Bernie Madoff victims receiving final payout, will recover 94% of their losses

Fifteen years after Bernie Madoff was sentenced to prison for running the largest known Ponzi scheme in history, a fund created by the U.S. government to compensate his former customers is winding down.

The Madoff Victim Fund is distributing more than $131 million in its 10th and final round of payments, the Department of Justice said in a news release Monday. It will bring the total amount of compensation to $4.3 billion shared among nearly 41,000 people across 127 countries, the DOJ said.

The dark lesson of Bernie Madoff

Each person compensated through the fund will recover almost 94% of their proven losses, according to the DOJ. The department said the last batch of payments is "the culmination of a decade of work identifying thousands of victims around the world and unwinding layers of complex financial transactions.”

The Madoff Victim Fund began compensating people in 2017, with most of the funds coming from assets recovered from the estate of the late Jeffry Picower, who was a Madoff investor and one of the biggest beneficiaries of his scheme, according to the DOJ.

Some victims have also received compensation through court-appointed trustees working to untangle the scam and recover money from investors. Irving Picard, a court-appointed trustee, has distributed almost $14 billion to former Madoff customers, CNN reported.

Madoff, a Wall Street financier and former Nasdaq chairman, was sentenced to 150 years in prison in 2009 after pleading guilty to 11 federal felonies that included multiple counts of fraud. He died in 2021 at the age of 82.

By the time he was arrested at his Manhattan penthouse in 2008, he had been swindling customers for decades through his wealth management firm. It involved him paying off customers with money raised from other customers, not with investment trading gains as he claimed, CNBC reported.

Wealthy families and large charities and universities lost money, but the DOJ said most victims were small-level investors who each lost around $250,000.

about personal finance

How “sad” bananas could help tackle food waste

Bananas are a sociable fruit. They thrive in bunches, bound by a unifying stalk which joins them happily together in curvy yellow brightness.

But what about the ones which get separated from the bunch? Cast aside as single entities, they become isolated and alone.

Research I carried out with colleagues shows that some shoppers feel sorry for these singletons. And it could have big implications for dealing with food waste.

For unsold solitary bananas, more likely to be thrown away than their unsold bunched counterparts, are one of the most wasted types of food. Many food waste reduction plans mention single bananas as a particular problem.

This is a different issue to that of consumers rejecting "wonky" fruit and vegetables which fail to meet aesthetic standards. In those cases, shoppers may be put off by odd shapes or discoloration, despite the food being perfectly tasty and nutritious underneath.

But it seems that perceived "imperfections" in fresh produce can also relate to how the produce is presented. And the problem is particularly acute for bananas that have been separated from the bunches they normally come in.

It seems that many consumers prefer to buy bananas as a collective, customizing bunches to their needs by tearing off any they don't want. The single bananas get left behind.

One strategy used by retailers to boost sales of imperfect food is price discounts. But the German supermarket chain REWE tried a technique which involved grouping single bananas together and labelling them as "singles" which wanted to be bought.

We teamed up with REWE to develop this approach, building on previous research which found that making imperfect food appear more human (by giving them faces for instance, or hinting at body shapes) makes them more appealing.

We made three signs to display above the single banana crates. One showed a "sad" banana with a down turned mouth and the message: "We are sad singles and want to be bought as well".

A second showed a "happy" banana with a smile and a matching message, while a third showed no banana, but the words: "Here are single bananas that want to be bought as well".

Rotating the signs every hour, we observed 3,810 banana shoppers over eight days in two stores. And we found that they were much more likely to choose single bananas when the sad signage was displayed.

Banana split

Moving on to a subsequent online experiment, we found that the sad single bananas evoked compassion in consumers, motivating them to "rescue" the abandoned single produce longing for company. Nor was the effect of sad emotional expressions limited to saving single bananas – it also proved effective in a trial using single tomatoes.

The need to belong is a fundamental human motivation, which we are all more or less familiar with. Witnessing someone (or in this case, something) expressing sadness about this lack of connection seemed particularly effective in prompting a desire to help.

By turning rejection into compassion, retailers can encourage consumers to choose otherwise overlooked produce, preventing it from going to waste. This simple, low-cost intervention serves as a reminder that emotional connections can drive meaningful change in attitudes and behavior.

With annual global food waste projected to double to 2.1 billion tons by 2030, solutions like these can help raise awareness to implement steps towards sustainable resource use.

In industrialized countries, a significant portion of current waste stems from trade standards and consumer preferences that prioritize the perfect appearance of fresh produce.

Giving a sad face to single or imperfect product is not the most effective way of getting people to buy them (we found in another part of our research that price discounts are still more effective). But it is one strategy retailers could use. And it is a useful reminder to shoppers who want to reduce food waste that nobody, bananas included, wants to be left on the shelf.

Lisa Eckmann, Assistant Professor in Marketing, University of Bath

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

“A huge net positive”: Controversial “Squid Game” character challenges Western representation ideals

When the second season of Netflix’s massively popular death games drama “Squid Game” was announced, die-hard fans were desperate to get their eyes on the new characters who would be risking their lives for a shot at a fortune. Part of why audiences find themselves hooked by “Squid Game” and other death game media like “The Hunger Games” is their connection to the story’s main players. We fall for our favorite characters and then spend the duration of the film or series at the edge of our seats, hands clasped, praying that our beloved competitors don’t get caught by a bullet or stray arrow.

But “Squid Game” Season 2 (or “Squid Game 2,” as it’s stylized) added a new ripple to this phenomenon with the introduction of Hyun-ju, aka Player 120, a trans woman competing in the death games to proceed with her transition and leave Korea to make a better life for herself. In an era where queer representation is increasingly dire, including a trans character in the world’s most popular television show seems like a positive — at least on paper.

"Squid Game 2" fittingly plays a different and still very relevant game for its return

Like so many other good-faith representation cases, it was far more complex. Korean actor Park Sung-hoon, a cisgender man, plays Hyun-ju. When Park’s role was revealed, it immediately sparked active conversation on social media about whether casting a cis actor in a trans role was a regressive move, especially with the precarious state of transgender rights around the world. For his part, the series’ creator, writer and director, Hwang Dong-hyuk, told TV Guide that he anticipated the discussions and that there were conversations about authentic casting during Season 2’s production. “It was near impossible to find someone who we could cast authentically,” Hwang said, adding that it was “heartbreaking” that social and political discrimination against queer people in South Korea made authentic casting all the more tricky.

The dialogue surrounding Hyun-ju’s character is one with no clear-cut answer. And, as filmmaker, content creator and fandom expert Jessie Earl says, it’s a dialogue that’s made all the more nuanced by Hyun-ju’s arc in Season 2. “Hyun-ju is meant to be a ‘let’s teach cis folks about the trans experience’ kind of character,” Earl told me over a lengthy chat, a few days after the “Squid Game 2” binge drop. “And it is, I think, the best version of that type of character I’ve ever seen.”

"There's something to be said about Park Sang-hoon, who’s been willing to play queer roles in Korea."

Earl, whose highly popular YouTube channel Jessie Gender insightfully explains how fandom and geekdom intersect with political and social climates — sees Hyun-ju as a major net positive for trans representation, despite the casting of a cis actor. Earl sees “Squid Game 2” as another highly proficient satire of capitalism, one so detailed that it can speak toward larger issues trans characters face in Western media, even without “perfect” representation.

Below, check out the full interview with Earl, who breaks down why Hyun-ju’s arc is critically important for the broader television landscape, how we define good and bad representation when trans rights are under duress, and why she thinks Disney’s decisions to eliminate trans arcs from its shows are spineless and amoral.

Before we get into the nitty gritty, had you already been a fan of “Squid Game”? Did you watch the first season?

The first season was a great analysis of capitalism and how it worked, and a really insightful look at that, especially from a Korean perspective. And then as a trans person who's a “Matrix” fan, I'm always a fan of that genre of, “Let’s make a microcosm, a system, in a very isolated room and play out the dynamics of it.”

What did you think about Season 2 as a whole?

I loved it, and I loved the the way this season references “The Matrix.” At the end of the season, when Gi-hun (Lee jung-jae) is defeated in his rebellion, the main antagonist In-ho (Lee Byung-hun) says, “Did you have fun playing the hero?” [It reminded me of] how the right wing misunderstands “The Matrix.” The right will say, “Oh, we should take the red pill to become the big, strong, tough guy,” whereas “The Matrix” is about forming groups of collective resistance and finding connection with others. It’s also about finding connection with your own internal self to be able to face back against these systems that oppress you. So it's interesting to me that In-ho references “The Matrix” earlier in the season, but assumes Gi-hun wants to play the hero. He's not trying to be the hero. He doesn't want to be, but the bad guy reads his intention as you want to become the hero. And so it ties back to the conversation about how the far right misreads trans narratives and coopts them for themselves.

When we get into Season 2, “Squid Game” is tackling even more social issues, it’s even more interesting because we’re seeing what the show can fit into one work, along with the major capitalism allegory.

And stressful post-election, too. The characters [this season] saying, “I know a bunch of people died, but let’s keep going, because I might make money” is like post-COVID people saying, “Hey, COVID happened, but let’s keep going with this entire process.” Signing people up for death.

When was the first you had heard of the "Squid Game" character Hyun-ju, and what was your reaction, especially to Hwang's statement about how hard they tried to cast a trans actor in the role?

So before I actually saw the season, I heard [about Hyun-ju] when they also announced the casting as well. So that was sort of the big thing on it: They cast a cis man to play the character. But my initial thoughts, after hearing some of the director’s response, there was an element to me that was understanding of the fact that it’s a very conservative space, even more so than the United States. It’d be hard to find someone who can play that role, and especially do it in a safe way. But, and also, there's something to be said about Park Sang-hoon, who’s been willing to play queer roles in Korea, which can also get you into rough waters over there as well. All of that is, to some degree, understandable.

But then there's another side of me that says, “This is a huge hit across the world!” And I'm sort of curious: You couldn't find a Korean-American trans actor who would be willing to take on that role? So there’s that element of it, where I feel they could have found somebody who could have fit the bill; people would have been lining up to do it. The other element is casting a cis man in the role, and this is what I see less people talking about: When you cast a cis man in the role of a trans woman, it still sort of plays into this idea — at least in the United States — that trans women are just men in drag. “The Danish Girl” is my go-to example of something that's meant to be a supportive narrative, but it's spectacle-izing and otherizing the trans experience. So I'm usually very skeptical, especially for hit shows. You couldn't find a trans person? But if we take that at face value, I would still say that someone should cast the gender identity of the person [so someone who identifies as a woman will play a trans woman. Editor's Note: The k-drama "Itaewon Class" cast cis actress Lee Joo-young to play transgender woman Hyun-ji].

One thing I've seen crop up a couple of times in my research was that a few trans folks mention that they don't mind a cis man playing the role, because then you get this non-passing character, and that can be just affirming in its own way for some trans folks. I don't necessarily know if I agree. I think the larger, larger stigma we face is sort of that idea that we’re just men in drag, so I feel like that's a better thing to dispel through the casting.

The discussion is so layered and, in a way, it’s nice that it’s so complex. Because there isn’t a cut-and-dried solution in the context of “Squid Game 2,” it demands conversation, which can be important in and of itself.

No representation can be everything. A lot of the time when we talk about these things, there's a tendency to condemn or say that it should have been one way, whereas my general rule of thumb is that I always want representation. Even if it's messy, or bad, or not perfect, because it allows for conversation. Unless it’s outright harmful, give me the representation so that we can have the conversation about it.

Now that you've watched the second season, I'm curious about your thoughts on Hyun-ju as a character, and separately, your thoughts on how Park Sung-hoon portrayed her.

I think it's the best version of this type of character I've ever seen. This character is very clearly meant to be one of those types of trans characters that is like, “Let's teach cis people about the trans community.” That can be very dangerous when it's written by a cis person, and I've seen it go down very badly. “Squid Game” does it supremely well because it avoids a lot of the typical things that happen. I’ll use “The Danish Girl” as an example again, a movie that spectacle-izes trans trauma. Or with 2017’s “A Fantastic Woman,” that’s just a trans person living her life. Why is she fantastic? Because she's a trans spectacle. [Scenes are] hyper-focused on her trauma and not really allowing her to be her own person. Also, I've never seen a more "cisgender man shot" than a trans woman looking at herself naked with a mirror on her vagina.

"The far right misreads trans narratives and coopts them for themselves."

But “Squid Game 2” doesn't ever spectacle-ize Hyun-ju’s trauma. There are moments of her facing stigma, but they [are presented as] an earnest curiosity and not overly hateful. And you see, over the course of the season, other characters come to understand Hyun-ju’s perspective. There’s the moment later in the season where they all ask to go to the bathroom — and this is where it gets into the other element of the show that I really, really love — [Hwang] never takes the moment to do: Let's show you the trauma of a trans person! Because my first thought was, “They're gonna go to the bathroom and then there's gonna be some TERFy woman in there.” But that never happens. Hyun-ju is just there. It’s not even a big moment of the show.

One of the first real conversations Hyun-ju has with other players this season is about gender confirmation surgery. What were your thoughts on how that conversation and arc were handled?

Normally, I take issue when something written by a cis person is hyper-focused on trans surgeries. “Emilia Pérez” . . .

They’ve got that entire song about gender confirmation surgery.

Yeah, that over-fixation of surgeries trans people can get. But in this context, it makes a lot of sense because the show is quite literally about debt. We’re seeing with the healthcare system right now [laughs] that everyone is feeling a common way about debt caused by the healthcare industry. And trans people, more than most, have to engage with discrimination from the healthcare industry both in cost and generalized stigma. So the surgery conversation makes sense here. It’s relevant. “Squid Game” does a good job of handling it, alluding to the procedures. The show talks about the dynamic without asking, “Which ones did you get? What was it like?”

[Because this character is meant to teach cis people about trans folks], there's a limit on what that character can be, because she is sort of constrained by those [teachable] elements. Hyun-ju has many facets to her, but they all kind of relate back to her transness. Other characters, like Thanos (Choi Seung-hyun) get more dimensions. We know what they do and what they’re interested in. They have gambling debt, or a wife, or we see what they do outside, Whereas for Hyun-ju, we don't really see much of her interests as a person outside of being trans. So there’s still that slight limitation. But it also showcases what I, as a trans person, am kind of looking for. We're seeing a lot of trans hate at the moment, so I think this is a huge net positive.

Representation for transgender characters continues to evolve, and so do our expectations for them. Have you seen the onus of responsibility evolving in American media and among American consumers who watch this media speaking up about representation?

