Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

5 tips for a simple, seasonal $20 Thanksgiving tablescape

Thanksgiving is now fast approaching and there’s so much to consider, from supply chain snags to menu planning to the vaccination status of your guests. For that reason, it’s easy to let tablescaping fall to the wayside, especially if you don’t have a cabinet full of linens and an endless budget for fresh flowers at your disposal. 

However, at the risk of sounding like my grandmother who has spent years collecting antique china and festive accents, a simple, seasonal tablescape really does help bring the whole entertaining experience together. Put another way, your food is the star of the show, but the entire production would definitely benefit from some set design. 

RELATED: Want to make a fresh and festive Thanksgiving dinner for $40? Here’s your menu

Don’t think that you have to carve out hundreds of dollars to set a good table, though. With $20 and a little imagination, you’ll have an Instagram-worthy set up in no time. 

Hit up your local thrift store for table linens

Honestly, Goodwill, flea markets and local thrift shops are lifesavers when it comes to creating a tablescape on a budget. Entire baskets of cheap tablecloths for like $3? Amazing. Even better if they come in seasonal colors — rusty red, orange, chocolate brown — or patterns like gingham, plaid or a jaunty leaf-print if you want to go in that direction. Pro tip: Bring some gloves on your scouting excursion so you can really pick through the piles of (potentially dirty) fabric and make sure to toss everything you buy in the washer for a cycle before using it to set your table. 


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter.


Check the restaurant supply store for a cheap table runner 

You say “table runner,” I say “kraft paper.” It’s cheap, it’s easy to recycle and it adds a kind of shabby-chic touch (which can be a little ironic, if that’s your thing) to a formal-ish dinner table. Huge rolls of it are available at restaurant supply stores for just a few dollars and once you’ve cut it to-size, there are infinite ways to dress it up. Use white paint to create a simple pattern like polka-dots or pinstripes, or break out your inner calligrapher and write folks’ names in front of their assigned seat. 

Choose one or two seasonal flowers as centerpieces 

The temptation to blow your entire budget on beautiful bouquets of flowers is real, but consider picking one or two seasonal favorites — I really love deep purple pincushion flowers and giant orange marigolds — from the supermarket floral department to build a bouquet around. Let those anchor the arrangement and pad the rest of the space with filler flowers like baby’s breath, seasonal herbs like rosemary (which you can reclaim to cook with at a later time) or outdoor finds. 

Take a trip outside

Speaking of, fall is an ideal time of year to take inspiration from the outdoors. I’m not going to tell you to bring in damp, already-trodden leaves to serve as a centerpiece just to save a few bucks, but do keep an eye out for a few items like pinecones or fallen twigs with a little greenery or berries. You can hang these upside down to dry and use them to accent your floral bouquets or centerpieces. 

Don’t shy away from “shopping” the other rooms of your (or your friend’s) house 

Finally, take a tour through the other rooms of your home to collect items that could work on your table. Those candles in the bedroom that you never light? Grab those for sure. The butcher’s twine sitting in your kitchen cupboard? Sounds like a DIY napkin ring to me. The succulents in the corner of your living room? Toss them on the table. The old glass Topo Chico or Perrier bottles sitting in the recycling bin? Strip the labels off and you have yourself some no-cost vases. 

If you don’t feel like you have anything you want to use, call up your closest — or most stylish — friend and ask if you can borrow a few items from their place. 

You may find yourself subtracting items from the tablescape once you bring them in because they look janky or things get too cluttered— and that’s okay, too! This entire process is about experimentation and creativity. If in doubt, simple and seasonal is always good and candlelight really does make food look ten times more appealing. Not that you need help in that department, especially if you follow some of Salon Food’s favorite holiday recipes. 

Here are some holiday dishes that will shine on whatever table you create: 

 

“The Morning Show” looks at how consequences catch up to some people sooner than others

Strangely this season’s cancel culture conversation in “The Morning Show” feels simultaneously behind the times and timely, a puzzling liminal state indeed. Never mind the entire Mitch Kessler business; he’s dead. We’re talking about the horror of cancellation as it pertains to UBA anchor Alex Levy (Jennifer Aniston), Mitch’s on-air partner, work wife, secret lover and millionaire likely many times over.

This entire season has followed Alex’s doomed attempt to return to the fictional network’s a.m. flagship after Mitch was ousted. To be more accurate, it’s been about her boss Cory Ellison (Billy Crudup) and his Pyrrhic stubbornness to bolster his own career and “save” greenhorn “Morning Show” anchor Bradley Jackson (Reese Witherspoon).

Cory’s plan moved along not quite well, but steadily enough . . . until Alex found out a damning tell-all about her and Mitch’s time together on and off the air.

Related: “The Morning Show” and making sense of Mitch and Alex’s wild ride in Italy

For all my previous quibbles about the entire Mitch affair, the “Morning Show” subplot involving the network’s slow response to the threat posed by COVID-19 has felt even more contrived this time around until this season’s ninth episode makes it an analogue to social cancellation.

The beauty of that is that one day we’ll look back on both phenomena and designate them as temporary insanities that gripped society in their own way, forgetting that this diagnosis is only true for those of us who either weren’t directly affected by the virus or any version of social trial in the court of public opinion.

To anyone who has lost someone to COVID, or lost the health they used to take for granted, that’s a cruel dismissal of their pain. And it must be said that dying or becoming disabled by a virus fundamentally and extremely differs from having consequences imposed about you for doing terrible things or, in Mitch’s case, engaging in predatory abuses of power.

As Alex’s story plays out in “Testimony,” we see a glimpse of potential in the way “The Morning Show” could demonstrate the very real truth that the punishment women receive for their mistakes or miscalculations tend to be more severe than those visited upon men who tend to do far worse usually face.

This is yet another dialogue “The Morning Show” embarks upon two years after cancellation debates boiled over and caramelized into bitterness, and when the concept of cancellation held the veneer of power. Even then those who knew better than to get too drunk on the promise of progress pointed out that being “canceled” was never real or lasting.  They’d seen similar movements in previous decades rise only to be chopped down soon after and predicted, accurately, that any gains in the arena of accountability would likely be temporary and illusory.


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


Therefore a person should be forgiven for rolling their eyes at the whole notion of Alex being “canceled,” because it comes in a season and a year containing a mountain of evidence that “cancel culture” isn’t as real as the people boo-hooing about it claim it to be. It’s great branding for the likes of Dave Chappelle and Bill Cosby, but that’s about the extent of its power. Chappelle capitalizes upon the phrase like it’s an ad scroll on a blimp while raking in millions and all the attention he could possibly want by punching down, again, and somehow claiming to be a victim of said (non-existent) movement.

Cosby’s criminal acts committed and ignored for decades were finally punished by the justice system until earlier this year when he was released from prison on a technicality. “Cancel culture” doesn’t stick even when there are multiple witnesses and the force of the law behind it.

These join a gallery of other living examples reminding us of the false threat of the “cancel culture” kaiju, which has yet to destroy, among many, Mel Gibson, Chris Brown, Johnny Depp or DaBaby. (Bradley can even fully cut ties with her brother, an unstable addict who makes a scene at her workplace before cutting out of rehab, leaving the envelope full of money she left him when they parted with the bellman at the hotel where she’s living.)

Whereas nobody’s asking when the women whose comedy careers were canceled before they began will get a shot at even arriving in the spotlight. Separately, nobody’s trying to unstick cancellation from legitimately awful folks like Paula Deen and Megyn Kelly. Nobody should. That being the case, we should question why some wonder, loudly and with feeling, how long is enough time for men found guilty of sexual misconduct or abuse to stay in the jail of relative obscurity.

It’s not as those offenders need to be worried about. For men, the only true and lasting career cancellation is death; even then, with enough time and political motivation people are more than happy to build the most odious of figures a statue or 10.

Mitch’s candidacy to be immortalized in bronze is far from pending, but it is telling that “The Morning Show” hinted at the possibility of his redemption by having him soul search in a multi-million dollar Italian villa and find absolution by way of a final fling with a passionate, iconoclastic Italian documentary filmmaker.

“Maybe the world has to stop playing games with people’s lives,” a eulogizer observes at a memorial with an open bar arranged by Mitch’s ex-wife Paige (Embeth Davidtz). “Maybe they have to stop judging people for ordering something from a different page of the sexual menu. Stop treating people like single-use plastic!”  

Referring to sexual predation as “a different page of the sexual menu” is a real stretch, boy howdy. Or it is for anyone but Kessler’s fellow abuser Dick Lundy (Martin Short, flawlessly murdering his cameo), who verbalizes how those whining about “cancel culture” and “wokeness” tend to feel about any attempts to hold many wrongdoers who happen to get caught to account.

Admitting they’re not perfect when they get caught or blurting out a mea culpa should be enough, right? A man shouldn’t lose his life over it!

Women are a different matter, and Alex knows it. Her actions in this episode are the equivalent of the death row convict taking the long walk toward the execution chamber, as she takes responsibility for the way that she’s benefited from the system that raised her up along with Mitch.

First she meets with Cory, who is committed to mitigating the damage so she can stay on the air. To this she bluntly lets him know it won’t work. “Your feminist hero slept with the enemy,” she said. “Did it on purpose. Not coerced. While married. And she doesn’t regret it one bit. That’s who I am.”

Then, after a successful show co-anchored with Laura Peterson (Julianna Margulies), she has a heart to heart where Laura lays it on the line, explaining to Alex how her gossip about Laura’s private life in the ’90s derailed her career while accelerating Alex’s. And Alex genuinely was not aware that this is the source of her enmity but doesn’t deny being a gossip when they were younger.

Laura, ever the serene sage, receives her apology by replying, “I imagine you had no ill intent, but we are our actions.”

But we do not suffer the effects of said actions equally. In an interview staged between Bradley and Maggie Brener (Marcia Gay Harden), author of the tell-all meant to destroy Alex’s reputation, Bradley deliberately shreds Maggie, painting her as a woman refusing to grant mercy to another woman who has demonstrably changed in the decade since she slept with a terrible man on purpose, uncoerced.

That seems to do the trick, until someone at Mitch’s wake circulates a recording of Alex offering her piece on Mitch to the mourners in attendance, where she admits to having visited him in Italy right before he drove himself off a cliff.  That revelation, at last, gets her canceled at the same time she faces the material consequence of taking an impromptu trip to Italy at the outset of a pandemic, waking up in the hospital to the news that she’s tested positive for COVID.

Even as the “cancel culture” subplot reaches its climax in the second season of “The Morning Show” it’s difficult to boil down the writers’ core philosophy about it into a solid nut graf, beyond the thought that it’s only as real as people decide it is. The Laura Peterson storyline is proof that’s not entirely true, that it’s quite real for those who don’t enjoy the backing of the executives holding all the cards and their careers in their hands.

