Here's Why Sean Brock Is Willing To Break International Laws For Cornbread

Like barbecue, pizza or, even, apple pie, variations of cornbread recipes are treated like gospel in different regions. The way one makes or prefers cornbread serves as a cultural signifier, essentially communicating, “You’re one of them, or one of us.”

A survey of the cornbread practices across country, and new information about how heirloom varieties of corn are reviving history reveals a complex and sometimes surprising backstory — and one that could make you question your own cornbread credibility.

Let’s start in the time before cornbread. Native Americans began cultivating corn millennia before the first Europeans arrived on the shores of the New World. Dating back to the Olmec and Toltecs, humans began domesticating teosinte, a small, wild grass that looks like wheat with much larger kernels than your average sweet corn.

“Going back to Central America, you can watch the domestication of foods like corn, beans and squash move northward thousands of years ago,” says Sean Sherman, founder and CEO of The Sioux Chef. “I don’t think people think about the history much.”

By the time Europeans arrived on the Eastern seaboard of the United States, massive agricultural civilizations had long been established by Native Americans, who cultivated a wide array of corn varieties.

With that corn, came cornmeal and a range of corn-based fare. Early on, before the Maya, residents of Central America figured out how to nixtamalize corn. Kernels were soaked in an alkaline solution (water and ash). Through that process nutrients like niacin become soluble, allowing the body to absorb more vitamins and fend off nutrient deficiencies like pellagra.

That process has created pozole in the Southwest and hominy in the Southeast.

According to Crescent Dragonwagon, author of The Cornbread Gospels, tortillas, made from nixtamalized corn (or masa) were essentially the first form of cornbread.

But recipes and traditions grew from there. The most basic formulas involved rehydrating cornmeal into a soft substance, like polenta or grits, with cooking fat and some seasoning (ash was the original flavor enhancement for Native Americans) before drying and slicing into bread.

“The Iroquois still have bean and white cornbread,” says Sherman.

That Iroquois white corn was just one of hundreds, if not thousands of corn varieties cultivated across the continent in the pre-contact days. As corn production became increasingly commercialized, many of those heirloom varieties fell out of favor. Flavor was lost.

Today, they’re being brought to life by a small but growing community of chefs, farmers and activists. They are bringing cornbread back to its ancient, flavorful roots.    

The Iroquois White Corn Project is reviving the 1,400-year-old variety that sustained the 4,500 Seneca people who lived in the town of Ganondagan, outside of Rochester, in the 17th century.

Sherman, through his company, has been working to revive indigenous food systems throughout parts of North America, working with Seed Savers Exchange and Anson Mills to revitalize culturally and regionally appropriate seeds with Native American tribes. “We still have hundreds of varieties of corn still out there today,” he says. “These heirloom varieties are extremely sacred, because they’re so rare.“

Today, one of the best known heirloom varieties, and one of the most prized by chefs, is Jimmy Red Corn, an open-pollinated dent corn first cultivated by Native Americans (which tribe is unknown). It was brought to South Carolina in the early 1900s, but it fell out of favor when industrial agriculture arrived in the area. In the early 2000s, it was in danger of going extinct. 

Celeb chef Sean Brock brought it back to life. 

With the help of James Island–native Ted Chewning, who gave Brock his first ears, Glenn Roberts of Anson Mills and professor David Shields of the University of South Carolina, Brock ushered Jimmy Red back into commercial production. It is now on restaurant menus all throughout the Lowcountry and it’s what makes Brock’s cornbread so famous.

“I’d never had cornbread like that before,” says Brock. “Freshly milled out of the field into the skillet, when that cornbread comes out of oven, you crack it open and put your nose into it, you’re transported to another universe, transported to grandma’s table and every table in the South. It’s incredible stuff.”    

Growing up in Virginia, cornbread is a huge part of Brock’s identity. He has Jimmy Red tattooed on his arm and the dish was a huge driver in his desire to open Husk, one of the restaurants responsible for putting Southern fare on the international map. “Growing up, I can’t recall a meal where we didn’t have cornbread,” says Brock. “I think a generation ago, it was on every table every night every day.”

That intimacy is partly what makes cornbread such a hot topic of debate. It’s a defining dish for Southern cuisine, but there are actually three distinct styles of cornbread in the United States. Each one influenced by regional climate, economics and demographics. 

In the South, it started with basic hoe cakes or ash cakes, just a mix of cornmeal and water cooked outdoors over coals on the back of a hoe by slaves in the field.

The big house version was richer, generally a quick bread made with cornmeal, butter, eggs and some form of dairy, “More likely cultured buttermilk than sweet milk because there was no refrigeration. Fermentation was how you preserved foods in hotter climates,” says Dragonwagon.