In America, trans people are either this “culture war” topic where, even if we just appear in something, it’s already considered “woke.” Or, when there are trans characters in the media, [the writers] want us to be objects of pity, rather than being part of a group, or a community or a culture. The big example is “Emilia Pérez” [which is directed by a cis man] getting all the nominations and buzz, whereas something like “I Saw the TV Glow” — which is so great at articulating the trans experience in a way that feels universal because it’s written and directed by a trans creator — gets nary a mainstream nomination.

Just a couple of weeks back, news broke that the upcoming Disney+ show “Win or Lose” was cutting a trans storyline from one of its episodes, with reps saying, “When it comes to animated content for a younger audience, we recognize that many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline.” Can you give me just a general reaction to that?

Frankly, they’re cowards. Disney are cowards.

This isn’t the first time Disney has done something like this either, they cut a trans storyline from“Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur” recently as well.

I haven’t watched the show, but I watched the [leaked] episode. It’s done! It’s a done episode, and they’re just choosing not to air it. It is very clearly a response to the election and the culture that we’re moving into of this culture war bulls**t nonsense. You have this cowardly pulling back because Disney as a corporation is an amoral entity. They’re just trying to sell to the biggest audience. They’re trying to sell to every audience, but we live in such a fractionalized culture right now that that’s impossible to do. Whichever way they go, they’re going to piss someone off. What’s even more angering is that the episode of “Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur” is about breaking systems! It’s a trans character who just wants to play volleyball. The episode ends and we don’t get to see who wins the game, just that everyone gets to play. That’s all they want to do.

"I always want representation. Even if it's messy, or bad, or not perfect, because it allows for conversation."

It’s very frustrating, because a lot of the backlash towards trans people from conservative folks is because people only understand trans people through how they are told to understand trans people, or how they are sold to understand trans people, through bigots like Matt Walsh, J.K. Rowling, all those folks. We’re only seen as very shallow representations. The best way to dispel that would be to actually meet a trans person, but art is really helpful in showcasing someone's perspective. When you only show us as shallow representations with no real opinions and perspectives of our own — or as spectacles that need to be pitied — you don’t actually get to know us. And as a result, that's how these narratives can get spun around what it means to be trans.

The Disney statement, in particular, feels like a cop-out.

Put [that statement] in any other context. “Well, we decided not to have the Black character because we want families to talk about that in their own time.”

It’s wildly regressive, especially for animated programming. Just a few years ago, we had a show like “Steven Universe” discussing complicated themes in approachable ways for audiences of all ages. Would you say there’s been a significant change either way in the state of trans and queer representation in the media in recent years?

I generally do feel like it's gotten better, but now we're like a weird moment where I don't think that that's the case, and I think we're going to enter into a period where it is going to get harder. But it speaks to what things like “I Saw the TV Glow” does really well; more of these sort of metaphorical stories that are getting at the emotion of being trans. Something like “Steven Universe” was really good at that for the exact reason. Here’s a kid’s show, where, clearly there was a lot of trans and queer stuff going on. But, it was never the forefront of the show. It was about understanding yourself better. You find power through understanding yourself better. You find power through understanding other people better. That's how you link up and form your Voltron fantasy and get to be super powerful.

It's about empathy and, if there's one theme that I see so much throughout transness – even I have my own film that's literally about this as well – which is, transness is about having empathy for the other inside of yourself, and the other inside someone else.

We were talking about cheering for [the “Squid Game” character] Thanos’ death earlier. What do you feel is the appeal of this genre of death games?

It’s a literalization of the system. Take a system and bring it down to its base essentials and play it out in that regard. This is just a genre that works really well as a conceptual place for creators to put their philosophy. It’s always thematically rich. You can make it capitalistic, too, because you can commodify [death games] very easily. “Look at the ‘Squid Game’ tracksuits, look at the ‘Matrix’ glasses, aren’t those cool?” It’s an easy way to be commercial.

And for us viewers, death games are character-focused in that way that you can have fun with. It’s inherently interesting to say that a bunch of people are going to die — it’s visceral. When a person wakes up alone in a room and we don’t know what will happen next, that genre is powerful.

I like what you said about shoehorning in broader philosophical and sociological concepts into death games. Since you’re a creative who writes and directs as well, how much intentionality do you put behind things like representation in your work?

My movie “Identiteaze” is the same way. Two characters wake up in a room, and stuff happens, so it's a very similar vibe. But for me, a lot of it is intentional, and a lot of it comes accidentally, and then you sort of realize as you're making the art that [characters change as the creative process continues].

That's why I find transness so fascinating as a concept. I’m a white person, I sit in this hierarchy of privilege, but as a trans person, I break this concept of a hierarchical binary, because our society puts things in binaries — men above women, white people above Black people, etc. But being a trans woman in a society that devalues womanhood breaks that inherent hierarchy and makes its arbitrariness all the more visible.

about trans representation in media

Love in the time of delirium: As my mother fell into a strange new reality, I found romance again

Four years after being suddenly widowed, my mother was ready to date. After divorcing my husband of 14 years, so was I. It was the first time she and I were ever single at the same time, yet we had different romantic goals. My mom was going for big love; I just wanted a little fun.

She saw a man once a month for expensive dinners. He was kind, but he didn’t want to do any hugging. My mom wanted to hug. And more.

Now that I was ready to get back out there, I imagined us swapping stories and talking about what we planned to wear on each date, like the best friends we were.

That wasn’t what happened.

The questions “When Harry Met Sally” make us consider today

“The good news is that your mother’s panic and anxiety are lifting,” the social worker said when she called with an update. “The bad news is she thinks she’s in Italy.”

My 79-year-old mother was actually on a locked ward in a psychiatric hospital, where she’d been for four weeks. I had to commit her on Christmas — not because she refused go to, but because she was unmoored in time and space. She couldn’t sign herself in because she didn’t know where she was. While volunteering at an elementary school in October, my mother had fallen and fractured her pelvis. Her body was healing; her mind was not. The fall and resulting hospitalizations triggered delirium which stubbornly refused to lift.

Years of therapy helped me see that my mother and I could be two separate people having two separate emotional experiences at the same time.

My mother had a history of stubbornness. When I was young, she’d talked often of divorce. Yet her complicated 51-year marriage to my father only ended when he died. I guess that’s love, but it also looked like pain. My mother was the weakling; my father was the smartest person in the room. They once did go to Venice together for the wedding of their friends’ daughter. I wondered if, in her delirium, she’d returned there to be with him, or if she was traveling alone now.

During her hospitalization, I did some casual dating. A few hours away from the relentless demands of elder care a few times a week was a welcome respite. I wasn’t looking for anything more than that.

Then I met Andre.

Invited to a New Year’s Eve-Eve party, I decided to wear a black leather dress I’d last put on for my 25th high school reunion. It made me feel bold. I talked to friends and then sat down to listen to music. Someone was playing the piano.

Why do we drink champagne on New Year’s Eve?

“How do you know Doreen and Ayo?” asked the man sitting next to me, with the smooth voice I later found out he’d used to narrate one of Barack Obama’s audiobooks.

I told Andre I’d met the hosts when our kids were younger. We talked about my son and his two children, his work and mine.

“Like any good West Indian,” he said. “I have four jobs.”

“Like any good Jew,” I said. “So do I.”

I said I regretted not learning to play the piano despite the three years of lessons I took in elementary school.

“My mom plays beautifully, though,” I told him. “I mean, she did. She’s in the hospital now.”

He spoke with reverence about his own mother, alive and well in her mid-80s. Venezuelan-born, she’d emigrated to the U.S. from Trinidad with nothing to become a successful movie producer while raising three children and helping her 11 siblings.

A man this good-looking who was also caring and family-oriented? He had on nice leather shoes, tan with red stitching. I was impressed.

We’ll tell people we met at this party, I thought. We’d go back next year, for our anniversary. It was an annual event.

Then Andre stood up and said he was going to get a drink.

“So that’s it?” I asked.

“I’ll find you later,” he said.

Unconvinced, I remembered the first rule of parties: Like a shark in water, keep moving.

Meanwhile, my mother was drowning. She didn’t know it was almost New Year’s Eve, or that she’d fallen two weeks before Halloween, or that Thanksgiving had passed, then Hanukkah. The doctors said her delirium might lift, or it might evolve into dementia. The psychiatrist kept referring to “the tincture of time,” promising we’d know more in three months, or six, or nine.

In my family, it had always been like this: If Mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. My mother’s bipolar disorder had overshadowed my childhood. Her moods had a centrifugal force, pulling in everyone in her orbit. When she was sick, we were all sick.

What if early love was just another form of delirium? It might lift, or evolve into something deeper. We’d only know given the tincture of time.

Years of therapy helped me see that my mother and I could be two separate people having two separate emotional experiences at the same time. A month before I turned 50, I realized that her being in a psychiatric hospital while I was at a holiday party didn’t make me a bad daughter.

On the dance floor later, I saw Andre come downstairs. He made his way over to me. We moved near each other, and then up against each other. At one point the DJ told everyone to grab a partner, and I wrapped my arms around his neck.

“Uh oh,” he breathed into my ear. “We’re in trouble.”

Later, taking a break from dancing, he asked for a kiss, and then for my number. I gave him both.

In the month she’d been in the hospital, my mother mostly thought she was at a school — an institution where she’d felt most at home. She’d held jobs and volunteer positions in elementary education for her entire adult life. In a recent call, she’d cheerfully told me about a celebration for her in the teachers’ room.

“Will you help me write thank-you notes after the party?” she asked. I assured her I would.

“You sound so good. I can’t believe it,” she kept saying. I knew what she couldn’t believe was that I was living a life apart from her. It didn’t mean I didn’t love her. It meant I loved myself, too.

As the party wound down, Andre walked me out and leaned me against my Honda Civic. We kissed again, then we each went into our own cars and drove away. I didn’t know if I’d hear from him, but I did. A first date led to a second and then a third.

One night in January, Andre’s children were at their mother’s, so I went to his place. He’d ordered what I’d told him was my favorite food, sushi. Suggested we watch the beloved movie I’d mentioned, “Terms of Endearment.” Bought the whiskey I drank: Jameson.

Our hours together slipped by. Now I was unmoored in time and space, too.

I wished my mom could find this kind of happiness with her own dream man. The dam between us had always been porous. Now it had burst, and what she wanted most was rushing into my own life.

I wondered if what I felt for Andre was novelty, the newness of initial attraction. I’d never found romantic love to be enduring. I was worried I might look silly to friends I told about him, or get hurt in the end.

But who gets to say what was real? One person’s love could be another person’s lust could be another person’s pain. Maybe someone’s Italy was always going to be someone else’s psychiatric hospital.

What if early love was just another form of delirium? It might lift, or evolve into something deeper. We’d only know given the tincture of time. I told myself it didn’t matter if I felt this way in three months, or six, or nine. I felt this way now. I wasn’t going to back away from it. Instead, I’d going to lean in.

When my mother’s pragmatic sister asked for an update on my mom’s recovery in late January, I told her about the improved mood but continued confusion. My aunt liked rules and order. She was having a hard time with my mom’s delusions. When my mother asked her recently why my father hadn’t come to visit, my aunt answered, “Because he died four years ago.”

I told my aunt I was planning to go along with whatever my mother said, because if we wanted to be with her, we had to step into her reality. My mom’s psychiatrist suggested we pretend we were doing improv with my mother. Take her lead and run with it.

“But how will she feel when she finds out she’s in a hospital?” my aunt asked.

“It doesn’t matter,” I told her. “Right now, she’s in Italy.”

On February 14, my mother was officially diagnosed with dementia. It hurt, letting go of the hope she would fully recover. Holding onto a different sort of hope, I asked Andre to be my Valentine. He said yes.

personal stories about relationships

“You f**king deserve it”: Lemon mocks “dumb” MAGA fans blindsided by Trump backing Musk visa push

Former CNN host Don Lemon mocked the fiercely divided MAGA base for igniting a civil war over immigration after billionaire Elon Musk and President-elect Donald Trump both said they supported H1B visas for skilled foreign workers.

Musk’s support for more skilled immigrants, particularly in tech, angered right-wing immigration hardliners like Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer.

"We haven’t fought these battles over years and years and years to allow American citizens of every race, ethnicity, religion, be gutted by the sociopathic overlords in Silicon Valley,” Bannon said on his podcast War Room on Monday.

Ally Laura Loomer says TrumpWorld "scared" of crossing "king" Elon Musk as MAGA civil war explodes

Even former Trump U.N. ambassador and onetime rival Nikki Haley chimed in to defend American workers. “There is nothing wrong with American workers or American culture,” Haley wrote in response to Musk’s suggestion that Americans were too dumb to innovate technology.

Lemon, who was fired from CNN in 2023, had no sympathy for MAGA’s tech bro-nationalist infighting.

"Oh my gosh, I love this," Lemon said in a 40-minute video posted to his YouTube channel. "Now you’re finding out, you dumb f**ing idiots. Now you’re just figuring this s**t out. You’re so f**king stupid, and you deserve it. And you f**king deserve it because you’re so dumb. It’s hypocrisy. So go with me here. Yes. I am gloating over your stupidity and how you were taken. I’m cracking. I’m cackling – I am. You have been co-opted because you’re in a f**ing cult and you don’t even realize it because you have stupid MAGA brain, and you don’t get it. How stupid and dumb are you?"

Though Trump has previously said the country’s H1B program was “very bad,” he sided with Musk in the feud, asserting that he “always believed” in H1B visas. Despite this support for a small population of immigrants, the president-elect’s top priority remains securing the border and enacting a mass deportation of migrant workers.

Such a deportation would have devastating impacts on the American workforce, Lemon pointed out.

“Some farmers say without these workers, they have about two days that they can run their farms," he said. “And then after that, it’s over.”

about Elon Musk

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott mistakenly sends condolences to Jimmy Carter’s wife, who died last year

Shortly after the death of former President Jimmy Carter on Sunday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott mistakenly wished his condolences to Carter’s late wife Rosalynn, who died in 2023.

“Cecilia and I mourn the loss of former President Jimmy Carter alongside millions of Americans across the country. Our nation remains the greatest beacon of freedom and opportunity in the world because of our fearless chief executives who are our guiding force through the best and worst of times. For that, we owe President Carter our enduring gratitude for his service as the 39th President of the United States,” Abbott said in a statement on Monday.

Flags will fly at half-mast to honor Jimmy Carter during Trump's inauguration

In a later sentence that has since been deleted, Abbott wrote, “Cecilia and I send our prayers and deepest condolences to First Lady Rosalynn Carter and the entire Carter family.”

Rosalynn Carter died Nov. 19, 2023, at the age of 96 after being diagnosed with dementia.

The comment immediately sparked confusion and ridicule online.

“Texas Governor Greg Abbott mistakenly offers condolences to the late Rosalyn Carter on the death of her husband, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Rosalyn Carter passed away on November 19, 2023. Did anyone in the Governor’s Office Proof the Condolence note?” an account representing Democrats in Collin County, Texas, posted on X.

Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter were married for over 77 years, the longest of any presidential couple. Carter, who died at the age of 100, will be honored with a state funeral in Washington, D.C. before being laid to rest in his hometown of Plains, Ga.

about Jimmy Carter

Kate Beckinsale says she was “forced” to do a photo shoot while “bleeding out a miscarriage”

Kate Beckinsale is opening up about troubling on set experiences, including working through a miscarriage.

The 51-year-old British actress shared numerous allegations of harassment and abuse in a four-minute video posted on her Instagram Monday. She began by highlighting the legal battle between Blake Lively and her "It Ends With Us" director and co-star, Justin Baldoni, whom Lively is suing for sexual harassment and retaliation. While Beckinsale said she could not speak on Baldoni and Lively, she acknowledged the impact of their fallout.

The Justin Baldoni fallout: What he's facing after Blake Lively's bombshell lawsuit

“What it has highlighted is this machine that goes into effect when a woman complains about something legitimately offensive, upsetting, harmful or whatever in this industry,” she said.

Beckinsale, who began acting at a four, recalled harassment throughout her career, which included a specific instance where she was referred to as "that c**t" on set when she called out her male co-star for being "drunk every day." She continued, "At one point during a take, I was called ‘you stupid b***h.’”

https://www.instagram.com/p/DEMHIxMRLBs/

Most harrowingly, Beckinsale shared that she was "forced by a publicist" to do a photo shoot “the day after I had a miscarriage.”

“I said, ‘I can’t. I’m bleeding. I don’t want to go and change my clothes in front of people I don’t know and do a photo shoot. I’m bleeding out a miscarriage.' And she was like, ‘You have to, or you’ll be sued,’” the actress recalled.

Beckinsale reiterated that abuse on set "has been going on forever. I have about 47 million stories similar to this." The actress is one of numerous women to come forward about unwanted advances from Harvey Weinstein who was convicted of sexual assault.

The actress added, “I was, at the age of 18, felt up by somebody that I really trusted on a crew."

She explained that she "went to the lead actress, who’s known for being a supporter of women, and said this has happened and was told, ‘No, it didn’t.’ I went to another actress, crying, and said I’d just been assaulted by this man and again told, ‘No, you haven’t been.’”

In Beckinsale's Instagram caption, she concluded, “There are far too many casualties of this, many of whom I know personally, and it really falls to both men and women in our industry to be part of stamping this out for good.”

about this topic

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie finally settle divorce

The chapter on Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's 12-year relationship has officially come to a close.

Pitt and Jolie, once hailed as Hollywood's greatest A-list couple, have reached a settlement in their strained divorce after eight years of fighting, Jolie's lawyer confirmed to People Magazine on Monday.

In a statement, Jolie's attorney said, “More than eight years ago, Angelina filed for divorce from Mr. Pitt. She and the children left all of the properties they had shared with Mr. Pitt, and since that time she has focused on finding peace and healing for their family.

"This is just one part of a long ongoing process that started eight years ago. Frankly, Angelina is exhausted, but she is relieved this one part is over."

All our Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt burning questions about that FBI lawsuit

Pitt's attorney declined to comment.

Jolie filed for a divorce in 2016 after only two years of marriage, citing "irreconcilable differences." According to a 2022 court filing, her decision to divorce Pitt followed an incident on a plane where he allegedly physically and verbally assaulted her and their children, who now range from 16-23.

According to NBC News, a lawyer for Pitt said at the time, "Brad has owned everything he’s responsible for from day one — unlike the other side — but he’s not going to own anything he didn't do."

Local Los Angeles authorities investigated Pitt after Jolie's claims, but no charges were filed, and Jolie chose not to press charges.

During their divorce proceedings, the couple fought over the custody of their six children. Three of their children — Shiloh, Vivienne and Zahara — have reportedly dropped their father's name and now go by Jolie.

Known as Brangelina, the two met on set for the 2004 romance spy thriller "Mr. & Mrs. Smith." Now, Jolie and Pitt are battling each other in a separate contentious legal issue surrounding their joint $164 million French winery and estate, Château Miraval. In 2022, Pitt sued Jolie for selling her portion of the winery. Jolie countersued, stating Pitt was "waging a vindictive war against" her. The case reportedly is inching closer to trial because of the ongoing legal battle.

about this topic

Ally Laura Loomer says TrumpWorld “scared” of crossing “king” Elon Musk as MAGA civil war explodes

Far-right allies of President-elect Donald Trump are continuing to stoke a raging feud with “shadow president” Elon Musk after the billionaire defended visas for highly skilled foreign workers.

The blowup is starting to annoy not only the likes of longtime ally Steve Bannon, but Trump himself, Mediaite reported. “100 percent Trump is annoyed,” a source who worked on Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign told Mediaite. “There’s a Chinese saying: ‘two tigers cannot live on one mountaintop.’”

Musk has quickly gone from tech innovator to Trump’s top donor and most influential supporter. After spending a whopping $250 million to help the 78-year-old get back into office, Musk has become one of Trump’s closest allies and was also tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). His proximity to Trump is more than ideological however. For the last two months, the Tesla founder has been renting one of the cottages on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property, just a few hundred feet away from Trump’s home, The New York Times reported Monday.

"Dire shortage": Elon Musk sparks MAGA backlash after calling for more immigrant workers

The living arrangement has given Musk incredibly close access to the president-elect. Musk has spent hours in Trump’s office at Mar-a-Lago, joined phone calls with foreign leaders and sat in on personnel meetings, The Times reported. Musk is so involved that some of Trump’s allies believe Musk is emerging as a “shadow president,” sources told Mediaite. To a man who has suggested he was anointed by God, such questioning of his rule would likely get under his skin.

“There was likely an allure to it in the beginning but it seemed like it could go ugly,” another Trump insider said of the alliance between the president-elect and Musk. “Trump is Trump. I think it’s just the way Trump is. Someone that is around that much and having influence would be a bother.”

In response to Musk’s growing influence, Trump maintained that he was the one in charge.

“No, he’s not going to be president, that I can tell you,” Trump said at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest on Sunday. “And I’m safe. You know why he can’t be? He wasn’t born in this country.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Though Trump has vehemently downplayed Musk’s role, the billionaire’s influence in Republican politics is hard to ignore. Earlier this month, Musk helped derail a bipartisan government spending bill, posting over 100 times against the legislation and urging Republicans to shut down the government rather than pass it. Shortly after, Trump also lambasted the bill, forcing House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to draft a new version. Musk’s stance sparked criticism and speculation on both sides of the political spectrum.

"The U.S. Congress this week came to an agreement to fund our government. Elon Musk, who became $200 BILLION richer since Trump was elected, objected. Are Republicans beholden to the American people? Or President Musk? This is oligarchy at work," wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders I-Vt., in a social media post.

“We have a president, we have a vice-president, we have a speaker. It feels like as if Elon Musk is our prime minister,” said Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas in an interview on CBS.

The world’s richest man is not only causing concern among Congressional Republicans, but MAGA pundits as well. Last week, Musk and his DOGE co-chair Vivek Ramaswamy ignited a GOP civil war when they publicly supported reforming the country’s H1B visa program, arguing that skilled immigrant workers are essential to innovating America’s technology and building. The comments sparked outrage among MAGA’s immigration hardliners, including Steve Bannon, who said there isn’t a “civil war” over immigrants because Musk is “not tough enough.”

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

“We haven’t fought these battles over years and years and years to allow American citizens of every race, ethnicity, religion, be gutted by the sociopathic overlords in Silicon Valley,” Bannon said on his show “War Room” on Monday.

Musk shot back at MAGA, telling critics to “take a big step back and F*** YOURSELF in the face,” and slammed Americans’ abilities to work in tech. Bannon then called Musk a "toddler."

Despite the outrage from his most loyal base, Trump once again sided with the tech bros. In an interview with The New York Post, the president-elect said he has “always believed” in the H1B program, despite having signed an executive order to restrict access to H1B visas during his first term.

Two days later, MAGA influencer Laura Loomer weighed in on the controversy, slamming Musk for his influence over not only Trump’s base, but Trump himself. In an interview with right wing political commentator Eric Bolling, Loomer cited Musk’s control over the world’s largest social platform, X, and his ability to demonetize anybody he disagrees with.

“I mean, essentially, what is happening — and I love President Trump, I’m not saying that President Trump is bought and paid for — but it sounds like people are scared of crossing the king, the king of the world, Elon Musk, the monarch. Okay?”

about Elon Musk

Mellow, man: Nothing matters when it comes to marijuana

The subject of the day is marijuana, so let’s indulge in a little nostalgia. Do you remember the first time you smoked a joint? I do, and that is part of the problem with pot.

The act of smoking pot back in the day, when it was illegal, was such a special event that you can remember who you did it with and what the whole “getting high” thing felt like. If you’re my age, you can probably even remember the hopes and dreams for pot — with rock and roll music and something called “free love,” which was neither free nor love, would somehow combine to change the world.

Well, I haven’t smoked marijuana for fifty years. I’ve seen the world change, but not in the way that my 20-something self expected. The results of the vote on Nov. 5 should be enough to confirm that. You’ve read all the analysis about why people voted for Donald Trump — they felt forgotten, they were angry, they wanted to get back at the libs … on and on the reasons go, and we know to whom those reasons apply.

When what is going on in this country begins to verge on authoritarianism, not caring is a danger to our democracy and to ourselves.

But what about the perplexing strength of the vote Trump received in urban America and among young people and those with college educations, especially among white voters? His numbers went up in that cohort of our fellow citizens and in those unlikely areas. What accounts for that part of Trump’s vote in 2024?

Post-election poll results have shown what can only be described as jaw-dropping cognitive dissonance in the voting public. In sector after sector, from women to young people to Black people to Hispanics, voters were seen to have voted against their own interests by marking their ballots for Trump. Some analysts have said those voters made the difference in battleground states.

Here's my question: How many of those people were pot smokers?

MAGA’s 2024 win made the case: Make voting in America compulsory

I looked up the battleground states Kamala Harris lost. In every battleground state — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — marijuana is either completely legal or decriminalized to one degree or another. In North Carolina, up to 1.5 ounces is decriminalized. In Pennsylvania, it’s decriminalized by jurisdiction. Every jurisdiction where the Democratic vote went down from Biden’s totals in 2020 had decriminalized marijuana. The same in Georgia — marijuana is decriminalized in Atlanta, Fulton County, Savannah, Macon, all places where the Democratic vote was down from 2020 totals. In Wisconsin, it’s decriminalized in the Democratic strongholds of Milwaukee and Madison. In Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan, possession for recreational use is completely legal.

I may as well come out right here and say what I’m getting at: pot makes you mellow, man. That has been one of its main “positive” effects for as long as people have smoked it. The people behind the legalization of pot going back to the hippie era, the NORML movement crowd, and eventually even those who might be described as more serious who argued for the legalization of marijuana — everyone pointed to its beneficial side effect of making people more peaceful, less likely to get into fights, more accepting of others…mellow, man.

But what if part of being mellow isn’t so wonderful? What if being mellow has the side effect of just not caring very much about who’s running things in far away Washington D.C.?

All those problems in this country — income inequality, lack of health insurance, diminished or completely lacking health care itself, the disappearance of manufacturing jobs, even abortion bans and stuff like homelessness — who can keep up with it all? They’re all problems that can’t be solved.

But if a problem is insoluble, it’s not a problem anymore; it’s just the way things are. I will concede that you don’t have to be high on pot to have a kind of throw your hands up and say forget about it attitude.

There is no evidence to prove that pot smoking may have cost Kamala Harris the election. I doubt there is polling that is specific enough to show what we might call the marijuana vote going toward Trump or away from Harris or even just not showing up to vote. But you can see where I’m going with this. Anything that makes you not care about what happens is dangerous when it comes to democracy.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

So, I’ll just throw in an anecdote. I had a friend in Sag Harbor who had a PhD in economics and spent his life as an official in the United Auto Workers, first as an organizer, later as a negotiator with automakers for big union contracts. He was as militant a union man as I ever met, and I have met a few in my day, and moreover, he was drop-dead brilliant. He could pick apart an argument you made with one or two incisive slashes of history, facts, humor or logic, mostly all four put together in ways you’d never heard before. Talking with him at a morning coffee gathering of like-minded souls was downright thrilling.

Unless he came to coffee stoned, then he just sat there and grinned and nodded, occasionally throwing in a non sequitur that made no sense at all and suffered additionally from not being at all witty or funny, which he always was when he wasn’t stoned. Marijuana had the effect of temporarily disabling him, I guess you could say. Being mellow while stoned isn’t just a side effect of the drug. It can be the effect, and alter your life in ways you wouldn’t ordinarily expect.

I don’t intend this column to be either a jeremiad or a lambasting of marijuana. Here’s another anecdote that presents at least a little hope about pot smoking, if not an actual endorsement. A friend who lived in San Diego, California, has friends in the SDPD who told him that when they got a domestic call out or a noise complaint, when the front door opened, if they smelled alcohol, they would unbutton their holsters. If they smelled pot, they would relax, knowing things would be cool and there would be no violence.

It obviously can’t be proven that there has been some sort of conspiracy to legalize pot to keep the rabble happy and more or less under control. Legalization is too spotty and differentiated to make that case, even when you take into consideration that the legalization of pot for medical use in 39 states has clearly opened the door for its use recreationally, for which it is legal in 24 states.

But in the red states where pot remains illegal, the rabble doesn’t need to be controlled chemically with marijuana. Red state governments pass repressive laws accomplishing that goal very nicely, thank you very much.

It’s the blue areas of the purple states that didn’t hold up their end of the bargain for Democrats in November that worry me. Marijuana isn’t classified as a dangerous drug, but I’m afraid it can have the narcotic effect of making people care less about what is happening around them. When what is going on in this country begins to verge on authoritarianism, not caring is a danger to our democracy and to ourselves. That’s all I’m saying.

of Salon's political coverage from 2024

The return of crony capitalism

The intricate relationships between business tycoons and political powerbrokers have shaped economies and societies since the dawn of modern capitalism. Over centuries, these alliances have taken many forms — some enhancing economic development while others extracting parasitic rents. Yet all of them effectively concentrate power and influence within a privileged club of elites, who co-mingle private capital and public policy in a symbiotic process through which they further their mutual interests.

The MAGA movement’s recent embrace of crony capitalism is consequently just a symptom of a deeper historical trend. From the Medici and the Rockefellers to the Castors and the Gandhis, many powerful families throughout history have hitched their fortunes to those of the ruling class— or even transcended to become rulers themselves. The security, stability and influence that come with access to power has been a treasured asset for those brave enough to seek it, those fortunate enough to secure it and those skilled enough to sustain it. But it can also become a dangerous liability when regimes suddenly fall.