On the other hand, Cory’s shifting and self-serving allegiances make it clear that with the right amount of spin, Mitch very well could have made a comeback.

During an appearance on a UBA late night show, Cory likens journalists sniffing around controversy at his network to the titular heroine in “The Princess and the Pea,” positing that columnists are obsessed with spotting a pea because they think if they can prove they so sensitive that it bruised them. “Then they can make the world believe they’re royalty. Only, they don’t know where the peas are, so they just act bruised by everything and hope they guess right one time.”

Cory likes to spin terrible scenarios into wins waiting to happen, insisting to those pointing at the cliffs on the road ahead of him that they’re actually looking at launch pads. His network is a veritable pea patch, and he knows it.

But having seen former UBA President Fred Micklen (Tom Irwin) push out of the company  with a $119.2 million parachute, he can be secure in knowing that whatever happens to Alex, he’ll be fine.

At the beginning of Alex’s long stroll toward her reckoning, Cory tries to cheer her up with a story about tilting a pinball machine to prevent a loss that would otherwise be unstoppable. It become clear that the pinball game represents the chance he’s taken on Alex and the career she’s ready to lose.

“I put my quarters in, and nobody’s gonna forget that I pulled the plunger,” Cory says. “And I got balls left to play!”

Alex knows that doesn’t matter, offering a bitter double entendre in response. “You’ll always have balls left to play, Cory,” she says. “That’s who you are.”

New episodes of “The Morning Show” debut Fridays on Apple TV+.

More stories like this:

 

Fox News under fire for deceptively editing Biden speech to remove racial context from his remarks

Fox News recently removed racial context from President Joe Biden’s remarks on baseball legend Satchel Paige, making the comments appear to be racially insensitive.

On Friday, November 12, Fox News’ Rachel Campos Duffy claimed Biden was facing backlash for parts of the speech he delivered on Veterans Day at Arlington National Cemetery.

During his speech, Biden spoke of Paige who was a legendary pitcher in the Negro Leagues more than a decade before Jackie Robinson broke the Major League Baseball (MLB) color barriers. In his comments, Biden said he had “adopted the attitude of the great Negro, at the time pitcher in the Negro Leagues, went on to become a great pitcher in the pros in Major League baseball after Jackie Robinson, his name was Satchel Paige.”


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


However, HuffPost notes that when Fox News played the clip, “it was edited so Biden was heard saying he had ‘adopted the attitude of the great Negro at the time, pitcher, name was Satchel Paige.'”

Duffy falsely claimed “Biden’s remarks were ‘landing him in hot water.’ While ‘Negro’ was once a common way to refer to Black people and still appears in organization names, the terms ‘Black’ and ‘African American’ are more widely used today.”

Despite Duffy’s claim, Fox News is actually on the receiving end of criticism for the way the clip was edited. According to Al Tompkins, faculty member at the journalism think tank, Poynter Institute, journalists have “an obligation to keep statements in the context they were delivered or explain to viewers why a change was made.”

RELATED: Fox News: 25 years of making everyone’s lives progressively crappier

In response to the backlash, a Fox News spokesperson reportedly claimed “time constraints” were the reason for the clip being played incorrectly the first time. When it aired again, it was properly edited. However, the alleged time constraints offer no explanation for the context Duffy presented.

Twitter users have also shared their reaction to the deceptively presented clip. Vox reporter Aaron Rupar tweeted, “This morning Fox & Friends opted for full-frontal dishonesty, deceptively editing Biden’s remarks to exclude his mention of the negro leagues and make what he said seem racially insensitive. Shameless lying.”

 

The 10 most stressful TV shows on right now: “Lucifer,” “Squid Game,” more

TV dramas can be super stressful, yet we can’t look away and we can’t get enough. What are the most stressful TV shows you can stream or watch right now? Buzz Bingo has the answer!

Buzz Bingo analyzed the stress levels and searched for tweets from audiences to see which popular TV dramas cause viewers the most stress. The source has shared the results with us and you may be surprised.

“Squid Game”, Netflix’s latest hit series, may come to mind. “American Horror Story” is another one I quickly thought about. I love the horror series, but all horror causes stress. However, there are some shows on Buzz Bingo’s list that I was surprised to see.

Which drama has kept you on the edge of your seat? Let’s check out Buzz Bingo’s list! Be sure to share with us how many of the shows listed below you’ve seen or if you can think of any others.

The top 10 most stressful TV shows of 2021

Here are the most stressful TV shows and the number of tweets from audiences watching.

  1. “Squid Game” – 190,897 stressed out tweets
  2. “Sex Education” – 57,256 stressed out tweets
  3. “Lucifer” – 52,025 stressed out tweets
  4. “American Horror Story” – 50,657 stressed out tweets
  5. “Ted Lasso” – 48,354 stressed out tweets
  6. “The Walking Dead” – 46,088 stressed out tweets
  7. “Loki” – 34,678 stressed out tweets
  8. “Stranger Things” – 33,456 stressed out tweets
  9. “The Handmaid’s Tale” – 13,283 stressed out tweets
  10. “Bridgerton” – 7,659 stressed out tweets

Which of these shows are you surprised to see on here? The one that jumps out the most for me is “Ted Lasso.” The Apple TV+ series is a comedy, but come to think of it, many stories in Season 2 did leave me feeling stressed. I just love the characters so much!

I wouldn’t have thought of “Lucifer” on my own, but it definitely belongs on this list! Again, when you care about the characters, it’s difficult not to worry about them, and “Lucifer” does this to fans.

How much turkey per person: the Thanksgiving dilemma

How much turkey per person? It’s the age-old Thanksgiving dilemma. But it doesn’t have to be such an ordeal. Just account for about 1 pound per person—unless you want leftovers, in which case you should account for about 1 1/2 pounds per person. For more intel on the subject, read on below.

It’s inevitable. Every Thanksgiving you question how you’re supposed to choose the size of your bird. Was it one pound per person? Or two? And what about the mashed potatoes? There has to be a better method than just dumping bagfuls in a pot and hoping there’s enough to go around. The pounds-per-person questions get asked on the Food52 Hotline every year, so it’s time to draw your line on the scale. As a general guide, take note of how much food you have left over (or what you needed more of) so that you can make the proper amount of turkey, potatoes, and pie for Thanksgiving dinner next year

Turkey

So how much Thanksgiving turkey should you cook based on the number of guests that you’ll be serving? Food52 user Nutcakes’ general rule is one pound of turkey per person, but argues that larger birds tend to yield more meat, so you could plan for three-fourths pound per person. Another user, Darksideofthespoon, goes for one pound per person too, but then adds a few extra pounds to ensure there’s enough turkey for leftovers sandwiches, soups, or pot pies to make on Black friday. Vittoria is more conservative and figures on a half pound per person, but also adds more for the sake of leftovers.

Steven Raichlen plans on a pound and a half of turkey per person: “This will make you feel properly overfed (as you should at Thanksgiving) and leave you with welcome leftover turkey. For me, a 12- to 14-pound turkey is ideal. For large gatherings, I’d rather cook two 12-pounders than one 24-pound monster. (It’s easier to control the cooking.)”

Virginia Willis shares all of the numbers you need to know: “In terms of turkey, it’s best to think about 1 1/2 pounds or 24 ounces per person of on-the-bone turkey. About half of that weight will be bone, so that takes it from 24 ounces to 12 ounces, and you will lose about a quarter of that when cooking, so that results in approximately 9 ounces of cooked turkey per person—plenty for dinner and some extra leftover turkey for sandwiches the next day. 

You know your guests better than me so consider if you are hosting a crowd of meat eaters or more herbivores. This will help you have a good guess-timate as to which size turkey to purchase. 

Potatoes

If you’re making simple mashed potatoes for Thanksgiving and other holiday dinners, Food52 user boulangere usually counts one and a half potatoes per person: “Everyone gets as much as they want, and you have those heavenly leftovers. At a more sane time, I go with one per person.” Keep in mind that the type of potato can determine how many you need. For example, you’ll certainly need more than one or two roasted fingerling potatoes per person. According to Reiney, “It really depends on how large the potatoes are, and how much mash you want to serve—if you’re talking the large russets, half to one each would probably be fine, with no leftovers. I usually err on the side of too much because they do seem to go quickly.” And who would ever say no to leftover mashed potatoes? 

In regards to potatoes, my general rule of thumb is one and a half medium Yukon gold potatoes per person, or since I am a big sweet potato fan, I estimate one sweet potato per person.

Food52 co-founder Amanda Hesser uses one-third pound potatoes per person. (Want to know her proportions for perfect mashed potatoes? To serve six people, she cooks two pounds of potatoes then mashes in one cup of milk, four tablespoons of butter1/3 cup of heavy cream, and one and a half teaspoons of salt.

Gravy

“In terms of gravy, I am a firm believer in there is no such thing as too much gravy,” writes Virginia Willis. However, experts say that ⅓ to ½ cup of gravy per guest is a good place to start. Our favorite Make-Ahead Gravy makes one quart of gravy, which would serve eight to twelve guests. You can always cut the recipe in half for a smaller crowd or double it in size so there is ample gravy for everyone’s turkey and plenty leftover for round two.

Cranberry Sauce

Whether you’re serving it from the can or making it from scratch, cranberry sauce is a must-have for Thanksgiving dinner and day-after leftovers. On average, figure a fourth of a cup of cranberry sauce per guest (and a little bit more for those who can’t get enough). One 14-ounce can of cranberry sauce will serve approximately five people.

Pie

Frankly, there is no such thing as too much pie. If you have a hankering to make apple piepecan pie, pumpkin pie, chocolate cream pie, and sweet potato pie, then by all means bake away (even if you’re hosting a small crowd). On average, one nine-inch pie (which is the standard size) will serve six. Sure you can cut smaller slices to feed more people, or give guests the chance to mix and match a few different types of pie, but six slices per pie is a safe estimate. If you’re hosting 12 loved ones for Thanksgiving, we’d recommend serving two to three pies, depending on whether or not you’ll be serving additional desserts or if you want to have leftovers.

Project Veritas claims Ashley Biden’s diary was “legally obtained” after she “abandoned it”: report

Project Veritas claims it thought Ashley Biden’s diary had been “legally obtained” by two people who provided it to the right-wing group after the president’s daughter “abandoned it.”

“Project Veritas had no involvement with how those two individuals acquired the diary,” lawyers for the group said in a letter dated Wednesday to a federal judge, the New York Times reported Friday night.

