with Flannery O’Connor (Valerie Stivers, July 9, 2024, Paris Review)

The owner of the Sanford House restaurant, Mary Jo Thompson, wrote a cookbook in 2008 including some of the restaurant’s most beloved recipes. The book is out of print, but a curator from the Andalusia Farm museum sent me the restaurant’s recipe for the peppermint chiffon pie. To my modern eye, the recipe looked unappetizingly dour. It called for evaporated milk, gelatin, and a premade Keebler’s Chocolate Ready Crust crust. The peppermint flavor and pink color came from melted peppermint hard candy, which I thought would be wishy-washy to the eye and the palate.

I decided to make one version of the pie following Thompson’s recipe, and then also to generate my own blown-out recipe using from-scratch techniques and amped-up retro flavorings. Chiffon pie research online, however, turned up wildly different formulas. The “chiffon” designation is supposed to mean a pie with an airy texture that has been created by mixing a custard base with whipped egg whites. But the most common contemporary recipe I ran across asked for packaged vanilla Jello pudding mixed with Cool Whip. The flavor and color came from food coloring and peppermint extract. It technically wasn’t “chiffon,” and it relied even more on ingredients from packages and cans than the Sanford House version. Eventually I made up my own recipe, making a crust from crushed Oreos, a filling from homemade custard mixed with whipped egg whites and flavored with peppermint extract, and a whipped cream topping mixed with crushed peppermint bark and peppermint candy. I would achieve a pink color with a particularly powerful neon-pink gel food coloring.

The comparison project was slightly hampered by the lack of Keebler Ready Crusts in any of the grocery stores I have access to, so I ended up making Oreo crusts for both the Sanford House pie and my own. Fortunately, having a strict comparison didn’t matter in the end. I didn’t need two recipes because you can’t make a bad peppermint chiffon pie. The Sanford House version was mild, minty, and just sweet enough. Topped with whipped cream and drizzled with chocolate syrup, it was heavenly.

THERE ARE NO SPOTTED OR BARRED OWLS, JUST OWLS:

Hybrids between two species can produce “swarms” that flourish (RICHARD PALLARDY, 7/30/2024, Ars Technica)

When two related species overlap geographically, they may form what are called “hybrid zones.” Some of the most obvious hybrid zones occur at the boundaries of divergent ecosystems. A plant species adapted to one soil type may exchange genes with a related plant adapted to another, and their offspring thus develop a population that thrives in an intermediate area with characteristics of both soil types.

These hybrid zones are often quite stable over time, with insignificant introgression, or breeding back, to the parent populations. That’s because the genes that serve the organisms in the hybrid zone may not be particularly useful to those outside of it, so they do not spread more widely.

Sometimes, however, hybridization events become something more. They turn into swarms. The first instance of the term “hybrid swarm” occurred in 1926 in a Nature article about New Zealand flora.

“As far as biologically defining the difference between that zone and a swarm, I’ve been struggling to find a nice, clean definition,” Fant said.

“A hybrid swarm is the ultimate erosion of two species into some other thing that’s a combination of both,” suggested Scott A. Taylor, an associate professor at the University of Colorado who has worked on hybridization in chickadees.

Sic transit species.

WILLIAM FAULKNER DROVE A JEEP:

Civil rights, presidential politics, the Middle East. For 60 years, he covered it all. Writer Michael Oates Palmer talks violent history, ignorant Republicans, journalism on the brink, Mississippi falling backward, sandwich crackers – and a few choice nitwits – with the great reporter at 83. (Michael Oates Palmer, June 5, 2024, Bitter Southerner)

In the car parked outside a church in the Mississippi Delta, the Nobel Peace Prize winner took a bite of cold chicken. In a packed day of several stops, this was the best opportunity the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would find to sneak in a quick lunch. It was also the best opportunity for Curtis Wilkie, the 27-year-old reporter for The Clarksdale Press Register, to ask King a question: “Are you ever frightened?”
King was there to stir up support for his Poor People’s Campaign and its planned march on Washington for economic justice. Wilkie had followed him from stop to stop that day, including the tense situation they had just weathered in Marks, a tiny town surrounded by cotton fields.

King was about to take the pulpit of Silent Grove Baptist Church when a disheveled white farmer walked in through the front doors. The farmer reached into his pocket – Wilkie braced himself – only to pull out a $100 bill. He handed it to King. The Civil Rights leader thanked the farmer, who turned to the crowd of 200 and insisted that, contrary to what others told them, Ain’t nobody hungry in Mississippi. Some tense words were exchanged, but the farmer finally left, the standoff defused.