How these cronies move into positions of power ultimately depends on their core values and ideologies about the role of private enterprise in society — especially whether they are inclined to protect their own narrow interests or share the spoils more broadly. Their enduring success also depends on their ability to anticipate the winds of change, particularly in situations where greater political polarization inevitably is likely to produce larger ideological swings.

How unrestrained crony capitalism is making Americans miserable

Countries where political elites have taken a more mutualistic approach to partnering with enterprising families (like the chaebol in South Korea) have achieved extraordinary economic and social progress. Those where the relationship is based on a more parasitic pay-to-play subservience (like the oligarchs in Russia) often flounder in arrested development, as the private benefits of increased commercial activity are captured by extractive elites, inhibiting more inclusive economic progress.

The more parasitic, pay-to-play form of political symbiosis is especially pervasive in emerging and frontier economies, where trust is elusive and institutions are ineffective. In these environments, oligarchic dynasties and familial networks create and sustain privileged microclimates of abundance — though mostly for their own exclusive benefit.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Contrast this with countries like the United States, where a more mutualistic species has dominated economic affairs since the end of World War II, contributing to one of the most dynamic and affluent societies in history. In fact, for nearly a century, the mutually beneficial relationship between business and government has been one of the defining features of the most advanced economies.

Since the end of the Gilded Age over a century ago — back when the U.S. was still an emerging economy — Americans have been less exposed to the more parasitic form of cronyism than was rampant during the Industrial Revolution. Like many developing countries today, that era produced explosive innovation, economic progress and staggering degrees of inequality. It also led to persistent market failures and corporate abuses, triggering an age of widespread social activism and political reform.

Reacting to this concentration of wealth and power, a progressive movement emerged, advocating for new public “institutional” stabilizers like labor rights, women's suffrage, estate taxation, social security, antitrust legislation and effective regulation. These stabilizers were designed explicitly to constrain the dynastic families who ruled the commanding heights of America’s economy at the time — including the Vanderbilts in railroads, the Carnegies in steel, the Rockefellers in oil and the Guggenheims in mining, among others.

Some of these families, like the Rockefellers and Carnegies, embraced these changes and became extraordinarily civic minded, creating national parks through massive donations of land, building universities and museums around the country and funding the national system of public libraries. Whether this philanthropy was designed to appease resentful citizens or motivated by genuine care for their communities is debatable. But their contributions to various critical public goods are undeniable, and they left behind many institutions dedicated to many noble ends.

Others, like the Vanderbilts, transitioned from industrial titans to social elites, focused more on maintaining their extensive real estate holdings, cultural patronage and social status rather than direct business expansion. Still others, like the Goulds, were more thoroughly displaced from their previous position of economic influence as a byproduct of market reforms.

In the decades that followed, as economic growth fueled greater tax revenues, increased funding for these public institutions helped to suppress market failures, address social tensions and invest in critical infrastructures that encouraged speculators to invest, businesses to grow and families to thrive. The shared prosperity generated by this unique mix of public and private sector forces made the American economy the envy of the world, lifting per capita incomes and general wellbeing, and exporting this stability globally.

In many ways, we now appear to be approaching the end of a second Gilded Age, with ominous implications for stability in the years to come

However, over time the foundations of these critical stabilizers have been eroded by subsequent generations of policymakers and lobbyists, keen to extract greater private benefits from the system at the expense of the public good. Recent campaign promises from the MAGA movement echo earlier conservative slogans to “starve the beast.” They openly call for the defunding of public institutions that were responsible for stabilizing both domestic and international affairs —and for creating the conditions necessary for them to accumulate these vast fortunes in the first place. They essentially want to shut the gate behind them now that they’ve reached the promised land, and are now deploying their vast reserves of capital to remake the system in their own image — and mostly for their own benefit.

In many ways, we now appear to be approaching the end of a second Gilded Age, with ominous implications for stability in the years to come. Emboldened by these developments, a new generation of robber barons has recaptured the commanding heights of America’s economy, this time monopolizing information rather than industry. Elon Musk is the de facto leader of these so-called “broligarchs”, both in total wealth and proximity to power. His $259 million investment in building a cozy relationship with Donald Trump has already yielded billions in value for the companies he controls — and that’s before the new president even takes office. Others like Mark Zuckerberg are paying millions of dollars to attend the inauguration, in exchange for favors yet unspoken but which will undoubtedly arrive in the months to come.

As American politicians increasingly look to tech titans and venture capitalists for leadership in economic and political affairs, we should all consider whether these symbiotic relationships are more likely to share prosperity with the many or consolidate it further in the hands of the few. The answer to that question will determine whether the U.S. continues to be a driver of economic development and social progress that sets an example for the rest of the world. Or whether we race toward another quarter century of depression and conflict — operating more like the emerging economy that prevailed at the turn of the 20th century, when stability was still elusive and cronyism was rampant.

Many leaders in New York, London, Toronto, and Sydney — who have been born and raised in a privileged bubble of stability and prosperity — are unfamiliar with how to operate under these more turbulent conditions. They’re accustomed to reliable access to capital, labor, justice and infrastructure, and have little intuition for how to survive and thrive without access to reliable public institutions.

Those looking for guidance and inspiration (or cautionary tales) would be wise to study other parts of the world where institutional voids are pervasive and consequently political symbiosis is commonplace. On the frontiers of capitalism, nurturing relationships with government officials is often a core competency, or even an existential imperative.

To be clear, under ideal conditions, these cozy relationships don’t need to be exclusively extractive — to borrow a term from Nobel laureates Daren Acemoglu and James Robinson. In these contexts, some enterprising families are also the primary drivers of inclusive economic development wherever they operate.

In South Korea, the country’s sprawling family-run conglomerates turbocharged the "Miracle on the Han River" by marshaling capital, technology and labor to industrialize the country at breakneck speed. Similar cases of enterprising families driving economic development can be found in every economy on the planet — from the Carvajals in Colombia to the Tatas in India to the Ayalas in the Philippines. These partnerships have not only generated enduring commercial success for the families themselves, but also accelerated economic development.

Naturally, these benefits are not free, and don’t last forever. Such Faustian bargains always come with strings attached. In South Korea, the collusive links between chaebol families and powerful politicians have recently triggered a string of scandals, culminating in the impeachment of a former president and the arrest of Samsung's family leader for bribery. As it did in America during the early 20th century, public discontent with flagrant corporate abuses often fuels tough new antitrust regimes, threatening the privileged status of these political symbionts after decades of partnership and growth. Well-connected elites like Musk and enabling politicians like Trump would be wise to take note.

As we enter a New Age of Uncertainty, with ominous parallels to the last era of sustained polycrisis a century ago, dynastic families and political elites will both be faced with a stark choice. Do they help to define a new social contract between private citizens, private businesses and public institutions? Or do they make hay while the sun is shining, and keep the firewood piled high, then brace for impact and wait for the long winter to pass?

In moments like this, our research suggests that leaders and organizations committed to continuity have much to learn from enterprising families in emerging and frontier economies, where uncertainty is the rule rather than the exception. Their strong values-based cultures, deep commitment to their communities, and longer-term investment horizons, act like ballasts on a ship — working together to absorb shocks and navigate through treacherous waters.

Any organization can embrace this same frontier mindset. The reward is not only a greater chance at long-term success, but also superior long-term performance. Unfortunately, many traditional corporations have forgotten that commercial success is fundamentally interconnected with community well-being. Or as one Latin American leader shared with us: “There cannot be a healthy business in a sick society.”

Most fundamentally, the private and public sectors must learn to coordinate and collaborate more effectively

Public institutions must also do their part and learn to evolve with the times. There is no doubt that governments that effectively attend to the needs of their people and help solve tangible problems are better. Paying taxes is a demoralizing act when the general perception is that these vast resources are being squandered by inefficiency and graft. In that sense, Musk’s “DOGE” is a step in the right direction, though with many caveats. The work in making government more efficient needs to be done with a scalpel, not a chainsaw.

Most fundamentally, the private and public sectors must learn to coordinate and collaborate more effectively. Restoring trust requires capable, accountable institutions that can set fair rules, mobilize collective investments, encourage private risk taking and protect the common good. The business community also has a central role to play in rebuilding our collective faith in a more inclusive and sustainable form of capitalism — like the more enlightened robber barons at the end of the last Gilded Age.

After all, we all do best over the long-run when we’re aligned with our most important stakeholders — both private and public — in service of a common goal. In that sense, the most enduring enterprises, especially those that operate outside of advanced economies, are a natural role model for the type of organizational resilience and agility that we’ll all need to navigate the turbulent times that lay ahead.

about crony capitalism

Alex Gibney on Putin and the oligarchs
American's real divide
Trumpism vs. capitalism

Book review: A reverent tribute to disappearing creatures

Writers whose subject is the natural world, and the overwhelming changes that humans have inflicted upon it, grapple regularly with a maddening dilemma: how to convey that all hope is not lost, while presenting facts that can bear down on hope like an avalanche.

Hope is often fundamental to action, essential for rousing readers out of complacency; despair, meanwhile, can be an unhelpful emotion when the planet is spinning each day toward deeper environmental crises and feedback loops.

The dilemma points to another question — large, existential, and increasingly urgent: What “action” can people take? What could a single suitably roused reader even do anymore? In Katherine Rundell’s collection of short essays, “Vanishing Treasures: A Bestiary of Extraordinary Endangered Creatures,” the answer begins with a four-letter word we should all do more of: care.

The warrah enigma: Why Darwin was fascinated by this now extinct coyote-like creature

In 22 bite-sized odes to an assortment of creatures (and one less praiseworthy piece on humans), Rundell describes our planet’s living cabinet of curiosities, a gorgeous assortment of wondrous animals deserving of our awe, respect, and solidarity. Through literary references and tidbits of history alongside descriptions of dazzling biology, Rundell conjures a parade of swimming, crawling, flapping, lumbering life. Each tribute is also a plea, and the book as a whole is a solicitation: It’s past time for us to truly see these beings, recognize their majesty, and step up, finally, to protect them.

There’s the narwhal, which mates “in a kind of ballet; a pair will swim alongside each other for hours, skins touching.” And the Hawaiian crow, or ‘alalā, whose range of calls include sounds “like a whistling kettle” and “like Elvis’s yelp,” and which for native Hawaiians serves as one of the guides for human souls after death, when “soul and bird meet, and together they leap into the afterlife.”

There’s also the coconut crab, a type of hermit crab whose claw is so strong it can grip with a force 50 percent greater than a wolf’s jaw. One theory holds that these crabs “crunched” beyond recognition the bones of Amelia Earhart after her plane crashed on the Western Pacific island of Nikumaroro. Hermit crabs are also famously resourceful. “They have been found in tin cans, in coconut halves,” Rundell writes. “I love their tenacity: forging lives from the shells of the dead, making homes from the debris that the world, in its chaos, has left out for them.”

Each tribute is also a plea, and the book as a whole is a solicitation: It’s past time for us to truly see these beings, recognize their majesty, and step up, finally, to protect them.

Rundell’s prose is consistently, insistently, beautiful. She’s something of a wonder herself: an Oxford scholar of Renaissance poetry, an author of children’s fantasy novels including the bestseller “Impossible Creatures,” a biographer, a playwright.

Her bestiary, inevitably, is also a catalog of human greed, ego, and neglect. (A more accurate but less marketable subtitle might read “A Bestiary of Extraordinary Creatures and How We Have Betrayed Them.”) Customs agents in Guangdong, for example, report confiscating seven tons of pangolin scales — the armor of the only mammal with such a coat — in a single shipment into China, and “each ton will have required the death of 1,660 animals. It is a fact so exhausting, so dreary, that it’s difficult to fathom.”

While the book is tough going at times, I wish it could be required reading for those who somehow don’t yet understand what we have lost, what we are losing, and what we can, if we set our minds and hearts to it, still save. (Rundell writes that half her royalties from the book will go toward environmental charities “in perpetuity.”)

“Vanishing Treasures,” which was published in the U.K. under the title “The Golden Mole,” contains examples of all manner of tragic human behavior: harvesting animal parts — rhino horn, badger flesh — as aphrodisiacs (they are not); fishing the seas with massive trawling nets that “devastate the ocean floor”; decimating forests and wetlands.

But some of the most striking examples are not of intentional cruelty or blatant avarice but of simple blind spots. So often we fail our wild cousins by declining to think beyond ourselves. It’s not just about us.

In a chapter on hedgehogs, Rundell writes of how these “delicate, erudite-looking” critters are threatened by something seemingly benign: the popular Guy Fawkes Day bonfires in England. “Come autumn, there is the added risk of hedgehogs taking up residence in bonfires and, on the Fifth of November, being burned alive.”

Surely people could prevent this with a bit of foresight. Because, as she writes, if you had never laid eyes on a hedgehog, you might think they were as mythical as a unicorn. You “would surely travel thousands of miles to see them, such is their peculiar loveliness,” she writes. “These are hard times, and the world is already aflame. The least we can do is refrain from setting alight some of the world’s sharpest and gentlest creatures.”

Such small shifts in behavior could be transformative. All we need to do is think beyond ourselves. What if we collectively stopped believing we have more of a right to thrive on this planet than any of the other animals that also make their homes here? “The greatest lie that humans ever told,” she writes, “is that the Earth is ours, and at our disposal.”

“These are hard times, and the world is already aflame. The least we can do is refrain from setting alight some of the world’s sharpest and gentlest creatures.”

The first step, for Rundell, is just a change of mindset: “We should wake in the morning and as we put on our trousers, we should remember the seahorse, and we should scream with awe and not stop screaming until we fall asleep, and the same the next day, and the next.”

Much as it’s easy to retreat in despair, the lemurs, the giraffes, the sharks and wombats, and actual bats, need our help. And Rundell maintains that there are things we can still do to save these magical, breathtaking creatures: Vote, invest carefully, protest, educate, consume less, refuse to give in to “half-baked nihilism.”

“We humans have shown ourselves capable of change so bold it could knock the breath out of you,” Rundell writes. “Why should we follow the old ways? Were they so perfect as to leave no room for something bolder, tougher, wittier, more equal and more just?”

Above all, she argues passionately, we need to care: “The time to give up is never.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

about extinction

“Concerning” bird flu mutations in Louisiana patient underscores pandemic potential of H5N1

In 2024, at least 66 human cases of bird flu have been reported in the United States, each one raising the risk of another pandemic like COVID-19. So far, most cases have been described as “mild,” which means they weren't hospitalized. No patients have died, though infections years ago had a very high mortality rate. Symptoms have typically included pink eye, but not serious respiratory distress.