The Project Veritas lawyers added that the group’s knowledge about how the diary was obtained came from the two people themselves. The two people who obtained the diary are identified in the letter by their initials, “R.K. and A.H.”


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


Federal investigators, however, believe the diary was stolen, according to a warrant used to search the home of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe last weekend. The Department of Justice is investigating how the diary came to be published days before the 2020 election.

“The proceedings in the case have been sealed, but a producer for Fox News provided The New York Times with a copy of the letter written by the Project Veritas lawyers and its attachments, including a copy of the search warrant,” the newspaper reports. “The producer was seeking comment from The Times about allegations in the letter that the Justice Department had leaked news of the searches to the Times.”

Read the full story.

More like this:

Americans are “ignorant” about lung health — at their own peril

There are endless books to be found about your heart health. There’s plenty of literature on your gut. And don’t even get me started on your brain.

But our lungs tend to be neglected as a topic of interest, even in the midst of multiple ongoing respiratory crises, from cancer to COVID to asthma.

But Dr. MeiLan K. Han can help us close that health literacy gap. A professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care at the University of Michigan, she is the author of “Breathing Lessons: A Doctor’s Guide to Lung Health.” It’s at once an intriguing inside view of the respiratory system and a compelling case for the interconnectedness of our bodies and our environments. 

Salon spoke to Han recently about what we don’t know about every breath we take, and what’s really “raging” in your lungs when you contract COVID. 

This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity. 

How did you approach this subject, knowing that we are so ignorant as a population about lung health?

I do a lot of lung research, and many of my colleagues around the world and I were realizing that if we really want to cure chronic lung diseases, we have to be starting much earlier. We can’t just focus on the patients that already have problems, because patients get diagnosed so late. We have to start trying to find people in the community who have early lung damage and try to study them better. This is something that just hasn’t been done before, and we don’t know a lot.

In the book, for instance, I talk about how we got to know about heart disease. Much of it has to do with these really landmark studies like Framingham, which studied an entire population over the life course. They were able to develop all this, get all this great information. We just have never had anything like that for the lung. There’s still so much we don’t know. This was all swirling in the background when the pandemic hit.

Then it just became this perfect storm of having a massive respiratory pandemic. There’s still being so much we don’t know about how to treat and prevent lung disease. It’s not that we don’t know anything. Of course, we’ve got a lot of good things we can do. We’ve learned a lot about how to treat patients, for instance with COVID, during the pandemic. But to me, the pandemic itself provides this opportunity to help people understand that the health of their lungs is something that occurs over the life course. We shouldn’t be thinking only about our lungs at the point that they start to fail.


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


Let’s start at the very beginning of that story, and that first breath we take when we’re born.

It’s important to remember that so much of lung development occurs even before birth. Even in the womb, we are breathing. We’re obviously not breathing oxygen, but we are exercising our lungs and we’re pulling in amniotic fluid into the lungs. That act of pulling in the amniotic fluid into the lungs helps the lungs to develop. If that doesn’t happen, normally that is one of the first hits that the lungs can take in terms of abnormal development.

One of the key messages that I wanted to get out to women in particular and families is that there’s so much we need to do to protect the respiratory health of our children before they’re even born. Things like exposure to air pollution and secondhand smoke can all ultimately damage the developing of newborn’s lungs.

But when we get to that first moment, there’s just this incredible breath once babies are born. There’s this physiologic transformation that occurs where oxygen, instead of being delivered via the umbilical cord from mom, is all of a sudden delivered through the lungs. There’s this massive shift where the body closes down certain routes of blood flow and has to open up new ones to allow oxygenated blood to get to the body from the lungs. It seems very simple, right? When children are born, yeah, they’re crying, it’s all great. We forget that they weren’t actually really breathing in the womb and that this is suddenly a very new thing. The body has to go through this massive evolution within, seconds to change the way it exchanges oxygen and carbon dioxide.

RELATED: Meghan McCain attacks Kathy Griffin after lung cancer announcement

There are some numbers that you pull in this book that really shocked me. Twenty percent of mothers are smoking in the first three months of pregnancy, ten percent are still smoking in the last three. Forty percent of kids are exposed to secondhand smoke.

We have to remember that we live in a global society. There is huge amounts of variation in terms of smoking prevalence, particularly among women in different parts of the world and the different things that children are going to be exposed to, whether they’re living in Bangladesh or Rio de Janeiro or Sweden. I’m included in this group of middle class America, and we take certain things for granted. As a global society, that there is huge variation in the kinds things that young children are exposed to.

There are some things that we don’t even think about. For instance, I grew up in Idaho. It was very common in the winter there, to heat homes with wooden stoves. That’s just the way that we heated our home in the winter. There’s increasing evidence that things like wood burning stoves can cause quite indoor air pollution that can be really damaging to the lungs. There’s newer, cleaner stoves that are now available. I am sure that that stove that we had at home, that I was growing up with, did not meet those standards.

I wanted to raise awareness that even if you don’t have smokers in the home, other kinds of dangers maybe can be at home.

I live in a neighborhood that has an extremely high childhood asthma rate. What is happening particularly in urban centers around asthma is very disturbing. I also think about my friends in California and other parts of the country, what is happening with climate change and with fires. It feels very out of our control. What do you think we, as citizens of the world, might be able to do protect ourselves?

Unfortunately, the risks are increasing due to air pollution, due to climate change. We’ve got more dust in the air, we’ve got more particulate matter in the air. Some of the particulate matter from some of those wildfires out west have made it all the way to Michigan, where I live. The dangers are real and the dangers are going up. From a global perspective, I think this is why we have to support measures, from a government policy level, to try to reduce air pollution. We know that for instance, pollution in urban areas does make asthma much worse for children — for instance that live in the heart of New York City.

One of the interesting things that we saw during the pandemic is a drop in certain respiratory flareups for patients with chronic respiratory conditions. Some of this is probably related to reduced transmission of viruses from everyone wearing masks. But I suspect some of it’s also due to fewer people driving and a lot less air pollution, at least for certain parts of lockdown.

I can try to be part of community action to improve the air quality, but there may be at a certain point, only so much I can do. So what else can I do?

In the book I talk about measures to try to within the home. There are certainly things that you can do, like using low VOC paints and having your carpets aired out before new carpets are installed. There’s just a lot of kind of simple tips. You can run air filters in a home. Even thinking about where, if possible, we live. Whether you live near a freeway. We should, as a society, not be building schools near freeways or high traffic areas because kids will be outside playing. There’s definitely evidence to suggest that children, their lung function is impacted by being in proximity to a freeway.

There may be some simple things like that you can control, and then monitoring the air quality in your area. If you have a particularly sensitive child, just potentially not having to play as much outdoors on bad air quality days. There is some of this that is within our control.

The real seriousness of lung cancer and the impact that it has as a public health crisis doesn’t get the amount of attention and funding for research that it should. Talk to me about the dangers, particularly in this country.

More women die of lung cancer than they do of breast cancer every year. Not that breast cancer isn’t an important problem. I’m grateful for all the research that’s going into it. But part of the problem is that lung cancer suffers from a significant amount of stigma. As a society, we have decided that, well, you caused your own problem therefore it’s less important to us. We have to realize that a reasonable percentage of lung cancer actually occurs in non-smokers, particularly in women. You cannot just say, “This is your fault.” Furthermore, there are very few conditions that do not have some component of environmental exposures and behaviors and genetics.

We still treat cardiovascular disease, despite diet. We still treat liver disease despite, again, diet and alcohol consumption. We cannot as a society afford to accept caring for and funding diseases based on the public’s perceived level to which an individual has contributed to the problem. That’s just not helpful and it’s not going to help us move forward. It’s not going to save lives. Of course, awareness about smoking cessation is important, but even if everyone stops smoking, that’s not going to solve the lung cancer problem.

It is a huge problem. We need more cures. We need better cures. Fortunately, there have been some newer treatments for lung cancer that have come out within the last couple of years. Medicare has, at least in the United States started funding for lung cancer screening. We do now have good evidence to suggest that in patients that are at high risk for lung cancer, that getting annual CT scans can help detect cancers earlier. This is the kind of research we need, but I completely agree with you. Just going back to that fact that I said, things like breast cancer get so much attention, people don’t even realize more women are dying of lung cancer.

I want to also ask you about where we are now in terms of lung health. The vaping thing is very scary. What do you say to people who say it’s not as dangerous? Tell me what you’re seeing in terms of public health.

There is so much about vaping that absolutely terrifies me. At least with cigarettes we generally knew what was in them. We have this history of experience of what typically happens when you smoke, both in terms of acute and long term exposures. But the issue with vape liquids and e-cigarettes is that there’s been so little regulation that the number of compounds in anyone product can vary widely from product to product.

There are all sorts of harmful compounds, carcinogens and things that get even worse when they start to burn. There’s absolutely no reason to think that vaping is a “safe alternative.” Even when we look at the nicotine itself, the concentrations of nicotine in these type liquids are so high. Also it’s not like with a cigarette, where you could measure by the pack.

It’s much different when people have these liquid pods or whatever of varying sizes. Trying to figure out how much nicotine you’re actually getting is difficult to control and even measure. I have an eight year old and vaping scares the hell out of me.

Before the pandemic hit, we were seeing children dying, even needing lung transplants from e valley. They ultimately thought perhaps that was related to vitamin E that was in the vaping liquid. Who knows what the next thing’s going to be, that somebody’s going to decide to add to the vaping liquid?

We don’t know because it’s never been tested as a vaporized, inhaled product. That’s going to cause something else. We’re also starting to accumulate that the longer term data on the health effects has been more difficult to accumulate. I have one patient, for instance, that was a world class athlete who now has severe lung disease just from a very short vaping exposure.

We’ve written a lot of things about what happens when you have COVID and what it feels like inside your body and what the effects are. For you as an observer, is there something that you feel that we journalists are getting wrong?

There’s a really powerful picture in the book where I show what COVID looks like in the lungs, the particles. I don’t think people realize that when you contract COVID, even if you are asymptomatic, your lungs are literally coated in millions of viral particles. That’s been for patients that are asymptomatic or have minimal symptoms, have a bit of a cough. When we get imaging studies and we do CAT scans, we see all sorts of abnormalities.

I don’t think people realize just the sheer amount of viral load, some of the subtle things going behind the scenes in the lungs and the war that’s actually ravaging, raging in the lungs. Even in a patient that doesn’t even know they were infected. That is in part of why it’s so highly transmissible. You’re generating millions of viral particles that are sitting in your respiratory tract that you can then pass on to other people that aren’t going to fight the fight as well.

The other general misconception that frustrates the heck out of me is that the general public thinks, “If I’m not old and I don’t have a chronic condition, I’ll be okay.”