From the shotgun seat of the car, King answered Wilkie. “No, I’m not frightened,” he said. “I move without fear because I know I’m right. I’d be immobilized if I was afraid.”

Wilkie believed him. This was not bravado. King had shown no fear in the confrontation inside the church.

“Besides,” King said, “the climate of violence is gradually decreasing in the South.”

It was March 19, 1968. A little over two weeks later, King would pause his Poor People’s Campaign to make a detour to Memphis to support striking sanitation workers. There, as Wilkie would write more than 50 years after that interview in the Delta, “the modern prophet had an appointment at his personal Golgotha.”

  • • •

It’s Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and everything in Oxford, Mississippi, is closed.

That includes the expected public institutions: the post office, the schools, the Lafayette County Courthouse in the center of the square. But Ajax Diner, City Grocery, even the bibliophile’s Valhalla, Square Books – they’re dark today, too. A winter snowstorm had blanketed the town overnight, shutting everything down. With Ole Miss students still on winter break, everything would feel empty anyway. But now? It’s almost eerie.

Driving slowly south of the square, just a few blocks from Rowan Oak, Faulkner’s home, I turn off Lamar, the main drag, and onto a block between streets named Lincoln and Grant. (To further complicate the terrain, Mississippi still pairs MLK Day with the state’s observance of Robert E. Lee’s birthday.)

I pull into the driveway of a handsome single-story cottage, firewood stacked next to the unlocked front door. I let myself in.

I have been here many times. I’ve petted that old gray Persian cat giving me the evil eye from the kitchen counter. I’ve admired and studied the stacked and stocked bookshelves, filled with first editions of novels and biographies and history, most with broken bindings or torn dust jackets. I hear the words come on back, so I walk through the house to its main bedroom.

That’s where I find, in a leather armchair at the foot of a neatly made bed, my reason for coming to Oxford.

He looks much the same as he did when I last saw him, 10 months earlier. Maybe a little thinner. The full head of unruly white hair that resembles that of trial attorney Gerry Spence, or maybe Lyndon Johnson after he left the presidency and let his freak flag fly. The thick beard that, when paired with the scally cap he sometimes wears, makes him look like the featured guest at a Galway poets festival.

And then there’s that voice, one that makes every joke, story, insight, or profanity somehow sound gentle and authoritative at once: coming down from Mount Olympus, only whispered. He says the words that felt like a medal pinned to my chest the first time I heard them, years ago.

“Hey, buddy,” says Curtis Wilkie.

WHO WILL STOP THIS SENSELESS SLAUGHTER?:

Woman in a Red Raincoat (Clellan Coe, July 10, 2024, American Scholar)

In William Trevor’s story “A Meeting in Middle Age,” such a reversal almost happens. The story is about two strangers, a woman and a man. She is an unhappy wife wanting a divorce, which in mid-20th century Ireland meant supplying evidence of adultery. He is a lonely bachelor who, for a fee, agrees to play the part of the co-respondent by spending the night with her in a hotel room. As planned, they meet up on a train, then spend the evening visibly together, first in the hotel bar and then in the grill-room, before retiring to the room for the night. She, Mrs. da Tanka, is the more worldly one. “You must not feel embarrassment,” she tells him early on. “We are beyond the age of giving in to awkwardness in a situation. You surely agree?” Mr. Mileson doesn’t know how he feels.

During the evening, someone makes a wrong comment, someone is impatient, someone is rude, and, little by little, anger builds, bickering erupts, and personal remarks are made by these two strangers. They insult each other. Through the night it continues. Facing each other the next day in an empty carriage of the train, it goes on. Mrs. da Tanka taunts him with his solitary life. “When you die, Mr. Mileson, have you a preference for the flowers on your coffin? It is a question I ask because I might send you off a wreath. That lonely wreath. From ugly, frightful Mrs. da Tanka.”

Mr. Mileson, who has tried on other occasions to imagine his funeral, is taken off guard and answers. “Cow-parsley, I suppose.”

“Cow-parsley?” she echoes. She is surprised. She remembers cow-parsley from her happy childhood days. She remembers sitting in the sun amid bunches of it. “Why did you say cow-parsley?” she asks him, twice. He doesn’t know, and he doesn’t answer. She tries to say something, but after the night they have passed, she can find no words that fit. She looks at him, imagining a different outcome to their meeting. She pictures them strolling out of the hotel, arm-in-arm, discussing and agreeing which direction to turn. On the train, he senses something and wants to speak, but his suspicion of her is too strong, and the words die on his lips. The two go on in silence. They leave the train together at their stop, then separate. The love affair that might have developed never gets a start, both people having joined in to ruin a chance.