Within the South, there are cornbread micro regions and family recipe variations, but the rule of thumb is that it’s made with mostly white cornmeal, buttermilk, some kind of fat (bacon drippings, butter or oil), an egg or two and no wheat flour or sugar, often emphatically no sugar, poured into a skillet with sizzling hot butter or bacon fat on top of the stove, finished in the oven. Some versions lack eggs, especially when being used for dressing or stuffing.  

Brock uses buttermilk, lard, one egg, baking soda, baking powder and a bit of cracklin’.

Cornbread muffins are not common and, while there are exceptions to the rule, Southern cornbread tends to be drier and more savory than other styles, designed to be consumed with beans, covered with melted butter or, as was Brock’s family’s morning ritual, soaked in buttermilk like cereal.

Where cornbread is a significant cultural identifier for many Southerners, most Northerners don’t infer much meaning from the dish — except Rhode Islanders. Residents of the Ocean State are so fanatical about their cornbread or johnnycakes that there is a law on the books specifying the correct spelling of johnnycakes — it’s illegal to spell jonny with an “h” on the menu.

There are two styles of johnnycakes in the state, both of which are made from white cornmeal, preferably Whitecap flint corn, formed into round, pancake-like discs.

On the west side of the Narragansett Bay, johnnycakes are thick and heavy, almost reminiscent of tamale dough, and fried.

The ones toward the east, Newport County–style are thin and lacy, griddled, more like a pancake/crêpe hybrid.

Throughout the rest of the industrial north, where corn was often derided, settlers thinned out their cornbread with wheat or rye flour. Yankee-style cornbread, developed by the sweets-loving Dutch who first colonized New York, is sweeter, almost like cake. It’s most frequently made from a 50/50 blend of yellow cornmeal and flour, sugar, sweet or regular milk, leavened with an egg, baked in a cold casserole dish or muffin tin.

These variations in cooking techniques were driven by weather. In the South, where the temperature is often balmy, cooks wanted to limit the heat coming from their oven, so it made more sense to get a skillet screeching hot on the stove, before transferring the pan to an oven. “You wanted it quick and hot, and then to let it die down,” says Dragonwagon.

Up in the frigid North, wood ovens were used to warm the home much of the year. There, cooks poured batter into room temperature pans, cooking the bread at a low temperature for a longer period of time. “This combination of cooking method and ingredients mean that Yankee cornbread is more cakey, like a muffin and Southern cornbread has a distinct texture, grittiness with a nice crunch to the crust.”

The two styles are blended together in African-American cornbread, most likely a result of the Great Migration, when more than six million Southerners escaped to the North. The batter is often quite sweet with a touch of sugar and a blend of cornmeal and flour (generally more cornmeal), cooked Southern-style in a skillet, finished in the oven. It has the grittiness and crunchy exterior found in the South, but with a light, moist texture and a slightly nuanced flavor profile. “That has always been my ideal cornbread,” says Dragonwagon.

Starting about 20 or 30 years ago, a new style of cornbread started to emerge from the Southwest, basic cornbread somewhere on the spectrum between Yankee and Southern with flavorful embellishments like jalapeño, cheese, garlic, finely chopped onion or extra butter or coarse sea salt sprinkled atop. “It’s Tex-Mexy, not a distinct kind,” says Dragonwagon. “It’s like somebody took family cornbread recipe and started adding stuff.”

While that elaborate transition seems like the obvious evolution of one of the continent’s oldest dishes, it’s kind of funny that the real trend in cornbread has been looking back to the distant past.

Over time, Brock — the man who could be credited with cornbread’s current moment — has softened his strict no-sugar, no-flour cornbread dogma. But there’s one ingredient for which he will not deviate: He refuses to use grocery store cornmeal when he’s cooking abroad. “When I’m faced with that dilemma, which I’ve faced many, many times, I cannot bring myself to cook something that tastes like the cardboard box it came it.”

Instead, he vacuum seals Jimmy Red and smuggles it in from all over the world.

For him and many others, cornbread is a statement. You’re going to be judged by what you put on the table. Know your history, choose your ingredients well, and you have a chance at earning respect.

 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

What The Senate GOP Health Bill Will Mean For Opioid Treatment

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

After weeks of closed door meetings lead by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republicans unveiled a discussion draft of the Senate’s health care replacement bill on Thursday.

Although the draft was billed as a fresh overhaul of health care, it’s not much different than the House bill that passed last month, which the Congressional Budget Office reported would leave 23 million Americans without insurance by 2026. The CBO tweeted that it plans to release its evaluation for the Senate health care plan early next week.