I was just up in our ICU a few weeks ago and we have a 30-something year-old that we’re trying to get off the ventilator. They’ve been on the ventilator for months due to COVID. We have children that have been in the hospital with COVID, and that unfortunately seems to be becoming more and more common. I think, misconception number one is just that if I am young and otherwise healthy, it doesn’t matter.

America is all about personal freedoms. I get that, and I love America and I’m proud to be an American. At the same time, I think, unfortunately, we’re taking a very selfish approach to vaccination where most of us look at our own personal risks and what we perceive as our own personal risk benefit calculation for the vaccine.

Many have chosen to forego vaccination. I just think what people forget is that it’s really a societal responsibility, because even if you don’t get sick, you could transmit it to someone else and they could die.

You can really hurt other people, even the people you love.

And then not even know you did it. The thing for me about vaccinations that’s frustrating is that there’s been so much discussion about the personal viewpoint, and less discussion about how the role that we play in the greater good of our communities.

If you could tell me one single thing that I could be doing to change my prospects for my lung health, what do you think that would be? An action that is a positive thing that you think people maybe aren’t doing or don’t know about.

The most important thing but not exciting answer is, limit your exposure to smoke. Assuming you’re not smoking and you aren’t around someone with smoke, believe it or not, as boring as it sounds, it’s exercise. We talk about exercise for heart health all the time. The thing that we’re learning about lung health is that the peak lung function achieved in early years may be determined by exercise and that that can ultimately impact your life course of lung health. People that maintain or even increase their fitness levels over time are going to have the healthiest lungs going into later adulthood.

That’s really important to say. And also to remind people that smoking weed is still smoking.

Yes. When I say to not inhale anything, I mean anything. A lot of patients ask me about marijuana use, and the only thing I tell them is, just don’t smoke it.

More lung health stories: 

How to bake a crackly-edged, fluffy-centered sweet potato

Making a perfect baked sweet potato is no easy task. Wait, that’s a joke right? It’s just a sweet potato! Sure, it may seem simple enough to wrap a sweet potato in aluminum foil, bake until the flesh is tender and the skin is crispy, top with butter and salt, and 50 minutes later—voila. But it takes a careful, practiced hand and a little bit of creativity to roast sweet potatoes like a pro.

Though in fry form anything is tasty and the candied variety are near and dear to my heart, the easiest way to prepare a sweet potato is to bake it in the oven. When done right, this yields tender, creamy flesh with crispy skin—perfect for using in any number of delicious dishes. While baking sweet potatoes isn’t exactly rocket science, there are a few tips and tricks you should keep in mind to get the most out of these beloved spuds. Here’s what you need to know.

How To Bake Sweet Potatoes

  1. Preheat the oven to 400˚F.
  2. Scrub sweet potatoes with a produce brush under running water (or rub them with your fingers if you don’t have a brush). Use a fork to poke holes in the potatoes; this will help the steam to escape the potato while ensuring that the flesh cooks thoroughly and evenly.
  3. Place the sweet potatoes on a baking sheet lined with parchment paper or a silicone baking matfor easy cleanup of any caramelized juices.
  4. Rub the potatoes with a thin coating of vegetable oil, coconut oil, or olive oil and sprinkle with some salt and pepper. (This is optional, but necessary if you want to eat the skin.) For a little more pizzazz, use brown sugar too.
  5. Bake in an oven until tender. You’ll know the potatoes are ready when a fork or knife pierces the flesh without any resistance. The cooking time will vary based on the size of the sweet potatoes, but this should take about 1 hour.
  6. Serve as desired, preferably with butter.

What To Look For When Buying Sweet Potatoes

It’s best to select small- to medium-sized sweet potatoes (figure about four to eight ounces each) as larger sweet potatoes tend to be starchier, which means a drier texture. You want to select those that are blemish-free and with tight, smooth skin.

How To Store Sweet Potatoes

Sweet potatoes can be stored at room temperature for about one week, but can last up to one month at cooler temps in a dry, dark location with good airflow. They should not be stored in the refrigerator, which can adversely affect taste and texture.

Good-To-Know Tips For Baked Sweet Potatoes

Though sweet potatoes are usually already pretty clean, it’s always a good idea to rinse them in the sink and give them a scrub with a produce brush to make sure any residual dirt is removed. (This is key if you plan to eat the skin, which you definitely should.) Then it’s just a matter of baking them in the oven until tender.

If you have the time, slow-roasting sweet potatoes at a lower temperature (anywhere from 275°F to 300°F) is great for bringing out even more of their natural sweetness and a creamier texture, but that can take two or more hours.

If you’re on more of a time crunch, you can still get a delectable baked sweet potato in about one hour by baking them at a higher temperature, like 400°F or higher.

Toppings For Baked Sweet Potatoes

The possibilities are endless when it comes to serving baked sweet potatoes, but you can’t go wrong with the standard baked potato toppings like sour cream, cheddar cheese, crumbled bacon, and sliced scallions. Another great option is spiced roasted chickpeas and tahini, or similarly, this recipe for a spiced lentil salad with lemon tahini dressing. One of my personal favorites is a combination of spicy chorizo, sautéed peppers and onions, chopped fresh cilantro, and cotija cheese. And for those that want to keep it simple, a little butter, some maple syrup, and a sprinkle of salt is divine.

Baked Sweet Potato Recipes

Southwestern Spiced Sweet Potato Fries With Chili-Cilantro Sour Cream

These are no ordinary sweet potato fries. My favorite root vegetable is cut into matchsticks and tossed with ground cumin, chile powder, paprika, cayenne pepper, and salt and pepper. It’s the perfect side dish for serving with barbecue, burgers, or, my personal favorite, a sloppy pulled pork sandwich.

Baked Sweet Potatoes With Maple Crème Fraîche From Nik Sharma

Once you’ve mastered the art of the perfect baked sweet potato, it’s time to dress it up. Food scientist and recipe developer Nik Sharma made these stuffed sweet potatoes with a zesty dressing made from crème fraîche, maple syrup, lime juice, and fish sauce.

Sweet Potato Bake

Think of this recipe as roast sweet potatoes in reverse. Instead of baking the potatoes whole in aluminum foil and then dressing them up, recipe developer Ali Slagle starts by boiling the peeled spuds whole in water. She then slices them, layers them in a baking dish, and tops them with butter, brown sugar, cinnamon, and a little bit of orange zest and then roasts the entire dish until bubbly.

Ed Sheeran: Arya wasn’t supposed to be on “Game of Thrones” past Season 7

Musician Ed Sheeran famously had a cameo appearance in the Season 7 premiere of “Game of Thrones,” playing a Lannister soldier Arya Stark (Maisie Williams) runs into on her way to King’s Landing. “We knew that Maisie was a big fan of Ed Sheeran, and for years we’ve been trying to get him on the show so we can surprise Maisie,” showrunner David Benioff said at the time. “This year we finally did it.”

It was a sweet little scene that humanized the Lannister soldiers and helped us reconnect a bit with Arya after her long strange adventure in Braavos. Sheeran recently talked about the scene on an episode of the Armchair Expert podcast, and he dropped a potential bombshell.

“She’s always been awesome,” Sheeran said of Williams. “I don’t think they had written the ending yet. It was meant to be her last season but it wasn’t. And as a surprise for her, [they got] me on. So, she was meant to turn up on set, and I was by the fire.”

So Sheeran is saying that Arya Stark wasn’t meant to appear on “Game of Thrones” past the seventh season? If true, that’s a pretty big change.

https://youtu.be/r9OoIQUTPaQ

Was Arya Stark supposed to die in “Game of Thrones” Season 7?

That said, I’m not really inclined to believe this was actually the case. For one thing, while the producers might not have written the ending to the show as a whole yet when Sheeran’s scene was filmed, they’d definitely written the ending to Season 7 — on a show as complicated as “Game of Thrones,” stories have to be planned out well ahead of time. And as we remember, Arya survives the season. For all I know they’d already filmed her final scenes; they never shot the episodes in sequence.

For another thing, you can see the writers laying track for Arya’s final moments in the series finale — when she leaves on a ship to discover what’s “west of Westeros” — as far back as Season 6; she talks to Lady Crane in Braavos about wanting to do just that.

I remember thinking at the time that this was a weird ambition for Arya to have since she’d never really expressed an interest in exploring for its own sake. Looking back, it’s pretty clear that this was setup the end of her story in Season 8.

And then there’s all the stuff Arya gets up to in Season 8, including killing the Night King and finally letting go of her vengeance against Cersei. So I’m guessing that Sheeran is just misremembering. He filmed this scene years ago; it happens.

Football’s unknown epidemic: When Black players die suddenly, the cover-up begins

In the predawn hours of Feb. 7, 2014, a pre-med student named Ted Agu, a son of Nigerian immigrants and a walk-on player for the University of California’s football team, the Golden Bears, dropped dead during a team conditioning exercise that involved sprinting up and down a campus hillside multiple times while pulling a thick rope, together with a group of other players.

Amidst the subsequent sentimental gestures honoring a young man who had died “doing what he loved” — while teammates and coaches issued tributes to Agu’s intelligence, compassion and dedication; while Cal paused other campus activities to stage a memorial service; while a plaque with his likeness was installed at Memorial Stadium — what is arguably the world’s most famous public university proceeded, on a different track, to do something quite different. It engineered what could only be termed a cover-up of the cause of Agu’s death. Moreover, the cover-up succeeded.

We’ll get to the elements of the cover-up in a moment. First, it’s important to note that offseason conditioning drill deaths of non-professional football players — who are often minors and thus, by definition, not legally consenting — tell their own collective and gruesome story. This is a vastly underreported aspect of football’s overall vastly underreported public health crisis.

Thanks to a vogue angle of medical research — which most people don’t realize has been around since at least the 1920s — many football participants and fans now have some appreciation of the problem of traumatic brain injury, which can have both immediate and lifelong consequences, as a byproduct of systematic violent contact. However, few know or understand the implications of a phenomenon that causes two or more youth football players to die almost every year — at high schools and obscure junior colleges, as well as at NCAA Division I programs like Cal’s — with no traumatic contact whatsoever, and without helmets or shoulder pads. 

These boys or young men are dying of bronchial asthma or genetic heart conditions or exertional heatstroke. And, like Ted Agu, at least some of them, probably far more than we know, are dying of what the medical literature has called “exertional sickling,” or ES. Sickling attacks are overwhelmingly associated with Black athletes, since approximately one in 12 African-Americans carry the sickle cell trait.