WITCH HUNTS ARE A FUNCTION OF WITCHES:

The Case of the Missing Chacmools: Soon after New Age icon and bestselling author Carlos Castaneda died in 1998, a group of his most loyal followers vanished, and many believed they’d made a suicide pact. Geoffrey Gray investigates the writer’s bizarre cult and finds himself entangled in a web of murky financial dealings, sex, possible foul play—and one death-defying supernatural being. (Geoffrey Gray, June 20, 2024, Alta)


Spirituality was Dee Ann’s escape hatch. She started reading New Age books, hanging out in sweat lodges, spending time with the local hippie set. It was the late 1970s, and, eventually, the inevitable next step was to head west, to move to California and find her guru.

“That was her mission,” Chris says. “To find a man who would take her to the next spiritual level.”

Chris remembers the scene in 1985 or 1986 when Dee Ann moved away. She packed a bag and jumped into a convertible with some new friends. Dee Ann left her two young children with Chris, and the kids screamed and cried and hollered as their mom sped off and abandoned them.

“She was laughing her ass off,” Chris says. “She was free. She was free from the chains.”

Dee Ann had wanted her sister to come with her. Together, they could escape, she promised. But Chris didn’t go along, and that was one of the last times she ever saw her sister. After moving to Los Angeles, Dee Ann found her guru: the famous writer Carlos Castaneda.

She joined his cult and became a witch—as his female followers called themselves—or a chacmool, a word from ancient Mexico for revered statues depicting guardians of the gods. As part of her initiation, she changed her name. She became Kylie Lundahl.

Then she disappeared. Days after Castaneda died, in the spring of 1998, Dee Ann and five other chacmools mysteriously vanished. More than 25 years later, they are still missing.

“SEE HOW DEEP THE BULLET LIES”

This Is Not an Escape Story: At 15, Darlene Stubbs walked away from a polygamous cult—then discovered a new life and community through running. (PAIGE KAPTUCH, JUN 5, 2024, Runner’s World)

May 2019. She is hard to miss. Her ankle-length dress is a flash of deep maroon against the chalky concrete sidewalk. Her French braid, thick and graying, sags as if trying to pull her down. She has to be miserable, running in the 90-degree heat of a southern Utah summer with a collar buttoned up to her chin, sleeves down to her wrists, in a dress with huge puffy shoulders.

She lumbers up the hill, grimacing as she reaches the top, and then turns and charges back down, the hem of her dress swishing over dirty white Reeboks. At the bottom, she turns around and does it again.

Hill repeats. In a prairie dress.

The old-fashioned uniform is unmistakable. She is a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the FLDS. But running? My previous encounters with fundamentalist Mormons in the area had given me the impression that exercise, much less running alone, isn’t something women are supposed to do.

SITUATION NORMAL:

A Prudential Way Forward in Trump v. United States (Philip Bobbitt, July 29, 2024, Just Security)

The issue in Trump v. United States, however, turned on the prudential necessities of executive authority that were repeatedly stressed in the majority opinion.

The Framers “sought to encourage energetic, vigorous, decisive, and speedy execution of the laws by placing in the hands of a single, constitutionally indispensable, individual the ultimate authority that, in respect to the other branches, the Constitution divides among many.”  They “deemed an energetic executive essential to ‘the protection of the community against foreign attacks,’ ‘the steady administration of the laws,’ ‘the protection of property,’ and ‘the security of liberty.’” (citations omitted)

If, as I have argued,[7] the reflections of the framers and other observations from the past can be effectively used outside the narrow frame of historical argument per se, the prudential nature of the quoted words should not confuse us. Moreover, prudential imperatives are often invoked both in historical arguments[8] and doctrinal arguments.[9] Where the distinction matters is in cases of first impression like this one. Then the power of historical argument is at its weakest – – we would not want the ratifiers’ original conception of global warfare as a series of naval engagements to govern our construction of the president’s war powers – – and, by definition, doctrine and precedent.  A case of “first impression” is, by definition, unprecedented.