However, a patient recently made headlines in Louisiana for being a more severe case. The patient, who is reportedly over the age of 65, was hospitalized and in critical condition due to severe respiratory symptoms.

Last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said a genetic analysis suggests the virus mutated inside the patient to possibly make it a more severe illness in humans. The agency called the mutation “concerning,” as it may allow the virus to better bind to receptors in humans' upper airways. This would make it easier to jump from person to person, sparking major outbreaks or even a pandemic. However, the public health agency said that the risk to the general public from the outbreak “has not changed and remains low.”

Three mysterious bird flu cases worry experts that another pandemic is looming

The CDC also stated that these mutations have not been detected in the bird flock that infected the patient, which would make the situation “more concerning.”

“These changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection (e.g., within a few days of symptom onset) when these changes might be more likely to facilitate spread to close contacts,” the CDC said in its report. “Notably, in this case, no transmission from the patient in Louisiana to other persons has been identified.”

"If that’s not detected and starts spreading in the human population, that’s a very good way to have a pandemic start out of this."

Still, every additional human case gives H5N1 more opportunities to adapt. As a study found earlier in December, it will only take one single mutation to make bird flu much worse. Out of the 66 human cases of bird flu that have been reported in 10 states, including some without reported outbreaks, all but two stem from exposure to either cows or poultry. Human-to-human transmission could be occurring undetected, but so far there is no hard evidence of such transmission.

In an interview with Intelligencer, Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan noted that these exact viral mutations have been seen in bird flu before, nearly two decades ago. The more concerning aspect of the emerging crisis, she said, was how the number of human cases keeps rising.

"Even though this particular virus from this particular case isn’t a huge concern in terms of onward transmission, if we’re having human cases tick up and up and up, we’re going to give the virus more chances to develop mutations," Rasmussen explained. "And if that’s not detected and starts spreading in the human population, that’s a very good way to have a pandemic start out of this."

Rasmussen also underlined the risk of reassortment — the potential for H5N1 to swap genes with human influenza virus, which could supercharge the spread of the pathogen. "That’s essentially like shuffling two decks of cards together, ending up making new viruses that have a combination of segments from both of the viruses that were infecting the person. That can lead to really, really rapid evolutionary jumps and rapid adaptation to a new host," she said.

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

Over the weekend, Dr. Leana Wen, the former Baltimore health commissioner, told "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," that the United States should have learned its lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We should be having rapid tests, home tests, available to all farm workers, to their families, for the clinicians taking care of them, so that we aren't waiting for public labs and CDC labs to tell us what's bird flu or not," she said. “We have 66 cases of bird flu in humans, and this is almost certainly a significant undercount, because we have not been doing nearly enough testing.”

She also urged the Biden administration to approve the H5N1 vaccine.

“There's research done on it,” she said. “They could get this authorized now, and also get the vaccine out to farm workers and to vulnerable people.”

As Salon previously reported, public health experts aren’t optimistic the incoming Trump administration will handle the bird flu situation any better.

“If the Biden administration is not doing a good job, you can only imagine when you have certain individuals who are much more hostile towards these types of government action, it will get worse,” Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Salon.

about bird flu

MAGA was all about “masculinity” in 2024 — too bad they have no idea what that word means

In the press, the intra-MAGA spat pitting wealthy tech bros Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy against the larger MAGA masses has been framed primarily as an immigration fight. That's fair enough, as the tech guys want to keep high-skilled immigrants working in Silicon Valley, whereas the Steve Bannon contingent intends to kick out as many immigrants of color as they can. But one low-key aspect of the dispute is gender, as evidenced by Ramaswamy's colorful insults of the American people.

"American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long," Ramaswamy complained on Musk's X, denouncing a culture that celebrates "the jock over the valedictorian." He mentioned the "prom queen" in passing, but his examples all involved contrasting these two stereotypes of masculinity. "A culture that venerates Cory from 'Boy Meets World,' or Zach & Slater over Screech in 'Saved by the Bell,' or ‘Stefan’ over Steve Urkel in 'Family Matters,' will not produce the best engineers," he griped.

The reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over “native” Americans isn’t because of an innate American IQ deficit (a lazy & wrong explanation). A key part of it comes down to the c-word: culture. Tough questions demand tough answers & if…

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) December 26, 2024

For someone who fancies himself a leader in the MAGA movement, the tweet was deliciously tone-deaf. Anxious hyper-masculinity has always been central to Donald Trump's political cult, but this past year, the trying-too-hard aspects got downright comical. Trump received a major endorsement from podcaster Joe Rogan, whose entire schtick is being the standard-issue meathead who didn't do the reading before running his mouth. Trump's sidekick, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., built his career on shunning scientific knowledge and posting shirtless workout videos. They're the two most prominent examples, but Trumpworld floats on an ocean of masculinity grifters, all hawking useless supplements and assuring followers they, too, can have pecs the size of basketballs.

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

To be certain, Ramaswamy isn't completely wrong. The MAGA coalition also includes a hefty population of bitter nerds, the kinds of guys who lurk on "incel" forums and complain that women are too busy dating beefcakes to notice the larger paychecks of the skinny programmers. (That a woman might care about a man's personality is assumed impossible.) Many of these guys are also big consumers of the masculinity grifters, throwing huge amounts of money away in the hope of finding manhood in a capsule.

MAGA masculinity is such a hazy and contradictory concept that it mostly gets defined by what it's not.

The rift reveals the larger paradox beating at the heart of MAGA: They venerate masculinity, but cannot tell you what it is. Look closely at their manhood discourse and the contradictions are immediately apparent. They insist gender is "natural," fixed at birth, and beyond an individual's power to change. They also treat manhood as a fragile status, easily snatched away by the smallest of choices. According to Jesse Watters at Fox News, merely wishing another man "happy birthday" is enough to remove man status from a person. Manfluencer and accused sex trafficker Andrew Tate declares one emasculated for admiring a woman's beauty. As I wrote about last week, MAGA hype man Josiah Moody claims it's "gay" to have sex with your wife for pleasure. Fox News' list of foods that strip your masculinity away is long, ranging from ice cream cones to soup. MAGA tells trans women they are still "men" despite hormones, surgeries and living as women. Yet to other cis men, they insist "man" is a designation so precious that it can be lost at a moment's notice for the slightest of reasons.

The incoherence is embodied by Trump himself. In the rhetoric of MAGA, Trump is a manly man, and he's often portrayed in cartoons and AI-generated imagery as muscle-bound and virile.

Trump has released the latest round of Trump NFTs, including: Trump crossing the Delaware, bow-hunter Trump, rock 'n' roll Trump.

$99 each. pic.twitter.com/cCrgi55VfD

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) April 18, 2023

MAGA hated Michelle Obama's healthy food agenda — here's why they changed their tune under RFK Jr.

In truth, Trump conceals his 78 years of age with heavy makeup and an elaborate combover. Baggy clothes do not hide his substantial girth. He is so hostile to physical activity that he refused to walk 700 yards with other G7 leaders in Italy in 2017. MAGA tried to use the assassin's bullet that grazed Trump's ear to build up this fantasy of a strapping action hero leader. The reality, though, is he had to be helped to his feet and kept complaining about his shoes, only doing the fist bump when he remembered the cameras were on him.

MAGA masculinity is such a hazy and contradictory concept that it mostly gets defined by what it's not: not female, not queer, not allowed to eat ice cream or say "happy birthday." This ad for a Christian nationalist content network called Canon Press is a darkly funny example. It's just a litany of images of everything that allegedly makes men "cultural cuckolds": seeing gay couples, seeing drag queens, being nice to other people, drinking Budweiser. The most they can cough up as positive attributes of manhood are working out and parenting children. The libs, the queers, and the chicks probably do both on the regular more than the straight MAGA men this ad is aimed at.

Hey, Christian Dad . . . https://t.co/88XyA7kQgT pic.twitter.com/dESNDBeKgW

— Canon Press (@canonpress) December 4, 2023

One of the most telling examples of the emptiness of MAGA manhood this year was, ironically, a story about a woman. Haliey Welch is an extremely normal 22-year-old from Tennessee who found unexpected fame this year as the "Hawk Tuah" girl after she drunkenly described how she likes to "spit on that thang" to one of those irritating man-on-the-street hosts. The joke is mildly funny to liberal America, where no one is surprised that women can have raunchy senses of humor. But more conservative men were apparently shocked like they were cavemen seeing electricity for the first time, because they sent that clip around like it was the most important moment in history captured on film.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Welch strenuously avoided partisan politics in her efforts to capitalize on her 15 minutes of fame, but that didn't stop the MAGA movement from trying to claim her as an icon, pairing her with images of Trump, and claiming falsely that she epitomized "conservative values." Instead of the relentless list of behaviors and tastes forbidden to men, this seemed like an effort to offer something substantive to define MAGA manhood. Welch was being held out as the kind of a woman a MAGA man is permitted — even expected — to be attracted to.

But even though Welch is young, blonde and conventionally attractive, even this feeble effort to put something in the "yes" column for defining MAGA manhood fell apart. There is no way to square the "Hawk Tuah" meme with the reality of the MAGA movement, which is busy banning abortion and electing leaders, like Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who decry premarital sex and erotic self-expression as "sexual anarchy." Welch only became famous because she was enjoying hardwon freedoms the GOP wants to deny women, a contradiction that cannot be squared with trying to make her a MAGA icon. Unsurprisingly, her brand collapsed pretty quickly and she seems set on the path to return to normal, pre-meme life.

No doubt conservative readers will be angry with me, insisting I also cannot tell them what a "man" is. After all, these are the same people who thought it was a great troll to ask liberals "What is a woman?" and elicit confused responses. Of course, when asked the same question, Republicans can't answer, either. The difficulty in answering this "simple" question isn't a bad thing, however. It shows that the real answer is that human beings don't fit neatly into little boxes. A man can be muscular or not, straight or queer, tall or short. A woman can be all those things, too. Hell, a man does not — regardless of what Ramaswamy might say — have to choose between being the jock or the valedictorian. He can be both. Women, too. This is what freedom looks like, but instead of welcoming it, the self-described freedom-defenders of MAGA run as hard as they can to their never-ending list of "thou shalt nots" to define manhood, from drinking Bud to eating ice cream.

about this topic

Black MAGA ends 2024 among the year’s biggest losers

With all of far-right Republicans' electoral and legislative wins this year — chief among them the election of Donald Trump in November — a subsect of the Make America Great Again camp didn't quite come out on top: Black MAGA.

Black ultraconservative elected officials like Florida Rep. Byron Donalds and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott frequently joined Trump on the campaign trail, boosting the then-candidate's outreach to the Black electorate as they sat on the shortlist for his vice presidential pick. While Trump successfully picked up a sizeable share of Black male voters as he notched his electoral victory in November, their efforts to curry favor with the would-be president-elect didn't materialize in sought-after Cabinet positions despite the president-elect's promises to reward his most loyal supporters with high-ranking roles in his administration.

After weeks of rolling out Cabinet picks, Trump nominated only one Black person: Scott Turner, a relatively unknown former Texas lawmaker, ex-football player and motivational speaker. Turner, who worked under then-Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson in the first Trump administration, will return to lead HUD, which has had the largest number of Black secretary appointments out of any federal department.

Mix all that with the escalation in scandal — and subsequent snub — of once-Trump-supported North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson, and Black MAGA's 2024 political performance has left much to be desired.

Veteran Republican political strategist Leo Smith told Salon in a phone interview that Trump's use of Black interests as a way of gaining and maintaining political power has "come to a head" this election cycle.

"So here we are [with] him having made commodities of both candidates and campaign processes in a way that has benefited him and his reacquisition of the White House," said Smith, the CEO of Atlanta-based political consulting firm Engaged Futures.

Donald Trump and Byron Donalds racial stunts are for white racists, not "outreach" to Black voters

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott

Scott's year began on the heels of his failed presidential bid, following the South Carolina senator's withdrawal from the Republican presidential primary in the final months of 2023. Shortly thereafter, he endorsed Trump and became a vocal supporter of the 78-year-old's campaign.

"I just love you," Scott told Trump during the candidate's January remarks after he won the New Hampshire primary. Trump had quipped that Scott must "really hate" then-GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley, who appointed Scott to the Senate while serving as South Carolina's governor, to decline to endorse her.

Scott had long been considered a top contender for Trump's vice presidential pick, and his ardent backing of Trump made clear his interest. The South Carolinian even went on to launch a $14 million outreach effort to mobilize voters of color in seven swing states as the Trump campaign ramped up its appeals to Black and Hispanic voters over the summer.

That bid also failed. Trump chose Ohio Sen. JD Vance as his running mate — and, well, the rest is history.

Smith said that Scott, along with other GOP candidates, has learned to appeal to Trump's interest in the "cult of personality, performative person who raises Trump's profile" and has taken advantage of it.

"They've learned to do that performative presentation quite well, and they learn to have dialog — sometimes thoughtful — in dealing with journalists and public appearances," he said. "But sometimes their dialog is completely gaslighting and raising the performative measure so that they can go viral."

For his part, Scott signaled a lack of interest in assuming a Cabinet position should he be offered one, telling attendees at a Punchbowl News event that he'd prefer to head the Senate Banking Committee should the Senate claim a majority during the election.

"Are these people performing like minstrels?" Or "are these people actually political negotiators who are putting themselves at the table of power at whatever means necessary in order to deliver some results, some critical results, to Black America?"

The Senate's only Black Republican also didn't end the year empty-handed. His Senate colleagues elected him in late November to lead the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which Smith notes is a "pretty powerful position" in its own right.

Scott has been supported by not an "exceptional" political talent but an "opportunistic" one, Smith said, and "he's made good use of the opportunity" in passing policy.

In a press conference following his NRSC win, Scott said he aims to help Trump by working to maintain a GOP Senate majority through all four years of the president-elect's term.

"My passion is making sure that we defend our current seats and expand the map and expand our majority so that President Trump does not have two years with a Republican majority in the Senate — that he has four years in control of making sure that America's agenda comes home to each and every household," Scott said.

The South Carolinian, currently the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, is also expected to become committee chairman in the next Congress following the electoral defeat of the current chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

Florida Rep. Byron Donalds

Like Scott, Donalds, a staunch ally of the president-elect, made frequent appearances on the campaign trail with Trump, ultimately becoming something of a fixture at rallies and a surrogate at events for the now-president-elect as he attempted to court Black voters in swing states.

During a campaign rally in Pennsylvania in September, Trump praised Donalds as one of the "smart ones," a supposed compliment that many read as a racist jab as Trump didn't clarify who the "ones" was referring to.

“That one is smart," Trump told the Johnstown, Pennsylvania crowd after calling their attention to the Florida Republican. "You have smart ones and then you have some that aren’t quite so good.”