The draft proposed eliminating most of the taxes the Affordable Care Act imposed on businesses and wealthy Americans, limiting tax credits for middle-income individuals who buy insurance and defunding Planned Parenthood for at least one year. It also called for phasing out the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, which has allowed millions of uninsured people to get coverage. The new bill would also nix the open-ended guarantee of federal funding to states and instead give states pre-determined lump sums per state or per person enrolled. The Republican proposal also makes it easier for states to waive essential benefit requirements for health care services such as mental health and addiction coverage.

Should the bill pass in its current form, funding for opioid and addiction treatment would plummet.

Dramatic Medicaid cuts could spell trouble for opioid treatment options, given that around 1.3 million Americans are currently receiving Medicaid-funded mental health and addiction treatment, according to Harvard and New York University researchers.

Repealing Medicaid expansion would deplete behavioral health coverage, which includes opioid addiction coverage, by $4.5 billion, the researchers report.

The Senate draft did include $2 billion for grants “to support substance use disorder treatment and recovery support services for individuals with mental or substance use disorders” in 2018.

But it’s not clear exactly what kind of treatment would fall into those categories. 

Moreover, the $2 billion is far short of the $4.5 billion expected to be lost by repealing Medicaid expansion.

 

A one time fund of $2 billion for addiction and mental health treatment “is pocket change” Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University told HuffPost.

“Medicaid spends more than twice that every single year so this is a massive cut to services and will likely lead to more opioid overdose deaths,” Humphreys said.

As it stands, overdoses are the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50.

And since addiction is a multifaceted disease, treatment and recovery are often more complicated than getting an individual to simply stop using opioids. 

“One of the things we’ve seen over and over again is that when you give people supplemental services around addiction treatment — you take care of their pain, you take care of their depression, you take care of their unmanaged hepatitis C, they’re more likely to recover,” Humphreys told Stat News.

“It’s sort of like saying we’re going to treat somebody’s pancreas but not touch the rest of them. It’s really hard to do that with people,” he added. “Things tend to be interconnected.”

Congress debates the fate of funding for opioid treatment

Still, as Russell Berman noted in the Atlantic, since Senate budget rules include a “vote-a-rama” session in which both parties can offer amendments, it’s possible that the low-level opioid grants in McConnell’s draft are meant to change. Giving senators like Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who previously advocated for $45 billion over 10 years to fight the opioid epidemic, ownership over opioid-related amendments. The additions could make them more likely to vote for the ultimate bill because they’d get credit for those improvements. 

Republicans argued their health care legislation would directly address the opioid crisis with $2 billion in grants for substance abuse treatment. But when asked whether that money would adequately offset their bill’s deep cuts to Medicaid, GOP senators said the $2 billion was merely an opening salvo. 

I continue to have real concerns about the Medicaid policies in this bill, especially those that impact drug treatment at a time when Ohio is facing an opioid epidemic.
Rob Portman (R-Ohio)

“It starts a segregated fund of $2 billion that can be renewed annually and likely will be increased over time,” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) told HuffPost on Thursday. “I think it starts the conversation in that direction.” 

“There’s more that we’ll be doing about opioids,” added Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). 

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested that the crisis needed to be addressed separately.

“That problem is very deep-seated obviously,” he said. “Opioids is a big enough issue that by itself it needs to be addressed.”

Portman on Thursday said that he was still reviewing the bill. But he specifically cited its effect on opioid treatment as a key concern about the legislation.

“I continue to have real concerns about the Medicaid policies in this bill, especially those that impact drug treatment at a time when Ohio is facing an opioid epidemic,” he said in a statement.

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats assailed Republicans for including a fraction of the needed funding meant to address the crisis. 

“Lives will be put at risk because of this heartless, cruel measure,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said in a speech on the floor of the Senate.

There’s no end in sight for the nation’s growing opioid crisis

According to a New York Times Upshot analysis published earlier this month, the opioid epidemic continues to worsen: Drug overdose deaths are projected to exceed 59,000 for 2016, a 19 percent increase from the previous year ― the largest such increase in recorded U.S. history.

Overdoses aren’t the only negative health outcome linked to opioids, either. Complications can include mental health problems, respiratory suppression and infection from intravenous drug use, all of which drive up opioid-related hospitalizations.

Between 2005 and 2014, emergency room visits linked to opioid use rose 99 percent and inpatient stays increased 64 percent, a report published this week by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found.

That rise resulted in more than 1.27 million hospitalizations due to opioid-related complications in 2014.