You most likely have heard of sickle cell anemia, an inherited red blood cell disorder. But sickle cell trait is different; it is not a disease. Carriers can lead normal lives. But they need to be extra-vigilant, with medical protocols in place to protect them in the event of distress during extreme exertion. The trait makes carriers urgently susceptible to rhabdomyolysis, the poisonous entry of dead muscle tissue into the bloodstream, which can cause sudden death.

I argue that all youth football conditioning deaths add up to more than the sum of their individual etiologies. They are a pandemic, albeit a socially induced one, of deaths from football itself — from the sheer size and scope and power of something our society would be wise to confine to a gladiator class certified to provide late-empire mass divertissement. Football belongs out of our public schools. It belongs off our public fields.

“A teen football player dies suddenly in America, for reason unrelated to collision on the field, and the postmortem investigation produces more questions than answers — particularly whether the stressful sport contributed mortally,” writes Matt Chaney, a Missouri author who has investigated the history of football harm. He cites as one of the key reasons “the reputedly ‘deficient’ state of autopsy in America, especially for children, as part of the death-investigations system that a National Academy of Sciences report characterizes as ‘fragmented’ and ‘hodgepodge.'” 

And if you analogize the global, multibillion-dollar football industry’s manufacturing of doubt about its dangers to the “captive research” funded or supported by the Tobacco Institute during an earlier era, then the unappreciated scale and causes of youth football conditioning deaths can be seen as something like the sport’s “second-hand smoke” problem.

Speaking of smoke, there was plenty of that spread by Cal authorities from the moment Ted Agu fell down dead, when everyone inside the football program immediately feared and suspected the worst.

Scott Anderson, the head athletic trainer for the University of Oklahoma football team — one of the sport’s most famous collegiate programs — heard all about it. He is an outspoken critic and monitor of some football coaches’ maniacal conditioning regimes. Often these are performative masculinity “toughness” rituals with zero fitness rationale, offering zero genuine competitive advantage. Anderson has a network of sources across the country. On the day Agu died, Anderson spoke with a former Cal football staffer who in turn was on the phone with an assistant coach at the Berkeley football complex. “The coach told my source, ‘It’s a sickle cell death,'” Anderson reported. A report including this revelation briefly made the front page at CBSsports.com, before mysteriously vanishing. Anderson later told the story directly to me. (CBS did not respond to Salon’s request for comment.)

At a same-day press conference, university officials, including team physician Dr. Casey Batten, deflected questions about whether Agu had any pre-existing medical condition. Working from a script drafted by the sports information office, Batten and others said they could not comment on details that might impinge on the privacy of the deceased student-athlete.

Behind the scenes, Batten was singing a different tune — an outright obstructive one. As Dr. Thomas Beaver, the Alameda County medical examiner, was preparing to perform an autopsy on Agu, he received a highly irregular phone call from Batten. The team doctor said the case looked like open-and-shut “HCM”: hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or generic heart failure. He did not mention ES, and the university never got around to telling Beaver — or the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, under which the medical examiner operates — that Agu had been tested for sickle cell trait and found to be a carrier. Beaver never asked.

Indeed, it’s unclear how much the coroner knew in the first place about sickle cell trait or exertional sickling. “I was fully aware of exertional sickling when I did the autopsy, but I had no history of sickle cell disease or trait,” Beaver told Salon. He recalled that in examining Agu’s body, he found “mild to moderate cardiomegaly” (i.e., an enlarged heart) but no evidence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (the disease by which the heart muscle grows excessively thick) or hypertensive cardiovascular disease.

“I was given the history that he was perfectly healthy and had participated in this specific drill many times without the slightest issue,” Beaver added. “It was not until I looked at the cardiac biopsy material that I found sickle cell in the microvasculature and could raise the issue.” From that point forward, he said, the investigation was conducted by the sheriff’s office and he was no longer involved. “I was never given the history of documented sickle cell trait, or shown any documentation that I recall,” he said.

The autopsy report was released two months after Agu’s death. To the great relief of university officials, the cause of death was listed as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

The truth didn’t begin to emerge until discovery and depositions for the Agu family’s wrongful death lawsuit against the University of California’s Board of Regents. In his own deposition, Beaver recounted the phone conversation in which Batten had put his thumb on the scales of the autopsy investigation. A sheriff’s lieutenant confirmed that the university had faxed over 112 pages documenting its own investigation, while appearing to omit up to 29 other pages.

Asked about his call to the coroner, Batten said under oath, according to the transcript of his deposition: “Um, I don’t recall that I had a conversation where we — I think we did say something along the lines of it appeared to be, but it was — I think it was — it might have been after — I really don’t recall when I spoke with him….”

Batten is now lead primary care physician for the Los Angeles Rams of the National Football League, and is also on staff at the highly prestigious Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. He did not respond to Salon’s request for comment, and a spokesperson for Cedars-Sinai said the hospital could not respond to questions about events in Batten’s career that predated his employment there.  

After the depositions, Beaver — who by then had taken another coroner post in Florida, and is now a faculty member at the Medical University of South Carolina — took the extraordinary step of having Alameda County revise the autopsy report to reflect the new conclusion that ES was a contributing cause of Ted Agu’s death. Not long after that, the University of California’s lawyers reached agreement with the Agu family on a $4.75 million settlement of their wrongful death suit.

But to call ES a contributing factor in this case seems a major understatement. Testimony by Agu’s teammates made clear that he collapsed multiple times and deteriorated in stages, rather than dying suddenly. That sequence is completely consistent with ES-rhabdomyolysis, and not at all consistent with a coronary event.

ES awareness can be funny that way. For football, as we’ll see, it’s a political football. In other walks of life, it’s an excuse. Surveying the overall cluster of litigation over deaths of African-American males, there seems to be only one category of defendants who jump to acknowledging ES. In fact, in that one category, defendants aggressively deploy this explanation. That category is police officers, in fatalities involving criminals or suspects. There, apologists for the brutality that caused the individual in custody to die suddenly are quick to suggest that the culprit might have been ES, rather than the proverbial or actual knee on the neck, as in the infamous case of George Floyd.

Yet even today, if you do a standard Google search for Ted Agu’s cause of death, the result still comes up as “hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.” Adhering to the maxim often attributed to Mark Twain, the lie got halfway around the world before the truth put its shoes on. Which was exactly the way Cal and FootballWorld — my term for the organized football establishment — wanted it.

As a grim illustration of this, my California Public Records Act lawsuit against the University of California is now in its fifth year. As a result of the corresponding public information law requests, some of them enforced or catalyzed by my court petition and court orders, 700 pages of internal university documents have been produced, many of them intensely focused on the university’s PR management of Agu’s death.

The only reason this litigation remains ongoing is that UC apparently is not content with its victory in seeing none of these details, which have only been published at my personal website, picked up by any mainstream news outlet. The university is now asking California’s First District Court of Appeal to reverse a lower court’s ruling ordering reimbursement of my attorney’s fees and costs. (Earlier this year, the parties had settled on a discounted payment of $125,000.)

Demonstrating that Cal football at least knows how to fight the last war, emergency medical services were summoned in a timely fashion during a subsequent conditioning episode in 2018 that involved another Black player on the first day of team conditioning. He had been pulled out of a practice three months earlier, and this time required hospitalization for two nights with what was diagnosed as “non-traumatic rhabdomyolysis.” Again, news of the incident was efficiently hushed up.

For FootballWorld, multimillion-dollar settlements of lawsuits by family survivors are baked in as a cost of doing business. In case you’re wondering how key individual actors in the Agu death and the subsequent cover-up made out, beyond the illustrious Dr. Batten, the answer is that they’re doing fine — and without exception have moved on to bigger paychecks and more prestigious programs.

Damon Harrington, the strength and conditioning coach who designed and supervised the bizarre drill that killed Agu — which is certainly not found in any kinesiology or cardiovascular health textbook — had his contract renewed twice at Cal before moving on to become strength and conditioning coach for the football team at Grambling State in Louisiana, one of the best-known historically Black universities in the nation. Today, he holds the same position at Texas Tech.

Sonny Dykes, who was head football coach at Cal when Ted Agu died — and for whom Harrington was executing a mandate of “culture change” for a football program seen as having grown soft — is now head coach at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. In 2019, he was among the finalists for the Football Writers Association of America’s Eddie Robinson Coach of the Year Award.

Sandy Barbour, the former athletic director at Cal, now holds that position at Penn State, a school whose legendary football program has been tainted by an entirely different kind of scandal.

*  *  *

There’s a broader question here about the persistence of a largely-unaccounted subset of youth football deaths among Black players. Anderson, the Oklahoma athletic trainer, maintains a spreadsheet updating cases of known sickling fatalities in football conditioning. There have been at least 31 since 1963. By his calculation, nearly half of all college football conditioning deaths are from exertional sickling.

There is “a ratio of 4.5 nontraumatic deaths for every traumatic death,” Anderson wrote in the Journal of Athletic Training, meaning that far more players die as a result of training or practice than because they got hit in the head on the field. “On average, 2 NCAA football players die per season.”

On the college football ES list, Ted Agu was No. 29. Because of cover-ups similar to Cal’s but across a longer period, and because of generally poor awareness of sickle cell trait and ES, there may have been many additional deaths that were inaccurately ascribed to “random” heart attacks and the like. Anderson has documented scores of conditioning deaths in college football this century. There could be scores more at lower levels of the sport, all the way down to Pop Warner and pee-wee leagues. Anderson’s colleague, now-retired football team physician Dr. E. Randy Eichner, writes extensively about safety lapses in conditioning drills.

No. 27 on the ES list was Ereck Plancher, who died at the University of South Florida in 2008. That happened on the watch of an athletic trainer named Robbie Jackson, who moved on to California and was head athletic trainer on the scene when Agu died six years later. After being intimately involved with two such similar tragedies, Jackson seems to be the only main figure in the story who suffered noticeable career consequences: He left football and was last reported to be working in medical supply sales.

Anderson wrote that the four most common causes of “on-field (non-trauma) collapse of a football player who takes the field healthy are, by and large, different enough in setting and clinical features that, even judging only from early, sparse, media accounts we can sometimes make an educated guess that proves right.” Those four are ES, cardiac disease, exertional heatstroke (EHS) and asthma.

With more than 150 fatalities at all levels of football since 1955, EHS is the most frequent cause, and it is the one that has captured most of the headlines in recent years. There was 16-year Zachary Martin (who was not Black), at Riverdale High School in Fort Myers, Florida, in 2017. There was 19-year-old Jordan McNair, at the University of Maryland in June 2018.