In his own efforts, Donalds at times took unconventional methods in spurring Black voters to action. At a "Congress, Cognac and Cigars" event in June, Donalds said during a discussion with a rightwing reporter that Black people had better lives under Jim Crow segregation, in part, because "the Black family was together" and Black people "voted more conservatively." The lawmaker later walked these comments back.

Donalds, who was also on Trump's shortlist (and passed over), was similarly excluded from the gamut of ardent allies the president-elect nominated to leadership roles in his administration — a curious fate to pundits who expected the Floridian to at least be considered for a senior role for all the prostrating he did for Trump in 2024.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

In a November interview with CNN's Laura Coates, Donalds said that Trump did not personally ask him to fill any Cabinet position and that he wasn't "surprised" that he wasn't nominated for a role. He also defended Trump from criticism that he had not then chosen any Black appointees.

"If the Cabinet picks help deliver the America First agenda that Donald Trump wants, this will be an unmitigated success, and every American will be happy with that," Donalds said, in part, when Coates asked if he'd be satisfied if Trump didn't select a single Black appointee.

(After Turner, the ex-lawmaker from Texas, was announced as the HUD secretary nominee, Donalds urged his colleagues in the Senate to support his confirmation.)

Smith said that Donalds likely wouldn't see his exclusion from Trump's administration picks as a snub. Instead, he argued that Donalds is likely waiting to use his rapport with Trump for a potential run for Florida governor in 2026.

"Byron Donalds is the leading candidate to become governor of the state of Florida, and that is what I think he is waiting to cash in his cards on and that he has contributed his influence, his ability to actually do well In journalistic interviews," Smith said.

North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mike Robinson

Despite regularly being steeped in scandal over inflammatory remarks, the North Carolina lieutenant governor started 2024 seemingly at the top of his game. He had strong support among the MAGA base and staunch backing from top Republicans. Trump, who had previously praised him, promised him an endorsement early in the primary cycle, and the state's Republican voters awarded him a sweeping victory in the race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.

And then CNN dropped a bombshell report revealing yet another Robinson scandal.

In mid-September, the outlet linked Robinson to an old profile on an online porn forum that made a series of problematic posts. The user, named "Mark Robinson" with a similar handle and email to the official's other social media accounts, called himself a "black NAZI," expressed support for reimplementing slavery, praised Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and described spying on women bathing in a locker room twice as a teenager, among other sexually explicit conduct.

Robinson strongly denied that he authored the posts, telling CNN, "This is not us. These are not our words. And this is not anything that is characteristic of me."

"I’m not going to get into the minutia of how somebody manufactured this, these salacious tabloid lies,” added Robinson, who had repeatedly quoted Hitler while campaigning.

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

Still, the damage to his campaign was swift and insurmountable.

GOP support for Robinson began to slough off shortly thereafter, with North Carolina Republican officials distancing themselves from him, Republican Party operatives pressing him to drop out and a sizeable chunk of his staff resigning from his campaign. Robinson also appeared to lose backing from Trump, who, while failing to condemn Robinson's alleged conduct, also declined to say whether he would urge voters to support the candidate.

But Smith argued that Robinson never really had full-breasted backing of the state and national GOP, in large part because he was such an inflammatory character. Instead, he said he believes the North Carolina and national RNC were committed to the "fundraising, the attention grabbing and the pure delightful entertainment" that Robinson provided.

"He's found a home in not being judged for [his character flaws] by being a great performer for an audience that likes the performance of Black people before it likes the morality of Black people," Smith said, adding: "In other words, the brother is just being a great minstrel for the sake of exchanging dollars for the show."

The lieutenant governor's political career only plummeted further during the election. Robinson handily lost the North Carolina gubernatorial race, trailing Democratic Governor-elect Josh Stein by nearly 15 points, and was also excluded from the list of Trump's nominees.

This year's election cycle has shown that Black Americans are realizing to a greater extent that they face a double-edged sword when working to obtain political and policy gains as well as resources from the political system, Smith said.

"I think Black Americans are well aware that those gains come with deals with the devil," he said. "Racism in politics and being used in politics as pawns is part of that process."

The new critique of politicians of color like Donalds, Scott and Robinson should be, Smith argued, "are these people performing like minstrels?" Or "are these people actually political negotiators who are putting themselves at the table of power at whatever means necessary in order to deliver some results, some critical results, to Black America?"

about Black MAGA

MAGA’s 2024 win made the case: Make voting in America compulsory

If democracy dies in this country, it can be blamed on people who did not bother to vote last November.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump fought tooth and nail over almost everything. But, in the run-up to the November election, both urged Americans to vote like never before, saying over and over again that “This will be the most important election in the history of our country.”

Yet, despite the stakes of the 2024 election, millions of Americans sat out the election and did not vote. There were about 90 million of them, a number that dwarfs the 77 million people who voted for Donald Trump. Now, with less than a month to go before Trump returns to the Oval Office, progressive commentators have kept up a steady drumbeat of warnings that we are facing a threat to democracy unlike any in American history.

Compulsory voting is not unknown in this country.

The United States can respond to looming threats to democracy by tackling the non-voting problem directly. That means making voting mandatory. Only by doing so do we have any chance to make the political system more democratic and more representative, and thus more resilient.

Before saying more about the virtues of mandatory voting, I should note that by historical standards, turnout in the last three presidential elections was quite good. In 2016, sixty percent of those eligible to vote did so. In 2020, that number was 66 percent, the highest since 1904. 2024 saw a slight decline, with 64 percent of eligible voters turning out for the election. Still, the 36 percent of eligible voters who didn’t cast a ballot in 2024 is a serious problem in a country where democracy is threatened. And, as the New York Times’ Marcela Valdes explains, “Elections, historically, are decided not only by those who cast votes but also by those who don’t.”

This was as true in 2024 as it has been in the past. Another Times reporter, Michael Bender argues, “Mr. Trump won the White House not only because he turned out his supporters and persuaded skeptics, but also because many Democrats sat this election out, presumably turned off by both candidates.”

“The drop-off,” Bender continues, “spanned demographics and economics. It was clear in counties with the highest job growth rates, counties with the most job losses and counties with the highest percentage of college-educated voters. Turnout was down, too, across groups that are traditionally strong for Democrats — including areas with large numbers of Black Christians and Jewish voters.”

These findings should be a cautionary tale for those who see the Trump victory as the dawn of a new era in American politics. Whether it is or not may depend on if the pattern of non-voting that we saw this year continues in future elections.

Election lawyer warns GOP majority plotting new "voter suppression laws" to get "partisan advantage"

Those who did not vote in 2024 were younger than those who voted. The Pew Research Center observes that they also were “more racially and ethnically diverse,…less affluent and less educated ” than those who voted.

Pew notes many reasons eligible voters did not vote in 2024. 35% believed that “their vote would not make a difference.” 31% said they did not vote because they generally do not like politics. Another 17% said they did not vote because they “did not care about the outcome.”

The rest of the non-voters didn’t turn out because they were not registered or voting was inconvenient. 8% said “they forgot to vote.”

Part of the problem of non-voting can be attributed to the fact that “Our system doesn’t make it particularly easy to vote.” Overcoming barriers to voting requires “a sense of motivation that’s hard for some Americans to muster every two or four years — enthusiasm about the candidates, belief in the importance of voting itself, a sense that anything can change as the result of a single vote.”

Those who study American politics have been trying for a very long time to figure out the non-voting problem and how to motivate non-voters to show up. In 1956, Williams College Professor Philip K. Hastings argued that not voting was part of a syndrome of general disengagement from civic and social life. “The non-voters,” Hastings observed, “took part minimally in organized activities and exposed themselves relatively in the mass media. Their political information was comparatively meager, and their attitudes uncrystallized. Non-voters identified themselves more closely with non-political leaders and were generally more isolated and immobile.”

And when, more than forty years later, Harvard’s Robert Putnam wrote the now classic book Bowling Alone, he also saw non-voting as part of a broad pattern of social disengagement.

However, nonvoters aren’t entirely oblivious to the political world. Studies show that around 75 percent of nonvoters pay at least some attention to politics.

Rusk and Ragsdale suggest, "’American nonvoters are not neutral bystanders.’ They’re more like spectators who keep one eye on the score but choose not to join the game.” Drawing them into the game would be good for them and for democracy.

As Valdes puts it, “Casting votes regularly makes you a part of the American system, so you’re not as drawn to ideas on the margins, like socialist or authoritarian appeals.” This is especially important for the millions of young people who don’t vote.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Political parties, candidates, and civic organizations have put enormous effort into trying to turn non-voters into voters, with mixed success. That was as true in 2024 as in any other year.

Still, the non-voting problem persists. That is why it is time to turn to compulsory voting.

Twenty-six other countries make voting compulsory. It works.

Australia has had it for almost one hundred years. As former Connecticut Secretary of State Miles Rapaport and historian Alex Keyssar explain, “In Australia, all registered citizens must vote, and almost everyone is registered; the enforcement mechanism is a fine of about $15, and people can cast blank or “none of the above” ballots to express their indifference to the offered slate of candidates. The result has been turnout of about 90 percent in every Australian election since 1924.”

This country has never achieved that level of participation in any presidential election. The high-water mark was 82 percent in 1876.

Moreover, compulsory voting is not unknown in this country. In the early eighteenth century, Georgia and Virginia used fines to penalize people for not voting. Later, “North Dakota (1898) and Massachusetts (1918) amended their constitutions to allow for compulsory voting, but these states never enacted statutes to implement it.” The Massachusetts Constitution still grants the state legislature the authority to do so.

Our federal system means that states like Massachusetts and North Dakota could lead the way in instituting such systems, and other states could learn from what they do. They should do so because, as Arend Lijphart puts it, “Mandatory voting is a moral issue.”

In addition, wherever it is tried, we can expect compulsory voting to achieve at least two things. First, it will help “equalize voting rates by bringing less participatory groups—typically the socioeconomically disadvantaged—to the polls.” Second, it would send a powerful signal that “voting is desirable” and that citizen participation matters.

As we contemplate the start of Trump’s second term, sending that signal is more important than it has ever been.

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

5 thought-provoking books of 2024

This past year has been a rollercoaster full of political and economic surprises, with surely more on the way in 2025.

It’s not all gloom and doom: Along with inequality, climate crisis and other systemic woes, there were some authors who shed light on the path forward, with practical solutions and global trends we can be optimistic about along with a few fascinating technological and scientific breakthroughs we’ve witnessed.

Whether you’re looking for a last-minute gift or a thought-provoking read as we head into a new year, here are some options.

What Went Wrong With Capitalism

Capitalism is still the predominant game in town if you’re an advanced economy, but we’ve had no shortage of examples of its failings and why it may not be working for everyone.

In "What Went Wrong with Capitalism," Ruchir Sharma charts the rise of the so-called “big government,” oligopolies and the type of economic system that is set up to benefit the billionaire class.

This is the right time for soul-searching: The number of people who expect to be “better in five years” hit a record low in 2023 in 14 of the advanced countries, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer quoted in the book. In the U.S., where Sharma argues the “decline is most jarring,”inequality figures continued to deteriorate in 2024. The U.S. is down in terms of economic freedom rangings from fourth place in 2000s to 25th globally, according to the Heritage Foundation.

Climate change vs. capitalism

While many politicians and authors have made similar claims, the fact that these ideas come from someone from the financial industry — Sharma is chairman of Rockefeller International and chief investment officer of Breakout Capital — gives his arguments additional weight.

“Capitalism is the economic soulmate of democracy, equally fair and flawed,” he establishes early in the book. “With the partial exception of tiny Singapore, no wealthy, developed economy is not a fully formed democracy. And no centralized autocracy has ever grown rich in the modern era.”

The book contrasts America’s capitalist woes with the rest of the world’s financial crises, takes a look at the latest fiscal policies and offers a critique of “Bidenomics.”

Ultimately, Sharma argues in favor of rethinking outdated models of economic policymaking and interventionism.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

“Governments and central banks face few objections, indeed they are encouraged by opinionmakers, to meddle: to force faster growth by injecting rivers of dollars into the economy, to divert capital flows through a concrete latticework of regulation, to nurture even zombies and other invasive species through bailouts,” he wrote. “But the economy is less a machine than a natural ecosystem, less an engine than a complex organism, like a forest or ocean.”

Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy

A recent addition to a chorus of books on the impact of gender bias on the economy and society, "Fair Shake: Women & the Fight to Build a Just Economy by Naomi Cahn, June Carbone and Nancy Levit rests on a premise of a “winner take all economy.”

What’s a winner-take-all model? The authors see it as a system that favors one dominant player, an economy in which “those at the top take a much larger share of institutional resources for themselves.”

A book that opens with a description of a lawsuit against Tesla is condemnation of the male-dominanted, business-as-usual style of corporate governance that has been at the heart of the U.S. economy in the last few decades.

While it was written before the 2024 presidential election, its arguments and warnings seem even more timely after the reelection of Donald Trump and the unprecedented rise of tech billionaires like Elon Musk. The authors trace it back to the rise of executive compensation.

“The transformation in executive compensation brought back the late nineteenth-century robber baron mindset of no-holds barred competition, individualism at the expense of institutions and community, and a zero-sum worldview in which those who ‘win’ by any means necessary become the toast of the town,” they write.

And women, in this retelling, are among the core losers when such a system is in place.

“We have shown that women’s lost ground is a product of those developments and that that the treatment of women is an early indicator of a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many, not just women” the book concludes.

The authors' proposed solution is to “create a powerful countermovement” and to “call out those in power.”

Their account of women who have done so successfully is compelling, and the book does work as a timely warning that a lopsided economic system is unlikely to endure. But there aren’t enough signs or arguments that there is greater awareness or public interest in a more equal, inclusive economy. If anything, this book illustrates how it’s about to become a lot worse, as the key apostles of the “winner take all” economy prepare to take office.

The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth

You may not have been aware of it given all the turmoil going on in the human world, but the plant world is going through a kind of revolution of its own.

In "The Light Eaters: How the Unseen World of Plant Intelligence Offers a New Understanding of Life on Earth," Zoë Schlanger, a climate change reporter at The Atlantic, lays out some of the recent studies on plant life and also the controversy and thrills of scientific discovery surrounding these breakthroughs.

We tend to think of scientific truths as indisputable, but over the years we’ve seen time and again that what we come to accept as scientific truths about the animal world are often heavily influenced by what we, as humans, believe.

Some of the questions that are raised in the book: Do plants have consciousness, similar to what we are learning about dogs and other animals? Has what we’ve been assuming about plants and their life been correct all along, going back to Charles Darwin? Even if some of these newer revelations are true, what would this mean for us as a human species?