McConnell wants senators to vote on the bill next week.

“McConnell is rushing a healthcare bill to the Senate floor that will threaten millions of lives by heartlessly cutting life-saving opioid treatment,” Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs with the Drug Policy Alliance said in a statement on Thursday.

“We know that yanking away health care from people who struggle with addiction dramatically increases relapse and overdose rates,” he added. “We know that any rollback of the Medicaid expansion will profoundly exacerbate the opioid crisis.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Donald Trump's Comey 'Tapes' Flop Is Just His Latest Self-Inflicted Controversy

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

President Donald Trump admitted Thursday he actually doesn’t have recordings of his private conversations with former FBI Director James Comey, putting to rest a weeks-long controversy entirely of his own making.

Trump kicked off the frenzy in May, just a few days after he abruptly fired Comey. Anticipating the ousted official would soon share his side of the story, Trump hinted he had “tapes” of their meetings that should make Comey think twice about what he says publicly. 

Despite calls from both sides of the aisle to release any such recordings, Trump and his staff played coy. White House press secretary Sean Spicer repeatedly refused to say whether recordings existed, while deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders wouldn’t say if a recording system even exists in the White House. 

Trump himself teased the matter as something he would reveal to the public “in the very near future.” 

But as pressure grew for Trump to release recordings if they exist — including from the House intelligence committee, which is investigating potential collusion between Trump’s campaign associates and Russian officials to influence the 2016 election  — the president finally admitted Thursday that he doesn’t have any tapes.

“I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings,” he tweeted.

Beyond hurting his credibility, the May tweet undeniably made the Russia investigation worse for himself — it directly contributed to the appointment of a special prosecutor, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, to oversee the case. 

As Comey revealed while testifying before the Senate intelligence committee earlier this month, Trump’s tweet prompted him to leak details of his meetings with the president to the New York Times.

“My judgment was, I needed to get that out into the public square, and so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter,” Comey explained.

Comey also said he had a specific goal in mind when leaking his detailed memos about their conversations.

“I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel,” he said. 

That’s exactly what happened, one day after the New York Times reported on Comey’s memos. 

It’s just the latest example of Trump finding himself in a mess of his own making. In just five months as president, he’s also tweeted his way into courts blocking his executive orders, raised credibility-damaging theories about voter fraud and whether Trump Tower was wiretapped by the previous administration and prompted questions of whether he obstructed justice. 

Here’s a look at some other self-inflicted Trump controversies. 

His first days in office were overshadowed by his boasts over his inauguration crowd size.

As photos at the time clearly showed, there simply weren’t as many people at Trump’s inauguration as there had been at previous ceremonies on the National Mall. Nevertheless, Trump boasted of his “record” crowd size, claiming his was the best-attended in history. While this was a flagrant lie, Spicer spent his first press briefing room appearance defending the claim and accusing the press of misrepresenting the truth. 

The whole matter overshadowed the president’s first week in office, as the White House scrambled to defend the claim, regardless of the facts. (White House adviser Kellyanne Conway’s now-infamous claim of “alternative facts” was born during this controversy.) 

His own tweets and comments helped lead courts to block his travel ban.

Multiple courts considering Trump’s executive order temporarily banning travel to the U.S. from six Muslim-majority countries cited the president’s tweets while arguing that the ban is unconstitutional. 

“[T]he President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the ‘countries’ that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s ‘travel ban,’” read a ruling the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down earlier this month, citing a Trump tweet. 

Trump’s words also helped lead a court to block his order attempting to cut off federal funding for so-called “sanctuary” cities. In that ruling, handed down in April, a federal judge cited past Trump comments to illustrate the true intent of the order.

He fired Comey in part because of the Russia probe, which in turn added fuel to the investigation. 

Firing Comey arguably made the Russia investigation much worse for Trump. The move prompted calls from both sides of the aisle for an independent investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. And as Trump himself told NBC News’ Lester Holt, he considered “this Russia thing” when deciding to terminate the FBI director, further raising questions about whether Trump was interfering with the investigation by firing the man leading it. 

Trump also made the investigation worse for himself in several ways. According to Comey, he suggested the FBI end its investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, asked Comey to pledge his loyalty to the president and urged him to “lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation. All of those allegations, which Comey laid out in his Senate testimony, have raised the possibility that Trump attempted to obstruct justice. 

He made unfounded claims about voter fraud and whether former President Barack Obama surveilled his Manhattan residence — both of which hurt his credibility. 

While Trump’s short tenure has so far been marked by hundreds of falsehoods, there are two unsupported claims that have stood out as the most potentially damaging to his credibility.