The problem is a prudential one, as evidenced, not contradicted, by the Court’s reference to our founding history:

In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminded the Nation that “a Government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable.” 35 Writings of George Washington 226 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1940). A government “too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction,” he warned, could lead to the “frightful despotism” of “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” Id., at 226–227.

In many respects, the tests on remand to the district court would be the same whether a structural or a prudential rationale were employed: if the alleged act by the president can fairly be said, presuming good faith, to be an example integral to those official duties that are committed to him alone by the Constitution, he enjoys immunity from subsequent indictment. But there can never be valid constitutional authority to orchestrating a constitutional crime—an offense that would be a valid predicate for impeachment.  He may appoint whom he chooses, but he cannot accept a bribe for doing so; he may make peace overtures to a foreign state with whom the United States is at war but he may not do so acting as an agent for that state, betraying his own country;  he may extract a promise from a foreign state to pursue the harassment of his political adversaries but not by impounded congressionally authorized funds; he may pardon any offender he pleases, but it is a constitutional offense to use the pardon power to entice an informant to remain silent in order to obstruct an investigation into the president’s own criminality.

Such a prudential analysis would respond to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s cogent complaint that the majority in Trump simply does not provide a rationale sufficient to guide the lower courts – – or future presidents – – “ex ante.” The prudential approach would provide protection for the president that should be clearly perceived as consistent with our historic commitment to put the State under law, and it would ring fence a subsequent president from turning the powers of the U.S. government on his predecessor as Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to do in the 2024 presidential campaign. The Supreme Court, in Trump, provides the basis for such a prudential approach going forward.

FAITH IN REASON IS TREASON:

My Conservative Credo (John Dos Passos, Winter 1964, Modern Age)

Somewhere in the middle twenties a Frenchman named Julien Benda wrote a book called La Trahison des Clercs that made a great impression on me. As I look back on it, it was a somewhat superficial work, but its title summed up for me my disillusion with most of the men of letters I had considered great figures in my youth. This was during the period of the war of 1914–18. I was studying at Harvard up to the spring of 1916 and followed with growing astonishment the process by which the professors, most of them rational New Englanders brought up in the broadminded pragmatism of William James or in the lyric idealism of Ralph Waldo Emerson, allowed their mental processes to be so transformed by their conviction of the rightness of the Allied cause and the wickedness of the German enemy, that many of them remained narrow bigots for the rest of their lives. In joining in the wardance the American intellectuals were merely following in the footsteps of their European colleagues. Their almost joyful throwing off of the trammels of reason and ethics is now generally admitted to have been a real transgression against the cause of civilization. I can still remember the sense of relief I felt in taking refuge from the obsessions of the propagandists of hate, in the realities of war as it really was. The feeling was almost universal among the men of my generation who saw service in the field.

Benda analyzed this state of mind with pain and amazement. For two thousand years he saw the people we now tend to describe as intellectuals, whom he described as les clercs, as having been on the side of reason and truth. As he put it, although helpless to keep the rest of mankind from making history hideous with hatreds and massacres, they did manage to keep men from making a religion of evil. “L’humanité faissit le mal mais honorait le bien.” Surveying the racial hatreds, the national hatreds, the class hatreds that rose from the wreck of civilization in that most crucial of the worldwide wars, he concluded, “On peut dire que l’Europe moderne fait le mal et honore le mal.”


Western civilization is only just now beginning to recover from the carnival of unreason that went along with the military massacres of the First World War. The hideously implemented creeds of the Marxists and the Nazis and the Fascists of various hues were rooted in this denial of humane and Christian values. The task before us is somehow to restore these values to primacy in men’s minds and hearts.

It has been my experience through a pretty long life that the plain men and women who do the work of the world and cope with the realities of life respond almost automatically to these values. It is largely when you reach a certain intellectual sophistication that you find minds that have lost the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

Treason of the Intellectuals (MARK LILLA, DECEMBER 07, 2021, Tablet)

Our century will properly be called the century of the intellectual organization of political hatred. With this one sentence, we recognize Julien Benda as our contemporary. The hatreds he had in mind—racial, national, class-based—are once again our own. When Treason was written, street violence stoked by a hyper-partisan press was common between rival radical factions united only by their contempt for liberalism and parliamentary democracy. In France the most potent political force on the scene was the antisemitic Action Française, the monarchist social movement whose daily newspaper was widely read in elite circles and served as a microphone for the silver-tongued racism of its founder Charles Maurras and nationalist writers like Maurice Barrès. The diminutive Maurras was anything but a street fighter. Instead he invented what might be called the counter-intellectual screed, which can be defined as a ruthless attack on the intellectual class for faults to which one is oneself miraculously immune. In 1905 Maurras published a pamphlet titled The Future of the Intelligentsia (L’Avenir de l’intelligence), which portrayed France’s intellectuals as a déclassé caste that had lost its influence in the age of capitalism and mass democracy, and was now exacting revenge by turning against the fatherland and becoming the puppet of Jewish and German interests. By declaring writers and journalists to be political and racial traitors, Maurras was not too subtly putting targets on their backs.