While there are more questions than answers about the nature of plant communication and what it means for life on Earth, this book is sure to make you think differently about your household plant pets and how we view plants in general. If these ideas become mainstream or if consumers start raising questions about “plant welfare” similar to animal welfare, what would that mean for the agriculture industry?

“Up until this point, we’ve located intelligence in animals much evolutionarily closer to ourselves, like dolphins, dogs, and primates, our much more recent cousins, but we now know that powerful cunning can evolve completely independently from our own,” Schlanger writes. “A similar tectonic shift is happening with plants, only — for now — more quietly, in the labs and field sites of one of the least flashy disciplines within the life sciences. But the weight of this knowledge is threatening to burst the walls of the container in which we place plants in our minds. Ultimately it may change how we think about life altogether.”

Climate Capitalism: Winning the Race to Zero Emissions and Solving the Crisis of Our Age

Another contemplation on the nature of capitalism as well as a more optimistic take on the climate crisis comes from science journalist Akshat Rathi, who offers an array of examples and solutions to solving one of the biggest challenges of our time.

"Climate Capitalism: Winning the Race to Zero Emissions and Solving the Crisis of Our Age" opens with the basic premise that “unfettered capitalism” is responsible for warming the planet.

“Polluting for free was always going to be a limited privilege,” Rathi notes. “Not pricing in that ‘negative externality’ — as economists put it — has been the greatest market failure of all time.”

So how do we fix it? The book brings together several case studies, from Wan Gang’s critical role in China’s electric vehicle revolution and Vicki Hollub’s efforts at Occidental Petroleum to pivot toward carbon management. It highlights significant breakthroughs in energy technology, such as QuantumScape’s development of solid-state batteries and India’s renewable energy surge through projects like Pavagada Solar Park.

The author ultimately argues in favor of a holistic approach that includes policy reforms, private investments by individuals like Bill Gates through his Breakthrough Energy Ventures as well as shareholder advocacy and climate litigation, building on successes like the Netherlands’ Urgenda case.

“As much as technological progress has been the brightest spot of the climate fight so far, it won’t be possible to keep the good news going without creating a framework that helps the deployment of those technologies at scale,” Rathi warns. “That may happen because of good laws, supportive international institutions or accessible private capital. If nothing else works, it’s clear that capitalism’s most powerful force — shareholders — are now ready to take matters into their own hands.”

Broken, Bankrupt, and Dying: How to Solve the Great American Healthcare Rip-off

The failures of the U.S. health care system have been in the spotlight since the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on Dec. 4. A recent survey from NORC at University of Chicago found that seven in 10 Americans think insurance companies are to blame for Thompson’s death. That’s a lot to process not just for the insurance companies, but the entire health care system and everyone who plays a role in it, from policymakers to voters.

In another solutions-focused book, "Broken, Bankrupt, and Dying: How to Solve the Great American Healthcare Rip-off," Dr. Brad Spellberg lays out a number of inefficiencies and systemic challenges as well as where to start addressing these. This is not a neutrally worded, academic discussion of solutions: It’s written from the perspective of an active, frustrated participant in the system: a doctor, researcher and hospital administrator. His diagnosis? Spellberg calls it “the greatest rip-off perpetrated on the American people in the last century.”

"The greatest rip-off perpetrated on the American people in the last century"

Early in the book, Spellberg makes a common complaint among doctors: that the system is not efficient and requires them to allocate countless hours on administrative tasks that have nothing to do with health care.

“The U.S. healthcare system requires us to do such things before we are allowed to provide medical care,” he writes. “U.S. healthcare in the twenty-first century is not facile, not efficient, and not at all patient-centered.”

Spellberg makes a powerful case for addressing America’s overreliance on private insurance with low profit margins for basic coverage.

In the most illuminating part of the book, Spellberg shares his experience debating congressional staffers resistant to abandoning the employer-based insurance model despite its obvious shortcomings. He also compared the U.S. health care system with more successful international models in Australia and New Zealand as a way of suggesting that it doesn’t have to be this bad.

“The healthcare system we have now is an accidental outgrowth of efforts to combat post-World War II inflation,” he writes. “It was never purposefully designed to deliver healthcare.”

Spellberg advocates for a collective mobilization and makes a number of interesting proposals, including a universal, single-payer national insurance plan with co-pays for specialty care and prescription drugs, which would be funded by “centrally collected taxes that everyone pays.”

While he calls this kind of system the “most politically palatable”, it's hard to imagine a political environment — let alone a candidate — that could make it a reality.

about books

Chinese hackers behind “major incident” at US Treasury, documents stolen

According to a letter to lawmakers that Treasury officials made public on Monday, Chinese state-sponsored hackers made their way past the U.S. Treasury Department's computer security system this month, gaining access to documents in what's being called a "major incident."

Per reporting from Reuters, sourcing information from the Treasury letter, the hackers "gained access to a key used by the vendor to secure a cloud-based service used to remotely provide technical support for Treasury Departmental Offices (DO) end users. With access to the stolen key, the threat actor was able to override the service’s security, remotely access certain Treasury DO user workstations, and access certain unclassified documents maintained by those users."

Trump picks hedge fund billionaire Bessent to run Treasury

The Treasury Department first caught wind of the breach on December 8 and is "working with the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the FBI to assess the hack's impact," according to recent updates.

"This incident fits a well-documented pattern of operations by PRC-linked groups, with a particular focus on abusing trusted third-party services — a method that has become increasingly prominent in recent years," Tom Hegel, a threat researcher at cybersecurity company SentinelOne, said to Reuters.

According to a Treasury spokesperson, “There is no evidence indicating the threat actor has continued access to Treasury systems or information."

Treasury officials plan to hold a classified briefing about the breach next week with staffers from the House Financial Services Committee.

about this topic

The timeless impact of George Michael’s “Father Figure,” from “Babygirl” to LL Cool J

'Tis the season to listen to George Michael.

This time of year, it feels like the late British musician is always playing in a never-ending loop in our minds because of the song "Last Christmas" when he was with Wham! But the holiday season is not the only reason we have been plugged into the music juggernaut's extensive discography. Halina Reijn's new erotic thriller "Babygirl," starring Nicole Kidman and Harris Dickinson, is the latest film that has renewed interest in one of Michael's biggest hits: 1987's "Father Figure."

Reijn's film is a meditation on psychosexual power dynamics between an influential, married tech CEO Romy (Kidman) and her 20-something intern Samuel (Dickinson) with whom she begins an affair. Near the end of the film, sexual energy in Romy and Samuel's dangerous relationship reaches new heights in a bougie hotel room rendezvous.

The centerpiece scene of "Babygirl" cleverly redefines how we see sex and pleasure onscreen

In the scene, the shirtless, tattooed Samuel seduces Romy in a soaring intimate dance as "Father Figure" plays, paralleling the actions of this dominant and suave paramour. The scene is intercut with some kinky foreplay like Romy lapping up milk from a plate like a cat. But the camera lingers on Dickinson as Samuel grooves to Michael's lyrics, "I will be your father figure/Put your tiny hand in mine" and ends with Romy in his arms. It's a scene picking up steam online, with some people including actor Pedro Pascal recreating it in a video.

Pedro Pascal promoting ‘Babygirl’ via instagram stories pic.twitter.com/tLPRPl90JU

— Pedro Pascal Daily (@pascalarchive) December 24, 2024

Before the attention on Dickinson's alluring dance, Michael's "Father Figure" has had a massive impact on pop culture already. Salon dives into "Father Figure":

The history behind "Father Figure"

Released in December 1987, "Father Figure" was one of many popular singles from the British musician's first solo album "Faith." The R&B-influenced ballad shot to No. 1 on the U.S. Billboard charts and stayed there for two weeks. But the song was not without controversy due to its racy lyrics, Michael's shifting public perception and his sexuality.

The subversive lyrics highlighted a 24-year-old Michael expressing his desires. Some have called the song "inappropriate" because of its references to wanting to be someone's "daddy." Billboard reporter Barry Walters explained in 2017, "'Father Figure' allowed George to celebrate forbidden desires without drawing explicit attention to his own."

Michael experimented with his music by exploring his personal life through innuendo and romance. He longs for a "sacred" relationship, adding religious undertones to the seductive song. In lyrics like "That's all I wanted/But sometimes love can be mistaken/For a crime," he hints at the forbidden nature of his own desires.

Nearly a decade later, the singer became a vocal proponent for LGBTQ+ equality and rights after he was outed as gay in 1996 after being arrested for "a lewd act." The arrest led to the singer being humiliated for his sexuality in the media, The Guardian reported.

"Father Figure" and its impact in music

Nearly four decades after the song's release, Michael's impact is still felt through the music and film that came after him.

Throughout the '90s and '00s, many artists took inspiration from Michael's hit for their own songs. Hip-hop group Jungle Brothers sampled the track in their single "J. Beez Comin' Through" and so did R&B artist P.M. Dawn in his song "Looking Through Patient Eye."

But the most recognizable example is LL Cool J's "Father." The song's intro is eerily similar to Michael's. However, Cool J added hip-hop elements and a choir while he rapped the lyrics, "All I ever needed was a father."

Other artists like Tori Amos, Noah Guthrie and Murray Hockridge and Dave Kilminster have also covered the song.

Even one of Michael's music friends, artist Rob Thomas told GQ in 2017 that Michael inspired his music. He said, “I’ve stolen so much from George. If you look at my ‘Lonely No More’ video, it is shot for shot little George Michael rip-offs.”

"Father Figure" on screen, beyond "Babygirl"

The song has also held onto its relevance on many other soundtracks through the decades. In the 2010s, films such as the lethal spy film "Atomic Blonde" starring Charlize Theron, the cat buddy comedy "Keanu" starring Jordan Peele, Keegan-Michael Key and Keanu Reeves (which reportedly goes into depth about the song's meaning in a scene) and the Christmas comedy, "The Night Before," starring Seth Rogen, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anthony Mackie, all featured "Father Figure."

But "Father Figure's" central theme is the most actualized in a movie like "Babygirl." When Michael sings "I will be your preacher teacher (Be your daddy)," he shows an interest in role-playing and power dynamics seen in some sexual and romantic relationships, mirroring Samuel and Romy's affair. This similar kinky tension is also seen in the dreamy "Father Figure" video where Michael's dominating female love interest, supermodel Tania Coleridge, toys with two men who want her while she has all the power.

Ultimately, "Father Figure's" impact hinges on Michael's expression of desire and manhood in the '80s, which "Babygirl" then explores from a female perspective.

about this topic

What if you could rank food by “healthiness” as you shopped?

Imagine a world where food on grocery store shelves is ranked by its healthiness, with simple, research-backed scores. In some countries, that world already exists.

Nutrient profiling systems, or NPSs, support clear front-of-package labels that assess food quality based on nutrient content. Nutri-Score in France is a rainbow-colored system grading foods from A to E. Health Star Rating in Australia is a five-star system rating foods in half-star increments. And the Traffic Light System in the U.K. labels nutrient levels as green, yellow or red.

In contrast, the U.S. lacks a front-of-package ranking system for food. Food Compass was recently developed out of Tufts University to help address this gap and shortcomings in other systems. But it uses nutritional information not currently available for most foods and consumers.

As a gastroenterologist and physician-scientist, I focus on making the latest microbiome and nutrition data more accessible to the public. Drawing on this research, I developed Nutrient Consume Score, or NCS, which rates foods from 1 to 100 using nutritional information available for all foods and incorporates factors important for a healthy microbiome.

But how do nutrient profiling systems work? And how do they compare to other nutrition guides for consumers?

Nutrient cyphers

Each nutrient profiling system uses different scoring algorithms, but most assign positive points to nutrients and foods that are typically underconsumed, such as fiber, fruits and vegetables. Conversely, negative points are given to overconsumed nutrients like sugar, saturated fat and sodium, which are often added to processed foods. These points are combined into a single score: higher scores indicate healthier foods, while lower scores indicate less healthy options.

For example, kale – rich in fiber, potassium and unsaturated fats, while low in sugar, sodium and saturated fats – would earn a high score. In contrast, Twinkies, which are high in sugar, sodium and saturated fats, but low in fiber, potassium and unsaturated fats, would receive a low score. A food like black olives, high in fiber but also high in sodium, would fall somewhere in between.

Nutrient profiling systems work similarly to the Nutrition Facts labels on the back or sides of food packages in helping consumers make informed choices. These labels provide information about a food's nutrient content, including calories, macronutrients, and key vitamins and minerals. The values are determined through laboratory analysis and nutrient databases based on standardized serving sizes regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

But NPSs differ in that they combine nutrition information into a single actionable score. This means you don't have to spend time deciphering Nutrition Facts labels, which are often in small print and can be confusing to interpret.

Ultraprocessed profiling

Nutrient profiling system algorithms are all quite similar in their high ranking of unprocessed foods – beans, nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables and whole grains – and low ranking of processed foods like hot dogs, soft drinks, cakes and cookies. They help people rebalance their diets that have been skewed by food processing, or the degree to which the ingredients have been altered.

They complement the NOVA classification system developed by researchers at the University of São Paulo, which categorizes foods based on their level of processing. This system introduced the term "ultra-processed foods," which are foods that have undergone significant industrial processing and contain ingredients not typically found in home cooking.

While NOVA has linked ultra-processed foods to poor health outcomes like obesity, worse mental health, cancer and early death, it treats all such foods equally, overlooking differences like amount of sugar, sodium and other additives.

Nutrient profile systems help provide nuance by identifying healthier options within the ultra-processed category. For example, plant-based milks, such as almond or soy milk, may be classified as ultra-processed under the NOVA system, but they can have relatively higher NPS scores if they contain minimal added sugars and salt.

Ratios and bioactives in balance

While nutrient profiling systems can be useful for choosing healthier options, current systems have limitations. They don't always align perfectly with other research, often overlook the bioactive chemicals that regulate microbiome and body processes, and may rely on incomplete data. Current systems also don't account for the caloric and health effects of alcohol.

The Nutrient Consume Score I designed aims to address these gaps by incorporating these neglected components of food. For example, it uses food categories as proxies for areas with limited data, including bioactive compounds like polyphenols, omega-3 fats and fermentable fibers. Proxies for bioactive compounds found in unprocessed foods – such as fruits, vegetables, grains, beans, nuts and seeds – are integrated into the score's core algorithm, which uses nutrient ratios to measure the degree of food processing.

Nutrient ratios – including carbohydrate-to-fiber, saturated fat-to-unsaturated fat and sodium-to-potassium – reflect the natural balance of nutritional content of the cells in unprocessed foods, which research has shown correlate with cardiometabolic health.