The first is his assertion that millions of non-citizens voted in the 2016 election.

While there is no evidence to support that claim, there’s now a White House commission investigating it. That audit was recently scaled back due to a lack of funding.

The second is his unsubstantiated claim that Obama’s administration wiretapped Trump Tower.

While intelligence agencies and congressional investigators said no such wiretapping happened, Trump repeatedly stood by the claim until abruptly distancing himself from it in May.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

What You Need To Realize About Putting Yourself First

I like to think I’m a good friend.

I always am ready to listen, to be a shoulder to cry on, to give advice should the situation warrant it. I give pieces of myself to my friends to hold on to. I give out little pieces of my heart and soul to help my friends feel better and feel supported and feel loved. I give so much away that sometimes, I’m not sure what I still have for myself.

I’m not sure when it started, but slowly and surely, some of my friends stopped giving me something back. At first, I accepted it – thought okay, she had a bad day and she needed to vent, so it’s okay that she didn’t ask how my day was. I allowed my friends to put all their problems on me. I was happy to help them. I’m always happy to help them.

But then, it became that every day was a new complaint, a new problem. And instead of finishing their rant and then checking in with me, it ended with me apologizing because I was at work so I couldn’t really talk or I didn’t have solid advice to give considering I’d never found myself in similar situations or saying sorry because I felt that if I apologized, I could shoulder some of their pain and take some weight off their shoulders.

BUT WHO IS HOLDING SOME OF THE WEIGHT ON MY SHOULDERS?

Some days, it feels like the weight of some of my friends’ worlds is on my shoulders. And it feels like no one is willing to listen to me for a change, and to give me a piece of themselves to have as comfort.

And then, some of my relationships disintegrated into unanswered texts and broken plans until they needed something. Some of my relationships broke into cracked pieces of friendships that would only be used when something went wrong in their lives. And some of my relationships are simply…gone.

But.

I promised myself this summer that I wouldn’t allow anyone to make me feel like I’m not worthy of their time. If I’m putting effort into a relationship, I told myself, that person has to put effort into the relationship too.

And most importantly, I finally started putting myself first. I started to try to believe more in myself than I believe in other people.

Because this is my fatal flaw: I am a people pleaser. I’d rather be miserable and everyone else be happy than let anyone else in the group be upset and me get my way. That’s just how I am.

But this summer, with some of my friends essentially abandoning me and ignoring me, I said:

I’M DONE.

I express myself more in that I say what I want. I tell my friends what I want and need and think more. My plans come first. I’m finally living the life I should be living. My friends are treating me better.

It’s liberating.

Now, instead of waiting for a text to be answered or a complaint to be finished, I’m more at peace with myself. Of course, I’m still disappointed in some of my friends when they act terribly to me, but I’m learning not to be.

I will always be a people pleaser. I don’t know how not to be one. But now, I can be a people pleaser and please myself at the same time. I don’t have to sacrifice what I want to my friends anymore. I don’t have to sacrifice my self-worth, my happiness, or my time to people who can’t even answer a text message. I am slowly collecting the pieces of myself I gave away and people discarded, not understanding how valuable I really am. It’ll take some time to retrain my brain to think this way, but it’ll happen, and I’ll be better off for it.

And that’s the most pleasing thing of all.

Originally written by Emily Bernstein on Unwritten.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

This Couple Is Having A Republican Health Care Bill Reveal Party!

This expecting couple is having a reveal party! Not to discover the sex of their child, but rather to find out what’s inside the GOP’s health care bill that no one has read.

Everyone has been beside themselves with anticipation, awaiting the revelation of the Republicans’ very secretive health care bill. What is it??

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Aubrey Plaza Spent Some Quality Time Smoking Pot With The Weed Nuns

Aubrey Plaza plays a foul-mouthed Medieval nun in her new film “The Little Hours,” so it’s only natural that the actress recently spent some time with the unconventional Weed Nuns.

Plaza spent close to an hour smoking pot with Sister Kate and Sister Evie, and the whole thing was captured by WatchCut in video uploaded on Wednesday. 

The self-described Weed Nuns belong to California’s Sisters of the Valley, whose mission is to empower women and heal with cannabis products.  

Plaza asked the nuns several questions about what they do, including why they decided to become nuns and what vows they’ve taken. The nuns also gave Plaza some weed from their own stash and showed the actress how to properly cut a cannabis bud. 

In the end, Sister Kate gave her review of Plaza’s new movie “The Little Hours.”

“I was really offset to hate that movie and I ended up really liking it,” she said. When Plaza asked why she felt that way, the nun responded that the trailer she saw was filled with “trashy” moments. But once she saw the full film she found it to be “a delightful story.” 