And just two months after McNair, there was 19-year-old Braeden Bradforth, at Garden City Community College in Kansas. Bradforth had been rush-recruited from New Jersey less than a week earlier. He expired on his first full day in Kansas, at altitude. After the head coach, Jeff Sims, lashed out at him for supposedly not making enough effort in first-day conditioning drills, during which basic hydration was withheld, an assistant coach dismissed Bradforth from the inaugural team meeting — and, seemingly, the team — and he wandered off. Shortly thereafter, teammates found the 300-pound lineman lying unconscious outside the dormitory building where he had just moved in. Team staff directed that his body be crudely hosed down before 911 was belatedly called.

Garden City is one of the “Last Chance U” bottom-feeder football programs in the junior college system; it was where Tyreek Hill, now a star wide receiver for the Kansas City Chiefs, got a leg up before transferring to Oklahoma State and being drafted by the NFL. Sims, a peripatetic coach who was in the middle of taking Garden City to two straight junior college national championship games, blatantly lied in his early spin to the media — which was dutifully amplified on a national scale by Sports Illustrated and others — saying that Bradforth’s death was a random, context-free act of God. Only after the dogged investigations of Braeden’s mother, Joanne Atkins-Ingram, and her lawyer, Jill Greene, did the college begin seriously accounting for its gross negligence. Sims left Garden City for Missouri Southern State, then was let go there around the time Garden City settled the Bradforth family’s lawsuit for $500,000, the maximum amount allowable under the Kansas legal doctrine of “qualified immunity” for state public agencies.

One thing Sims could well have faced, but didn’t, was criminal prosecution for reckless endangerment or manslaughter. There is only one known case of such prosecution in a football conditioning death: the EHS death of 15-year-old Max Gilpin at Louisville’s Pleasure Ridge Park High School in 2008. The Pleasure Ridge Park head coach, Jason Stinson, was acquitted at trial, but Jefferson County Public Schools forked over $1.75 million to the Gilpin family to settle the civil case.

(Two Georgia high school girls’ basketball coaches currently face charges for the 2019 EHS death of one of their players.)

Dr. Eichner has published voluminously on avoidable football conditioning deaths in general and ES in particular. He has consulted in dozens of wrongful death lawsuits involving sports or the military, including the Agu family’s. (A 1987 Army study found that Black recruits with sickle cell trait were 30 times likelier to die during basic combat training than those without the trait.) Commenting on the recent football heatstroke deaths in the newest issue of Current Sports Medicine Reports, Eichner writes: “Global warming and a demanding coach can be a lethal combination [especially] for a huge lineman. This is especially true when the coach lacks common sense. In football, training is often by tradition; athletes become coaches and train young athletes as they were trained. Too often, the focus is on ‘creating’ toughness and discipline more than developing football fitness and skills.”

*  *  *

Black people are around 13 percent of the U.S. population, but Black athletes comprise 46 percent of Division I football players, according to NCAA data. In the NFL, that figure is close to 60 percent.

A basic and understandable explanation for this is what has been called the “Dr. J. Syndrome,” after basketball legend Julius Erving: Lacking a multitude of models for advancement, Black youth cling to the visible and compelling dream of fame, glory and riches in sports and entertainment.

David Karen, a specialist in the sociology of sports at Bryn Mawr College, also sees fundamentally rational economic choices playing out. “There is serious tracking happening with sports, by race and class,” Karen said. “What do parents and kids perceive the sports opportunity structure to look like? People are going to gravitate toward opportunities that appear plentiful and well-used. Additionally, what kids choose to do in college is structured by what they’d had access to before — from very young ages onward.”

Hamilton College sociologist Alex Manning specifically studies the dynamics of racism, inequality, families, youth, sports and culture. He told me: “It comes down to how we treat sports institutionally. A lot of sports require substantial private resources in order to get to elite levels, but football is something supported and invested in by public schools. That’s where the funneling happens.”

In Manning’s analysis, football’s touted benefits to the commonweal, such as forging teamwork and wider community-building, as well as time management and other disciplines said to be individual life skills, stem from the same structural determinism: “Especially in the South — rural, urban and suburban — football has become that rare open space and institution for Black youth-centered activity. It is where young African-American men can build recognition and attain some agency in their lives.”

Passivity regarding the lethal risk of ES is a challenging extra piece of the puzzle around football, racialization and death. The University of California and other higher-education football factories, major and minor, couldn’t so easily get away with burying the complications of providing for both athletic opportunity and safety if the most conspicuous constituency didn’t largely remain silent. Many Black people in or around football who I have spoken with about this have expressed sentiments that could be summarized this way: “Why do we have to take the lead in raising sickle cell trait consciousness? That will just be one more thing used to stigmatize us and retard Black progress.”

Activists for sickle cell anemia research and treatment don’t necessarily want to hear evidence about exertional sickling and football deaths, fearing it could draw oxygen away from their fundraising efforts. This statement appears on the Sickle Cell Disease Association of America website: “Given the lack of scientific evidence that substantiates a significant correlation between sickle cell trait in athletes and training related sudden death, SCDAA does not support screening of athletes for sickle cell trait as a means to reduce heat related illness or death in athletes who are carriers.”

That disclaimer relies on a restricted definition of what constitutes a “significant correlation.” The families of Ereck Plancher and Ted Agu might consider the link not insignificant. So might the loved ones of Aaron O’Neal (University of Missouri, 2005), whose death was not nailed down as ES until long afterward. The larger public health point is that greater awareness would almost certainly establish greater correlation.

Here’s the language from the Centers for Disease Control: “Some people with SCT have been shown to be more likely than those without SCT to experience heat stroke and muscle breakdown when doing intense exercise, such as competitive sports or military training under unfavorable temperatures (very high or low) or conditions.” 

The CDC recommends sickle cell trait screening for athletes, and the NCAA mandates that football programs offer optional screening. Ted Agu was among those who opted in, but it’s not known what percentage of Black student-athletes opt out. Anyway, screening itself is meaningless if, as in Agu’s case, a school knows about a player’s sickle cell trait vulnerability but does nothing about it when a life-saving intervention is needed — and then proceeds to skew and cover up the record after the worst happens.

And what ES awareness safety measures could give to young Black men, they could also take away. Football “scholarships” are not the bootstrapping grants-in-aid portrayed in sports mythology; they are semester-to-semester contracts at the almost sole discretion of the coaches. Players who are perceived as not able to cut it are dropped, just as ruthlessly as NFL players under the imperfect protections of their union. There is good reason for Black athletes to be concerned that greater caution around ES could mean a reduction of scholarship opportunities.

So it goes in the stormy cultural marriage between young Black men and organized football. Until death do they part.

Trump’s early COVID-19 response even more politicized than previously thought, new documents show

Documents released Friday reveal how in early 2020 the Trump administration downplayed the deadly danger posed by the nascent Covid-19 pandemic, silencing and sidelining top health officials who tried to warn the public and destroying evidence of political interference while issuing rosy declarations that the outbreak was “totally under control” and would soon be over.

The emails and transcripts—released by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis—show that as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) became aware that the highly infectious virus that causes Covid-19 was spreading rapidly, agency officials requested to hold briefings about mask guidance and other issues. Their requests were denied.

Top Trump officials also moved to block the CDC from publishing information about the pandemic and tried to alter the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (MMWRs) to reflect former President Donald Trump’s unrealistically optimistic Covid-19 messaging—which infamously included such claims in January and February 2020 as “we have it totally under control,” that the outbreak is “going to have a very good ending,” and that infections would “be down close to zero” with days.


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


As of Friday, there have been more than 760,000 U.S. deaths from Covid-19, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University, making it the deadliest pandemic in the nation’s history.

According to Politico:

The emails and transcripts detail how in the early days of 2020 Trump and his allies in the White House blocked media briefings and interviews with CDC officials, attempted to alter public safety guidance normally cleared by the agency, and instructed agency officials to destroy evidence that might be construed as political interference.

The documents further underscore how Trump appointees tried to undermine the work of scientists and career staff at the CDC to control the administration’s messaging on the spread of the virus and the dangers of transmission and infection.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who chairs the coronavirus subcommittee, said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s use of the pandemic to advance political goals manifested itself most acutely in its efforts to manipulate and undermine CDC’s scientific work,” adding that the investigation “has uncovered a staggering pattern of political interference.”

Peter Suwondo, a former CDC global health adviser, said the new revelations are “more evidence of how health leaders at the CDC were silenced and overruled in the early days of the pandemic.”

“Top elected officials preferred to keep Americans in the dark and set policy based on political considerations, not science,” he added.

In addition to interfering with the work of CDC officials, the documents show that Dr. Scott Atlas, Trump’s special adviser, weakened Covid-19 testing while pushing a dubious herd immunity strategy. They also reveal Trump’s anger at Dr. Nancy Messonnier—then director of the agency’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases—after she gave a February 25, 2020 press conference to warn about the outbreak’s severity.

“It’s not so much a question of if this will happen anymore,” Messonnier said of the rapidly spreading pandemic, “but rather more a question of exactly when.”

When asked about a CNN report that CDC officials felt “muzzled” by the administration’s actions, Dr. Anne Schuchat, the agency’s former principal deputy director, said, “That is the feeling that we had, many of us.”

Friday’s revelations follow reporting Thursday that ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl’s new book, Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show, contains details about how the former president’s reelection team ordered a stop to Covid-19 testing during a June 2020 outbreak in which infected campaign staffers and Secret Service agents spread the virus before, during, and after a rally in a Tulsa, Oklahoma arena.

Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, who spoke at the Tulsa event, died of Covid-19 about a month later.

“We killed Herman Cain,” a senior Trump campaign official told ABC News reporter Will Steakin, according to the new book.

More like this:

“Mayor Pete” director on capturing authenticity: “The process of campaigning is dehumanizing”

If the end result of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary was ultimately predictable, concluding with Joe Biden as the nominee and Kamala Harris as his running mate, one thing few saw coming was the unlikely rise of South Bend, Indiana’s Mayor Pete Buttigieg. The army vet and small-town political leader would become the first openly gay candidate to win the Iowa caucus at just 37 years old. He shattered fundraising records, often spoke vulnerably about his experience as a gay man who came out at age 33 and rose as a star of the Democratic Party.

In Amazon Prime’s new documentary “Mayor Pete,” director Jesse Moss takes audiences on an intimate journey through the inner workings of Buttigieg’s campaign and his private life while on the campaign trail. As Moss tells Salon, the documentary explores “the good and the bad, the pretty and the ugly” of campaign life, and what it takes to run for president, through never-before-seen footage and interviews with Buttigieg and his husband Chasten.