For example, the cell walls of plants provide structural strength and are rich in fiber, while their energy vesicles store carbohydrates. Fiber reduces sugar absorption and is fermented into the compound butyrate, which maintains blood sugar and regulates appetite.

The fat profiles of unprocessed foods are similar to the fat composition in cell membranes. Saturated fat-to-unsaturated fat ratios capture how different types of fat, affect inflammation and weight.

Finally, the potassium-to-sodium ratio reflects the natural function of cell membrane pumps, which concentrate potassium inside cells while transporting sodium out. This affects blood pressure as well as microbiome and metabolic health.

Research currently under peer review shows that the Nutrient Consume Score compares favorably with other systems. Derived from nutrition data from nearly 5,000 Americans, NCS sores are linked to blood pressure, waist circumference and weight. NCS has also been incorporated into a smartphone app intended for public use, currently in beta testing.

Empowering smart choices

While nutrient profiling systems are a promising tool for healthier food choices, they come with important caveats. Most studies testing how well they work focus on how two factors relate to each other rather than whether one directly causes the other. Correlation doesn't prove causation.

Further studies are needed to assess whether these systems influence buying habits, consumption trends, and health outcomes like weight and blood pressure. Additionally, individual dietary needs can vary, and personalized algorithms could help refine these scores for tailored recommendations.

Despite these considerations, nutrient profiling systems are promising tools to combat rising rates of metabolic disease. Their use in Europe demonstrates their potential to shift consumer purchasing habits and inspire food companies to create healthier products.

Americans may one day see similar front-of-package labels in the U.S. Until then, smartphone technologies can offer a practical way to help consumers make smarter choices today.

Christopher Damman, Associate Professor of Gastroenterology, School of Medicine, University of Washington

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

What are macros? An exercise and nutrition scientist explains

"I'm tracking my macros."

"I'll pass on that, it doesn't fit in my macros."

"I'm on the Macro Diet."

Macros seem to come up often in the corners of the internet and social media devoted to people trying to lose weight, improve their health, look better and feel better about themselves. But what the heck is a macro?

With more information than ever available at your fingertips, and more diets out there than you have fingers and toes to count on, it's no wonder you might be confused. As an exercise science specialist interested in physical health and nutrition, I've got you covered.

"Macros" is just a shorthand term for macronutrients: protein, carbohydrates and fats. They're the nutritional building blocks that all foods are made up of in various ratios.

Nutrition labels let consumers know about the macros and other nutrients in packaged foods. Jaidan899/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

If you look at a nutrition label, you'll see that macros are measured in grams. But it's important to understand that the calories per gram for each macro aren't the same. Protein and carbohydrates each have 4 calories per gram, while fat has 9 calories per gram. In other words, fat provides more than twice the amount of energy per gram compared with protein and carbohydrates.

People rarely eat proteins, carbohydrates or fats in isolation. For example, while chicken is widely considered a source of protein, it also contains fat. Almost every food contains more than one macronutrient.

What macros do and where to find them

Beyond its job building muscle, protein also plays other critical roles in the body: as a component of enzymes, transporting nutrients and producing hormones. Sources of protein include animal meats, eggs, fish and seafood, and dairy. While animal sources have the highest protein content, plant food sources, such as whole grains, legumes such as beans, and nuts and seeds also contain protein. You don't need to consume animal products to get adequate protein in your diet.

The 2020-2025 federal dietary guidelines for Americans recommend at least 46 grams of protein for adult females and at least 56 grams for adult males, although this may be too low for older adults, pregnant and lactating women, and people with high levels of physical activity.

Carbohydrates are the body's preferred energy source. They're found in bread, rice, pasta, fruits, dairy products, legumes and starchy vegetables. Simple sugars also fit into the carbohydrate category, and those are the ones to limit.

As for fats, there are different types: polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, saturated and trans fat. Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated have the greatest health benefits and are found in things such as nuts and seeds and fish. Omega-3s are essential fatty acids that can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and are found in fatty fish such as salmon and nuts such as walnuts.

Artificial trans fats are created by an industrial process. You'll see them listed as partially hydrogenated oils on nutrition labels for fried and baked goods. They increase the risk of heart disease and death.

Do calories matter?

In a word, yes, calories matter. But calories from different sources do affect the body differently.

For example, 2,000 calories of junk food and soda are not going to help with appetite control the same way that 2,000 calories of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, healthy fats and lean proteins will. Fiber, for example, is found in fruits, vegetables and whole grains and has been found to be a potent appetite regulator.

The good news is that the most important thing for weight management is caloric balance and consistency. In fact, evidence suggests that there is no "optimal" diet that can be applied to everyone, and that various weight loss strategies – different macronutrient distributions, intermittent fasting and so on – all balance out over the long run.

If you're attracted to a dietary approach that relies on tracking your macros, focus on getting a healthy balance of protein, carbs and fat.

Tyler Garner, Clinical Assistant Professor of Kinesiology, University of Texas at Arlington

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

Flags will fly at half-mast to honor Jimmy Carter during Trump’s inauguration

The country will fly its flags at half-mast for President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration day in honor of former President Jimmy Carter, who passed away on Sunday at the age of 100.

The U.S. Department of Affairs mandates that the American flag should fly at “half-staff for 30 days at all federal buildings, grounds, and naval vessels throughout the United States and its territories and possessions after the death of the president or a former president.”

Under this rule, the flag would remain at half-staff until Jan. 28, a full week after Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

Jimmy Carter was ahead of the curve

The president-elect is yet to comment on the tribute to Carter, but he offered his condolences to the Carter family in a Truth Social statement on Sunday.

“I just heard of the news about the passing of President Jimmy Carter. Those of us who have been fortunate to have served as President understand this is a very exclusive club, and only we can relate to the enormous responsibility of leading the Greatest Nation in History,” he wrote of Carter.

“The challenges Jimmy faced as President came at a pivotal time for our country and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude.”

Despite the kind words, low-lying flags will likely irk the optic-obsessed Trump, who has been awaiting his momentous return to the White House for the last four years.

Carter will lie in the U.S. Capitol and honored with a state funeral before being laid to rest in his hometown of Plains, Ga., according to a statement from the Carter Center.

about Jimmy Carter

Appeals court rejects Trump’s bid to overturn E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse verdict

A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn a 2023 verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing writer E. Jean Carroll.

“On review for abuse of discretion, we conclude that Mr. Trump has not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings,” the U.S. Second Court of Appeals decided.

In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1996. The former Elle columnist was awarded $5 million in the case. In a separate case, Trump was found guilty of defamation against Carroll while he was president.

Trump denied all allegations against him and appealed the verdict. He claimed that the judge who presided over the case violated his rights by allowing Carroll to present evidence that suggested Trump had sexually abused other women.

Verdict: Donald Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages

But the appeals court asserted that the judge did not violate Trump’s rights. “Further, he has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial,” the filing reads.

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement that she and Carroll are “gratified” by the decision. "We thank the Second Circuit for its careful consideration of the parties' arguments."

The ruling presents a significant legal setback for the President-elect, who will be inaugurated next month. He could appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

Trump is also appealing the defamation judgment against him in which Carroll was awarded $83 million.

"The American People have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts," Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.

about E. Jean Carroll

The centerpiece scene of “Babygirl” cleverly redefines how we see sex and pleasure onscreen

There’s nothing subtle about a movie where Nicole Kidman crawls on her knees to lick milk out of a saucer. And yet, Halina Reijn’s “Babygirl” is perhaps the most thematically complex and provocative film of the year, kitty-play and all — one that will continue to reveal its multitude of layers long after Sky Ferreira’s scorcher of an end credits song has dulled its blaze.

It's a cornucopia of titillating treats, best exemplified by the film’s centerpiece scene, which features both the most memorable orgasm since “When Harry Met Sally."

That dissonance between Reijn’s deliciously clever writing and her narrative’s more forthright eroticism is encapsulated by the film’s outré promotional rollout. To tantalize and tease prospective viewers, the marketing team behind “Babygirl” has leaned all the way in, emphasizing the movie’s Christmas Day release in promotional materials that demand audiences “get everything you want” this holiday. Trailer drops and sneak peeks have been accompanied by milk emojis, while official stills flaunt Kidman’s costar Harris Dickinson’s back muscles.

Nicole Kidman is a force of nature in "Babygirl," the most mind-blowing erotic thriller in years

It’s no shock that, for a film that plainly features kinky sex, the “Babygirl” marketing team would want to stress the movie’s raw eroticism to get curious viewers in theater seats. It’s a trick almost as cunning as the one Reijn pulls off in the movie itself, as she disguises a stirring work about controversial pleasure and cerebral expansion as a kind of elevated “Fifty Shades.” Once audiences get eyes on “Babygirl,” they quickly find that the movie is so much more than milk emojis, gold chains and rippling back muscles. Rather, it’s a cornucopia of titillating treats, best exemplified by the film’s incredible centerpiece scene, which features both the most memorable orgasm since “When Harry Met Sally” and gobsmacking bits of screenwriting and acting that will force you to reconsider good sex as you know it.

By the time we arrive at this moment, Kidman, Reijn and Dickinson have done a good bit of work to make the payoff so satisfying. Kidman’s character, the incredibly successful and even more brilliant automation industry magnate Romy Mathis, has inadvertently found herself locked into a sizzling affair with Dickinson’s character Samuel, an intern at Romy’s company. During their first meeting as part of a new company-wide mentorship program, Samuel matches Romy’s slippery intensity, and his reluctance to ingratiate himself intrigues her. The pair soon engage in a series of high-stakes games where Samuel is in control. They play with one another under everyone’s noses, yet never consummate their dynamic with more than a kiss. That is until things between Romy and Samuel become so heated that neither party can ignore the magnetic pull any longer.

Samuel arranges for Romy to meet him at a seedy hotel room, a far cry from the luxury that Romy is used to and expects. She arrives before he does, and when he opens the door to meet him, she chides his behavior. “Leaving me notes, texting me, calling me, sending me milk, are you f**king insane?” Romy asks. “Keeping me waiting in this disgusting hotel? I mean, I don’t wait for anything.” Romy got to the top of her field by ingeniously developing ways for fleets of robots to automate repetitive tasks, and her sexual exploits are no different; waiting around is time wasted and money lost.

But the line between sensual restraint and true inconvenience is one that Romy has never established, and her annoyance is only confusing for Samuel, who we soon realize is just as unfamiliar with this particular energy as Romy is. He can’t tell if Romy’s vexation is genuine or just another part of their game, and tries to figure it out with a command. “Get on your knees,” he orders. When Romy immediately objects, Samuel laughs in response, himself confused about where Romy’s desire ends and where it begins. “I don’t know how to . . . is that what you want? Be honest.”

Romy tells him that she worries about his age and about hurting him, and Samuel — the shrewd student that he is — reads between the lines. “Hurt me?” he asks with a smirk. “I think I have power over you, because I could make one call and you lose everything. What, does that turn you on when I say that?” Romy holds his gaze, silently communicating her arousal, and Samuel responds by once again telling her to get on her knees. She begins, but stops herself, getting up and gathering her things to leave before stopping at the door and running back into his arms. Samuel, however, doesn’t want reluctance. He wants certainty.

When he pushes Romy off of him, the two wrestle to the ground, playfully slapping each other and grunting. It’s a brilliantly uneasy moment, and Reijn ensures that the viewer will never quite know where it will go until it’s over. Kidman giggles and then grows timid. Suddenly, the fear that something violent will happen becomes very real, but Samuel only subdues Romy and tells her to stop so they can figure out what’s happening. He clamps his eyes closed, and when he refuses to open them at Romy’s request, she reaches up to pry open his eyelids, causing him to smile.

By now, the scene already feels like a masterwork in erotic tension, with most audiences undoubtedly on the edge of their seats. The banter between Samuel and Romy is mischievous and childlike, at once sexy and threatening before turning around again to feel wholly loving. Much in the way that Romy is desperate to understand what exactly it is she wants, so is Samuel. The lines are blurred again later in the film, when the threat of ruining Romy’s life becomes more than a seductive trick, and that inevitable turn wouldn’t be nearly as gratifying for the viewer if it weren’t for the intense intimacy established in the remainder of this scene.

Samuel helps Romy off the floor and positions her in the corner of the room, like a child in time-out. This is Reijn’s most explicit image of Romy working through her incontrovertible Freudian shame, a humiliation that has troubled her for her entire life and which has no identifiable source — despite her attempts to pinpoint it through every therapeutic treatment known to man. At this stage, Romy is unwilling to remove her clothes, so Samuel circumnavigates the traditional nude image of sex to find a different route to her pleasure. He asks her to get on her knees before unwrapping a piece of hard candy and placing it into his hand. Romy crawls forward and picks it up with her mouth, allowing Samuel to pet her like a dog. Gently, he places Romy onto the dirty hotel room floor, facing away from him, and reaches into her skirt to finger her.

It’s a brilliantly uneasy moment, and Reijn ensures that the viewer will never quite know where it will go until it’s over.

What comes next (no pun intended) is one of the most startlingly crude and incontestibly incredible sex scenes in recent memory. Reijn’s camera closes up on Kidman’s face while Samuel works in the background, out of focus. We watch as Romy moves through pleasure, fear, bliss and confusion. Here, Kidman is using her powers as both a grade-A movie star and a true artist to mesmerize us, fully in service of Reijn’s vision. It’s a staggering bit of genius and one of the most unforgettable scenes in any film this year, a truly affecting look at the heady pursuit of physical euphoria. As Romy nears her orgasm, she’s terrified, and when she objects and tells Samuel that she “doesn’t want to pee,” we realize that she has no experience physically ejaculating. He quells her worries and brings Romy to orgasm, and she is immediately stricken with a massive wave of grief and guilt.

But Romy’s remorse doesn’t just stem from the fact that she’s cheated on her husband Jacob (Antonio Banderas), it comes from her realizing that her husband — the person she loves the most, with whom she shares two children — has never made her feel such full-bodied pleasure. Samuel bears a power that takes hold of Romy, the kind of hypnotic sway that she’ll have to contend with eventually. But first, she sobs, crumpling into Samuel’s arms while he holds her close.

It must be said that this scene demands everything of Kidman, and she bares herself entirely without any nudity at all. It is positively thrilling to see someone act at this level, so much so that Kidman’s performance demands that the viewer shed all pretenses. It’s impossible not to admire the complex, sophisticated work in this scene, which is so beautifully constructed that it defies whatever vulgar, less refined terms that may be used to define it going forward. Here, “Babygirl” graduates from to inviting to important, blowing past the tactics that marketers used to get people to pay the price of admission. Reijn’s film is more than just an erotic thriller, it’s a landmark piece of mainstream erotic cinema that, like Samuel and Romy, relishes the opportunity to push the boundaries.

about how sex scenes are changing