″[The movie is] raunchy, but the Catholic League said ‘raunchiest’,” Sister Kate continued. “No, it’s not the raunchiest. You haven’t watched any nun porn movies.”

“You’ve seen nun porn movies?,” someone asks from behind the camera. 

“Yes, I can’t believe I said that,” Sister Kate responds, while laughing. 

Watch Plaza and the Weed Nuns get high in the video above. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Despite More Losses, Democrats Say They Can Win The House In 2018

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

WASHINGTON ― House Democrats lost two special elections this week, meaning they’ve lost four consecutive special elections since Donald Trump became president. But they’re still feeling good about taking control of the House in 2018.

“Momentum is real. We can win back the House in the fall,” said Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “History is on our side.”

He told reporters during a call Thursday that Democrats are primed for victory in 2018 despite this week’s defeats, which included Democrat Jon Ossoff’s high-profile race against Republican Karen Handel for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. For starters, he said, Trump’s favorability is below 50 percent ― and, in some areas, even 40 percent.

“No president that’s been below 50 percent has ever picked up seats in their first midterm,” Lujan said. “We know the president’s approval rating will drag down Republicans going into 2018.”

It doesn’t help Trump that he appears to have admitted he’s under federal investigation for possible obstruction of justice. And he’s currently trying to usher an extremely unpopular bill through Congress that would strip health benefits from millions of people while cutting taxes for rich people.

Beyond that, Democrats expect a surge in pick-up opportunities in the midterms. There are 71 Republican-held districts that have fewer GOP-leaning electorates than Georgia’s 6th District, which has long been a conservative stronghold, according to the Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voter IndexThe fact that Ossoff lost by 3.8 percentage points when, per historical trends, he should have lost by more than 20 points, is a victory of sorts for Democrats.

DCCC executive director Dan Sena conceded that “a loss is a loss” in Georgia, but pointed out that all four special elections this year ― the others being in Kansas, Montana and South Carolina ― were in solidly GOP districts that never should have been in play for Democrats. And in each case, Democrats exceeded expectations. 

“Republicans are spending more money than they have ever had to spend to defend special election seats,” Sena said. “We are going to make Republicans fight for every single inch next year. We have already shown our ability to do that.”

It’s a rather rosy picture given that Democrats just keep losing. And beyond polling and data, Democrats will have to resolve some internal fighting if they plan to present a unified front. This week’s losses spurred a fresh round of finger-pointing on Capitol Hill, with some Democrats saying they signal that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) needs to step aside.

“We need a winning strategy, and I think the first step to getting to a winning strategy is a change in leadership,” Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) said Thursday on CNN.

“We have to look at this very soberly and seriously now, because we are coming off just loss after loss after loss,” she said. “I don’t want to sit in a room and hear the conversation that, ‘Guess what? We’re not losing as badly as we did a year ago! Isn’t that great?!’ No.”

Pelosi has weathered calls for new leadership in the past ― and in the handful of cases where someone in her caucus has gone up against her, they have lost. Her respond to critics this time around is basically the same: Bring it on.

“My decision about how long I stay is not up to them,” Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill, adding that she welcomed the prospect of a fight. “I love the arena. I thrive on competition, and I welcome the discussion.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Here's What It's Like To Lobby For Refugee Lives

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

WASHINGTON ― On a hot D.C. summer day on Tuesday, seven refugees from Texas made their way to the office of their home state senator, Ted Cruz, to do what one does in the nation’s capital: lobby.

They gathered near a stairwell in the Russell Senate Office Building to run through their talking points. Two of them would share their personal stories of coming to the U.S. Another two would ask the senator, through the staffer they were meeting, to support admitting at least 75,000 refugees next year and to help fund aid for them in the U.S. and abroad.

They waited calmly at his office as visitors came and went. After a few minutes, a legislative assistant ushered them into the marble-floored hallway outside, explaining that a meeting room was occupied. They talked for about 25 minutes just outside the office door. The staffer didn’t take notes.

Despite it all, they ended up pleased with how the meeting went. Later, in a huddle farther down the hall, they remarked on how the aide seemed knowledgeable about refugee issues and compassionate and interested in what they had to say. One of the refugee agency staffers who accompanied them ran through a questionnaire.

How would they rank the Cruz staff member’s reactions?

A four out of five, most said.

Did she seem receptive to their issues?

Yes.

Should they cultivate a relationship with the office?

Yes.