Two decades later, Julien Benda, a man of the left, published his brilliant riposte to Maurras that turned the accusation of betrayal around. The core of the book, as in Maurras’ own pamphlet, is a highly idealized portrayal of European intellectual life from the Middle Ages until the French Revolution. Benda imagined an honorable class of politically detached thinkers who for centuries had kept their eyes fixed solely on the eternal ideals of truth, justice, and beauty. He called them les clercs, an old French word for scribe that has a whiff of the ecclesiastical about it. Some of les clercs were saints (Thomas Aquinas), some were poets (Goethe), some were philosophers (Descartes), some were artists (Da Vinci), some were scientists (Galileo). What they shared was the sense of a transcendent calling and a commitment to guard it against the encroachment of power and necessity. They were not naïve; they recognized that power and necessity have claims on us, and at times we must bow to them. But they never confused necessity with truth and justice. Even Machiavelli, Benda reminds us, who taught his Prince the strategic use of evil to secure his rule, never called evil good, just necessary.

On Benda’s telling, this class of intellectuals was transformed in the 19th century under the influence of Romanticism and historicism, which lured them into thinking that their task was to shape the world, not simply understand it. In the wake of the French Revolution the strict rule of reason came to seem a paltry thing next to energy and feeling and the march of history and the evolution of the species. If existence is only a blur of pure becoming, the temptation is to enter its flow and participate in the process, bending it if one can. The value of an idea in such a process then becomes its effectiveness, not its timeless truth. And power, whether that of the creative genius, the leader, the race, the nation, a class, or a movement, becomes an idol. In abandoning their critical distance from the mundane world, modern intellectuals of left and right became moralists of realism, Benda charged, the spiritual militia of the temporal, herding the masses toward the next historical end. The scribe’s defeat begins right from the point where he claims to be practical. As soon as he asserts that he takes into account the interests of the nation or the established classes, he is already—inevitably—beaten. The arrow launched against Maurras here reaches its target, and the call to serve truth, justice, and beauty can once again be heard.

WIGGLING:

The Worm Charmers: A Florida family coaxes earthworms from the forest floor (MICHAEL ADNO, Summer 2024, Oxford American)

I wanted to know what spending their life in the woods hunting for worms meant, but I also wanted to know where this mysterious, artful tradition came from. In the UK, there are a handful of worm-charming competitions and festivals in Devon, Cornwall, and Willaston that began in the 1980s and another in Canada that started in 2012. I’d heard of similar events in east Texas, of people using pitchforks and spades as well as burying one stick in the ground and rubbing it with another to coax worms up to the surface. Later, I even found a newspaper clipping from 1970 reporting on the first International Worm Fiddling Championship, in Florida. I searched for a deep well of literature on the practice but found nothing. Certainly, worm grunting predated the Revells. But why did rubbing a stick stuck in the ground with a metal file conjure earthworms? The only way to understand was to follow the Revells into the woods.

TAMP ‘EM UP SOLID:

What Public Opinion Says About the Use of Nuclear Weapons (Jacqueline L. Hazelton, MIT Press Reader)

The U.S. public is widely assumed to believe that nuclear weapons use is bad. But new research by Joshua Schwartz, an assistant professor at the Carnegie Mellon Institute for Strategy & Technology, finds high support for their use, even when foreign countries press the nuclear “button.” […]

Surprisingly, my research finds high support for hypothetical nuclear use, even when foreign countries press the nuclear “button.” In four survey experiments involving members of the public in the United States and India, support for hypothetical nuclear use is the same when an individual’s own country hypothetically uses nuclear weapons as when a foreign allied or partner country hypothetically uses nuclear weapons. For example, in one study on the U.S. public, support for a hypothetical nuclear attack against Iran was no different when Israel carried it out compared to the United States. Overall, I found that the use of nuclear weapons is not taboo in the United States and India. But support is lower when the public considers a non-allied or non-partner country’s hypothetical use of nuclear weapons.