RELATED: Our political future is in millennial hands — even if it feels like boomers will never retire

Buttigieg may have broken new ground in many ways, but the documentary simultaneously recognizes the ways his campaign was also controversial. This was certainly true among the more left and progressive wings of the party, as Buttigieg had criticized universal health care and tuition-free public higher education. The documentary also revisits how he faced heated protest from Black voters and South Bend community members about police brutality in his city, as well questions about his low polling with Black voters and voters of color. Others confronted Buttigieg about the race-gendered double standards that allowed him to excel in the race with almost no political experience, while far more experienced women candidates and candidates of color were making little headway in the primary.

Love him or hate him, the South Bend mayor made a name for himself in the national conversation, and his recurring struggle to present an “authentic” version of himself on the campaign trail is emblematic of a greater human struggle, Moss tells Salon. “How do we choose who represents us?” he said. “What is the process that they go through, that we evaluate them through? And what does it do to them?”

Read the rest of Moss’ interview, in which he talks about being behind-the-scenes of one of the most surprising presidential campaigns in recent history — including incidents like being kicked off the campaign bus by Buttigeig’s firebrand communications director, Lis Smith, or an elevator breakdown moments before the first debate — and the many deeply human questions both posed and answered by the campaign.

The following has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Throughout the campaign trail, there was often criticism of Pete for talking in platitudes a lot (social media users created the “Mayor Pete Platitude Generator”), rather than policy. In creating the documentary, how did you try to cut beneath the surface of regurgitated campaign talking points?

As a journalist or a documentary storyteller, you need to sort of guard against what feels false, what feels regurgitated, what feels like a platitude. That’s your job, to cut through the bulls**t. And I will tell you that probably in Pete’s version of this telling, there’s a lot more policy in this film. The campaign had a lot of policy positions, which they articulated. The Douglas Plan, for instance, with the African-American community around structural racism, and, you know, all the things that people talk a lot about during the campaign. 

But to me, where the story was really located was in Pete’s struggle within himself. I found that as a human story to be most interesting, because obviously there’s a big political story of how he positioned himself as a candidate and connected with voters and became a successful credible, top-tier candidate. But to me, that sort of human story at the center of the narrative is where I wanted to focus. You can focus on an infinite number of directions, and then you have to make some choices. And I just went into the project with this sort of central question of, what’s it like to be a human being and run for president? It’s kind of inhuman process. Who do you become, what does it force you to be? I think Chaston articulates that question really powerfully at the top of the film, which is, “Was Pete able to be his authentic self while running?” I’ll leave that to the viewers to decide — was the Pete that they meet in this film able to be his authentic self? And what is that? 

I think it’s a struggle for him. And I think you see it in the scenes that were most interesting to me, which were not a platitude stump speech in Iowa. That stuff I wasn’t interested in. I tried not to film any more than I absolutely needed to. I loved to be in South Bend. I loved to see him be mayor, I loved to be home with him and Chasten. And I loved to film debate preparation, which were scenes that were almost more therapeutic than about policy. They’re about locating within himself these emotions that he hasn’t been able to express about his identity. That was very interesting.


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


One big challenge for Mayor Pete’s campaign was criticism from Black protesters over racial justice issues, which is shown in the documentary. Was there any consideration given to interviewing or giving a platform to these voices for the documentary?

I think that you meet those voices the way Pete meets them. It’s subjective storytelling that interests me as a documentary filmmaker. Getting up close to Pete and Chasten was what I wanted to do. This project is not largely film interviews. I mean, I love to make cinema verite, that’s been the work I’ve made for 20 years. And it’s subjective work. What I do is probably different than what you do if you write for a newspaper about politics. 

I wanted to get close to Pete and Chasten and to see this story from their ground level point of view. And I think you see it uncomfortably when when Pete encounters the rage, the anger, the frustration of the African-American community in South Bend, they let him have it. You see it when he meets with faith leaders in Dallas in that church and someone, an African-American man, says to him, why should we vote for you? Why should they vote for a white candidate? You see Pete struggle, frankly, to answer those questions. Those are the scenes that are interesting to me dramatically. You consider all options, as a storyteller, and then you sort of rule them out. I wanted to interview people who loved Pete who were in that community, and hated Pete, but then that’s just not the approach that I felt was aligned with how I wanted to tell this story. 

I think what we see Pete face is a thread that any white candidate has to confront, if they’re going to represent the interests of the African-American community or any community that’s not them. That is the challenge of the Democratic Party to some degree now. Who will lead the party? How will they represent the fractured constituencies of the party? You see Pete negotiate that, and ultimately, the referendum in South Carolina shows he didn’t get that support. That was the end of his campaign. So I think that you do see surface powerfully. It’s not the only story of his campaign, though. There were others, and I wanted to make room for them as well.

Were you in the elevator with the team when it stopped before the first debate? There was a lot of panic and also comedy in that moment. What was it like?

It’s kind of like you feel like you’re living a moment from “Veep” or something. We just showed the film to an audience in New York, and there were a lot of laughs, and I’m just really glad because there were funny moments. That’s kind of a terrifying moment, yet I love how composed Pete is, and Liz is freaking out, and everybody else is like, sure we’re gonna fall, we’re gonna plummet to our deaths. 

I was like, “Well, if I go down, I’m going to keep rolling. Because what the f**k else am I gonna do? It just ended up turning into a very amusing scene, and I loved it. It was right before the first debate. It’s just the kind of happy accidents of documentary-making, and in hindsight, you look back and we all thought it was going to fall down and kill us all. But I think at the moment, it seemed like, what are you going to do except keep rolling?

The phone calls between Buttigieg and President Obama as well as Biden were widely discussed and speculated about, around the time that Buttigieg dropped from the race last year. What was it like to be present for those moments? Did you consider including more detail or shining more light on those calls?

I was really happy that in a moment of utter disappointment that Pete didn’t push me away, like probably a lot of people would have when he was withdrawing from the race. He actually pulled me closer, and I was able to be with him, then to go home with him that night and to see him receive those condolence calls, which are the natural things that any candidate mounts or a credible campaign would receive from those people. You hear the sentiment that matters probably to Pete, from Biden, and I think you see them connect briefly earlier in the film. There seems to be some chemistry between them which is genuine. I think that Biden said when Pete endorsed him that Pete reminded him of his sons — he had two, one of whom passed away. I think he respects Pete, and if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have appointed him to the Cabinet. I think respects the campaign that he ran. 

Was there more to those phone conversations? I think there are certainly conversations I wasn’t privy to, but I’m actually really happy with the access I got to his campaign. I got to see the good and bad, the pretty and ugly, and it was all on display. I think it’s a testament to Pete’s trust, his leap of faith, that he was willing to show himself getting, frankly, the s**t kicked out of him in debate prep, for example.

There are a lot of scenes, especially between Buttigieg and Smith, that show him struggling to present an authentic image of himself for audiences. Was it ever a struggle for you to get him to be authentic for the documentary?

That’s the work of this kind of documentary storytelling — you can have trust in theory or access in theory, but access in fact has to be earned and re-earned every day with a subject and the advantages of longitudinal documentary work is you have time, you know, and patience to get to know them. You’re not there to serve their interests. I’m an independent journalist. The ground rules of this were very clear and established upfront that he had no editorial control over the story that I was telling. I would never give that up to anybody. But you’re still asking somebody to invite you in and be vulnerable. As a journalist you ask of your subjects what they ask of you, honesty, compassion, truthfulness, integrity. 

I find with subjects you’re writing and rewriting the rules of access and negotiating them. Pete committed to the project and he committed to letting me in, both at home and at work on the campaign trail. I think the relationship story with Chasten kind of emerged as a surprise to me and was, in the end, the key to understanding more about Pete, who is a bit of a remote person. Seeing him from Chasten’s point of view, who’s unguarded in ways that Pete’s very guarded,  felt like it unlocked a dimension to their personal story that was really illuminating, and I don’t think he had planned on that. 

RELATED: From the desk of Pete Buttigieg (corrected)

But you know, the other thing that’s hard is that campaign staff’s job is to keep you away from the candidate. So, they don’t trust you really, which, why should they? That’s hard. You know, I got kicked off the bus by Lis Smith in Iowa, which is hard. But it just goes with the territory. And you know, there were times when they needed a moment, they asked me to turn the camera off, and you do it. There were moments I was asked to leave not because it was politically sensitive, and there were also just things I didn’t have access to.

Speaking of Lis Smith, she herself became a pretty big personality on the campaign trail. As you started to see her star grow in the political sphere amid the campaign, was there consideration about giving her more focus in the documentary?

What’s interesting about Lis is she’s the opposite of Pete in many ways, but I think it was interesting that he’s invited her into that role to challenge him. He needs it, you know, he articulates that in the film — it’s sort of Lis’ job is to help him walk that line. What is authentic? What’s inauthentic? I mean, authentic people can be inauthentic sometimes too, and the process of campaigning is kind of dehumanizing and presents challenges to any journalist who covers it. How are you covering the campaign? If you’re just writing about a stump speech and you don’t have any access, you’re writing about what they say — did it measure up against what they do? Anyway, Lis is a powerful, very talented lady who let Pete have it. And that was interesting to watch.

There’s been conversation lately about the possible harms of making politics about celebrity, rather than focusing on policy. Was the concept of the celebrity politician something that came up in discussions about making the documentary?

I don’t know that I think about it in those terms — I think the questions to me are, we live in a representative democracy, so how do we choose who represents us? What is the process that they go through, that we evaluate them through? And what does it do to them? These are kind of intellectual questions, but we know from Trump’s election, and before that Obama’s, that the norms of presidential politics have been shattered. Insurgent, outsider candidates can be competitive and successful. So, why not a mayor from South Bend who’s 37 years old? 

RELATED: Mayor Pete is a mirage — but the road ahead looks murky for Democrats

Does a platform to communicate on television mean celebrity? One of the things we talked about with Pete and if you’re any candidate like Andrew Yang and become to some degree successful, you’ll become famous, right? And what does it mean to become famous? There’s a process that involves media exposure, where you become a well-known person. And how does that destabilize you? That’s an interesting question. I think that is played out to some degree, as Pete struggled to be himself, and also satisfy the demands of a political process, the voters and the media and what they want and need from you, and what you need from them in order to be successful. 

In creating this documentary and spending this time with Mayor Pete, did you get a sense of what may be next for him? What’s next for you in terms of future projects?

Well, for Pete, I guess he’s got his hands full as Secretary of Transportation, and he’s got two newborn twins that he’s fathering. So that’s a lot of work. Obviously, a big portfolio in the Department of Transportation and a significant place in the Democratic Party given his profile. I don’t know what his political future is. I can’t say, I’m not good at prognostications. I sense that Pete might do well in a future campaign, and I like Pete’s response to that question of whether he’ll be president someday, at the end of the film, that “Time is on my side.” I don’t know if he’ll be president, but he’s still quite young, so it’ll be interesting to watch. I think Chasten will have a role in public life. He’s uniquely talented, in different ways. 