The former refugees had come to Washington for the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service Leadership Academy, where they had spent the last few days training and strategizing on how to help new arrivals and convince politicians that it was right and humane to do the same. It was the fifth year of the program, with 48 former refugees from 17 states participating.

This year is different from the last four. Now they are operating in the age of Donald Trump, who wants to cut the number of refugees to be resettled in the U.S. and bar them from entry for at least four months. The Texas advocates are facing an anti-refugee wave at the state level that Trump tapped into nationally. Texas takes in the second-highest number of refugees of any state, but its Republican leadership has echoed the president’s approach, last year taking the extreme move of dropping out of the resettlement program, making it the largest state to do so. Gov. Greg Abbott has also tried to bar Syrian refugees from the state entirely. And while Republican officials in Texas can’t legally keep refugees out, they’ve done their best to say they are unwelcome.

“Our state is not friendly toward refugees and immigrants,” said Justin Nsenga, a former refugee from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and now executive director of Partners for Refugee Empowerment. “[But] we are not a burden to the state of Texas. We are not a liability. We are a contributing community, a contributing population. One voice will not make any difference in Austin unless we are together.”

Despite the open hostility that is exhibited by their state ― or perhaps because of it ― refugee advocates feel an intense urgency to change minds. That includes Cruz, who supported measures to bar certain groups of refugees and backed Trump’s travel ban, which is now blocked in the courts. The former refugees knew that having a positive reception from congressional staffers wouldn’t change much, if anything. But they felt that if they met the staff in person, they could work to maintain and grow relationships within the state. After visiting Cruz’s Washington office, Nsenga suggested that they reach out to Cruz’s offices in Texas as soon as possible to request meetings, since they take some time to schedule.

They hoped for the same thing at their meeting with a staffer for Sen. John Cornyn, another Texas Republican, set for an hour later. First they walked to the Capitol, where Cornyn has an office, with a quick stop for pictures, and then in line for security ― where a police officer jokingly asked them if, as Texans, they were armed ― and then back to the Senate office buildings, where the meeting had been moved to.

At the Cornyn meeting, they were seated in a room and, this time, the staff member took notes. The former refugees didn’t want to get too political, so they didn’t bring up Trump or his executive orders. They also felt they didn’t need to: It was clear they disagreed with the orders when they asked that the U.S. admit more refugees than he wanted.

This time they decided to also ask what they could do to win the senator over. They said the Cornyn staffer told them that his office gets a lot of calls expressing concerns about refugee resettlement and hardly any from people who support refugees.

“She said, ‘You can help by educating fellow Texans about refugees,’” Emmanuel Sebagabo, a former refugee from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said afterward. Sebagabo now works for Refugee Services of Texas.

It was a tangible bit of information that the former refugees felt could serve them well. They believe many Texans actually do support refugee resettlement, particularly now that it’s under threat. After Trump’s executive order, the number of people who wanted to volunteer to help refugees shot up so much that some groups stopped accepting new volunteers. They had too many to train, plus, the number of refugees coming into Texas had dropped even as relevant portions of the orders were blocked by the courts. About 1,100 refugees resettled in Texas from February to the end of May, down from about 3,000 from last October to the end of January, when Trump took office.

“There’s kind of a gap between state leaders and the community itself,” said Basel Mousslly, a former refugee from Syria who now works in Houston as a resettlement supervisor at Refugee Services of Texas.

Churches, community groups, Islamic associations and schools have also offered their help to refugees in the wake of the orders. So the former refugees knew they had support in Texas and the country at large. There are people who have shown up at rallies and offered to help newly arrived refugees settle in.

But politicians, these groups discovered, don’t necessarily register that. They don’t base their policy positions on whether constituents set up apartments for people resettling in their states, and they haven’t been universally moved by protests against Trump’s executive orders. Politicians care about getting elected and reelected; they care about doing what their constituents call on them (literally and figuratively) to do.

It’s a basic principle of advocacy, but it can get lost when activists are focused on more immediate matters, like getting people resettled in a new country. Now up against Trump, Abbott, Cruz, Cornyn and other Republicans, the refugee advocates got a reminder that they can’t forget about the politics. They need to convince more fellow Texans that refugee resettlement is a good thing, but that requires combating messages from politicians who spread fear that refugees can be dangerous. They need to convince those who support refugees to not just offer places to stay, warm meals and social services. They need them to call politicians’ offices and show up at town halls.

The former refugees know that making Trump, Cruz or Abbott suddenly support broader refugee resettlement would be a Herculean task, but perhaps they can persuade them to calm down their rhetoric. 

On Tuesday, they got a chance. Two members of the Trump administration showed up at an event for the academy, even though the president has discussed refugee resettlement almost solely as a potential avenue for terrorists to enter the country and twice attempted to temporarily halt it entirely. The speakers, from the State Department and the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services, referenced the need to keep communities safe. But they also spoke about refugees as an asset to the U.S. ― the message advocates at the academy hoped to get across.

“It’s really good to be here,” Scott Lloyd, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, who was appointed under Trump, told the LIRS academy participants during a breakfast briefing that morning. “I thank you. It’s a chance for me to meet the people who really, really give our program a heart and soul and a human face.”  

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

House Science Committee Flouts Ethics Rules By Promoting RNC Press Release As News

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

The House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology promoted a GOP press release hailing President Donald Trump in its daily press clippings email, in a move that appears to bend House ethics rules.

The email, obtained by HuffPost, functions as an internal newsletter to inform staffers, committee members and their aides about news related to the committee’s work. But on Thursday, the first of 20 items in the email linked to a Republican National Committee memo entitled “Trump Remains Focused On His America First Agenda Despite Media’s Distractions.”

The roundup has included links from dubious sources before, including the British tabloid the Daily Mail, right-wing outlet Breitbart News and RT, a Kremlin-funded propaganda network. But a source with knowledge of the situation said this is the first time the email distributed Republican campaign materials.

House ethics rules prohibit “using official resources for campaign or political purposes.”

A spokesman for the House Ethics Committee declined to comment. Kristina Baum, a House Science Committee spokeswoman, blamed the algorithm used to populate stories on the email roundup, but said the including the link didn’t break any rules. 

“The results curated from our automated clip service send keyword mentions to our committee on a daily basis,” Baum wrote in an email to HuffPost. “The article mentioned appears to conform with our understanding of House ethics rules, based on conversations with the House Ethics office.”

The Center for Responsible Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, told HuffPost the rules are hazy on internal resources like the newsletter. 

“If there is an issue with it, it is probably pretty minor,” Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman told HuffPost by email. “Essentially, this falls into a gray area, as it’s not linking to something explicitly political.”

The House science committee, once an oasis of compromise and amity between lawmakers of both parties, became a hotbed of partisanship after Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) was named chairman in 2012. Emboldened by Trump’s election last year, Smith, a vehement climate change denier, has used his gavel to harass federal climate scientists and issue subpoenas to litigators investigating Exxon Mobil Corp.’s suppression of climate change research.

Since the election, the committee has gained a reputation for promoting dubious information as news. In December, its official Twitter account linked to a blog post on the right-wing outlet Breitbart News taunting “climate alarmists” with misinterpreted weather data. In February, the committee cited a swiftly debunked story in the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, in a press release alleging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration “manipulated climate records.” 

In a twist, Lamar smeared Science, the prestigious 137-year-old magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as not “objective” during a hearing in March.

“The science committee used to be a low-key, bipartisan committee that accomplished a lot of positive things for the scientific community at large,” Yogin Kothari, Washington representative for the nonpartisan Union of Concerned Scientists, told HuffPost by phone. “Under Chairman Smith’s leadership, it’s really become a site for a heated partisan battle.”

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=5900f0d8e4b0026db1ddabd6,58dbae95e4b0cb23e65d06f5,58d94964e4b02a2eaab64c3b,594aca14e4b01cdedefff432,5898a983e4b0c1284f2718d5

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Stuffed Cow Saves Toddler In 2nd-Story Fall

If you’re going to have a cow, this is the one.

A 2-year-old boy in Chelsea, Massachusetts, may owe his life to the stuffed cow that cushioned him in a fall from a second-story window on Wednesday, authorities said.

“He fell about 16 feet onto concrete. He could easily have broken bones or been very seriously injured,” Chelsea Deputy Fire Chief John Quatieri told The Boston Globe. Police Chief Brian Kyes said the toy “broke his fall.”

The boy, whose name was withheld by authorities, was bouncing on his bed Wednesday afternoon and accidentally sailed right through an open window, the Globe reported. He landed on a concrete slab in the backyard, but avoided serious injury because he had been clutching his beloved 2-foot tall stuffed cow.

The boy’s great uncle, Luis Estrada, said he was shocked when he saw the child fly out the window.

I was paralyzed,” Estrada said, according to the New York Post. “We rushed down to get him and we grabbed him, he was shaken. I thank God for everything, he was watching over us.”

The boy sustained some abrasions and a laceration on his forehead, Quatieri told reporters. He was held overnight at Massachusetts General Hospital for observation and was “doing fine” Thursday, the police chief said.

Kyes sent out a tweet showing the cow also appeared to have survived the ordeal in good shape.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.