For me, I’m tempted to say no political films any time soon, having just made two back-to-back very different films about American politics. But I think it’s also kind of a reflection of the moment, you know, that our democracy feels like it’s in peril. Our country’s intensely polarized, and every choice I make is political on the work I do. I want it to matter and hopefully put some good in the world.

“Mayor Pete” is now streaming on Amazon Prime. Watch the trailer for it below via YouTube.

https://youtu.be/1CCXyUge7hA 

More stories like this:

Hollywood’s love of guns increases the risk of shootings – both on and off the set

In what appears to be a tragic accident, actor Alec Baldwin shot dead a cinematographer on Oct 21, 2021, while discharging a prop gun on set in New Mexico.

It is too early to speculate what went wrong during the filming of the Western movie “Rust.” But the incident, in which the film’s director was also injured, highlights a simple fact: Guns are commonplace in Hollywood films.

As scholars of mass communication and risk behavior, we have studied the growing prevalence of firearms on screen and believe that the more guns there are in movies, the more likely it is that a shooting will occur – both in the “reel” world and in the “real” world.

Gun violence in Hollywood movies has increased dramatically over time, especially in movies accessible to teens. Indeed, our research shows that acts of gun violence in PG-13 movies nearly tripled over the 30 years between 1985 (the year after the rating was introduced) and 2015. Similar trends have been observed in popular TV dramas, with the rate of gun violence depicted in prime time dramas doubling between 2000 and 2018.

Of course, depictions of violence in the entertainment industry are nothing new. The use of guns in Hollywood films has a long tradition going back to the gangster movies of the 1930s. Guns were also featured heavily in the Western TV shows of the 1950s.

The upsurge in the depiction of guns in movies and TV shows is likely related to the realization that violence draws audiences and guns are an easy way to dramatize violence. And here filmmakers have a willing accomplice in the gun industry.

Media outlets are averse to allowing gun advertising on TV or mass-circulated magazines. But guns are amply displayed in top-grossing movies and popular TV dramas.

We know that the gun industry pays production companies to place its products in their movies. They are rewarded with frequent appearances on screen, so much so that in 2010 the firearm company Glock won a “lifetime achievement award for product placement,” with a citation noting that Glocks appeared in 22 box office No. 1 films during that year.

The payoff for gun companies can be great – prominent placement in high-profile films can result in a significant bump in sales for gun models.

Making guns “cool”

But the potential harm caused by guns in Hollywood goes far beyond the occasional tragic accident on set. Studies show that simply seeing a gun can increase aggression in the viewer through what is called the “weapons effect.”

Violent movies and TV programs, which often contain guns, can likewise increase aggression and make viewers numb to the pain and suffering of others, numerous studies show.

And children might be especially vulnerable – which makes it all the more notable that the prevalence of guns in PG-13 movies has increased over the decades.

Younger viewers will often identify movie characters as being “cool” and want to imitate their behavior.

This was seen with smoking on screen: Children who see movie characters smoke cigarettes are more likely to smoke themselves. A similar effect was observed with children who watched movie characters drink alcohol.

In a study conducted by one of us, pairs of children ages 8 to 12 were first randomly assigned to watch a PG-rated movie clip containing guns or the same movie clip with the guns edited out.

They were then put in a room that contained several toys and games, while being observed by a hidden camera.

A cabinet in the room contained a real, but disabled, 9mm handgun that had been modified with a digital counter to record the number of times children pulled the trigger.

Most children (72%) opened the drawer and found the gun. But children who watched the movie clip with guns in it held the handgun longer – on average 53.1 seconds compared with 11.1 seconds for those who watched a clip without guns. They also pulled the trigger more times – 2.8 times on average compared with 0.01 times for those who watched the movie clip without guns.

Some children engaged in very dangerous behaviors with the real gun, such as pulling the trigger while pointing the gun at themselves or their partner. One boy pointed the real gun out the laboratory window at people in the street.

The kind of gun violence featured in Hollywood movies tends to highlight the justified use of those weapons. When characters use guns to defend themselves or family, their use is seen as acceptable.

This has the result of encouraging viewers to think that using guns for the protection of self or others is virtuous.

Reflecting or glamorizing violence?

The United States is the most heavily armed society in the world. Although consisting of about 4% of the world’s population, U.S. citizens possess almost half of the world’s guns.

In featuring guns so heavily, there is a danger that Hollywood is not merely reflecting society – it is encouraging firearm sales.

While incidents of actors and film production staff being injured or killed through accidental shootings are thankfully rare, the likelihood of fatal shootings – accidental or otherwise – in the real world goes up with every sale of the kinds of guns featured by Hollywood.

[Over 110,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Brad Bushman, Professor of Communication and Rinehart Chair of Mass Communication, The Ohio State University and Dan Romer, Research Director, Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania

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

Bill Maher says Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘metaverse’ will only create more angry, misogynistic “incels”

Bill Maher mocked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Friday night in the wake of a recent announcement that the company is changing its name to Meta.

“Someone has to tell me why we keep allowing social media and our very lives as social creatures to be dictated by the most socially awkward person in history,” Maher said of Zuckerberg during the “New Rules” segment of his Real Time program on HBO.

Noting that Zuckerberg introduced the new “metaverse” as “an embodied Internet where instead of viewing content you are in it,” Maher quipped, “Because why spend hours typing on Facebook to argue with your brother-in-law about ivermectin, when your avatar can yell at his avatar in person?”

“It’s easy: You just put on goggles, gloves and — I don’t know, suction cups on your balls — and now you’re in the magical land of the metaverse, because everyone looks cool with sh*t strapped to their head,” Maher said. “In the metaverse, you can tour the pyramids or have a sword fight with a duck, all without leaving the comfort of your parents’ basement.”


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


He went on to say he’s worried that if society gets too far away from reality, it won’t be able to find its way back.

“We just went through a pandemic. The last thing I want is more virtual, and that’s what the metaverse sounds like it’s going to be — the pandemic year, except forever,” Maher said. “You have to ask yourself why does Mark Zuckerberg think living in a metaverse would be so much better? (It’s) because look at him — the dead eyes, the lack of recognizable human features, the painted-on hair — he’s already an avatar. I’m pretty sure that the person we think is Zuckerberg is a SIM, while the real one lives on a yacht staffed by a hundred beautiful women where he plays Pokémon GO all day. This is the worst kind of person to make the overlord of a new universe.”

Finally, Maher pointed to a news report saying that three in 10 American males between the ages of 18 and 30 reported they weren’t having sex, three times as many as 10 years ago. He claimed spending so much time on screens is fueling the phenomenon known as “incels,” or involuntarily celibate people.

RELATED: Bill Maher makes “dark prediction” for worst-case-scenario if Trump wins 2024 election

“It’s not harmless. It never is when any society for any reason creates men who are cut off from women, and it’s not going well here with the incels,” Maher said. “It’s become a toxic subculture of angry, misogynistic, digital eunuchs, and the metaverse is only going to make it meta-worse, because it’s a vicious cycle. The more time you spend in the digital world, the more you suck at engaging in the real world, so the more your retreat into the virtual, which further atrophies your real social skills, including and most importantly getting laid.”

Watch below:

The lure of emotionally complex video games

In the game Life is Strange, the main character, Maxine Caulfield, is an 18-year-old high school student with an interest in photography. She has recently moved back to her Oregon hometown, and upon entering a school bathroom, witnesses the shooting of a girl with blue hair. Maxine, who goes by Max, holds up her hand and yells, “No!” Then the scene suddenly rewinds. Realizing she has the power to turn back time, Max returns to the bathroom and pulls the fire alarm, preventing the murder. Eventually, she discovers that the blue-haired girl is an old friend named Chloe. The two team up, determined to figure out what’s behind the sudden disappearance of a fellow student.  

One of the game’s themes is the butterfly effect, the idea that a small change, like a butterfly batting its wings, can spark a much larger change, like a tornado. And so it is in the game, where the player must make small choices that can alter the story’s outcome. Do you steal the money you and Chloe find in the headmaster’s office? What about the gun you discover in Frank Bowers’ vehicle? When given the opportunity, do you kiss Chloe?

When the first episodes of Life is Strange were released in 2015, reviewers likened them to a Stephen King novel and to “Twin Peaks.” The series was widely embraced, and video game researchers say it is indicative of a shift in the industry. Historically, video games have focused on what characters do below the neck — things like kicking, running, and shooting, Jesse Schell, a game designer and gaming professor at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote in an email to Undark. Movies and books, meanwhile, were more likely to explore the inner workings of characters’ minds. But more recently, game designers have turned their attention above the neck, too, creating games with complicated plots and emotionally nuanced characters.

In the game Life is Strange, the player is challenged with a host of decisions that dramatically affect the characters around them. A growing body of research shows that such games evoke a wide range of emotions that encourage players to self-reflect.

That’s perhaps not surprising. Research indicates that many players, particularly longtime gamers who grew up in the 1980s and 90s, now crave games that make them feel something — not just happiness and excitement, but also sadness, guilt, shame, and remorse, said Nick Bowman, a gaming researcher at Texas Tech University. In short, they want the kind of meaningful experience more commonly associated with novels and film. Thanks to technological advancements in graphics and sounds, developers are creating games to meet that demand.

And a modest but growing body of communications and psychology research shows that players do, indeed, feel a wide range of emotions while playing games like Life is Strange. Engaging with unpleasant topics can cause a player to reflect on important real-life issues and “grow as a person,” said Daniel Possler, a media researcher at Hanover University of Music, Drama, and Media in Germany. In fact, some research suggests video games are uniquely suited to provide these emotional experiences because they are competitive, interactive, and often social. Still, it is unclear how long these emotions last, or whether feeling them has a downside.

* * *

This type of game isn’t entirely new. In 2007, David Ciccoricco, a professor of English and linguistics at the University of Otago in New Zealand, published a paper describing a growing genre of games with literary and artistic qualities. His analysis focused on Shadow of the Colossus, which features a wanderer who travels on horseback to defeat giant beasts known as colossi. In addition to fighting battles, players spend long periods of time simply riding a horse. “What does one do when riding alone all that time?” writes Ciccoricco. “You think. You think about the fact that you are about to bring down another one of these awe-inspiring creatures even though you know that they have not wronged you in any way.” The game, notes Ciccoricco, is full of moral ambiguity, and it invites reflection.

Researchers have described this shift in style as a move from the hedonic to what’s called the eudaimonic, a Greek concept referring to a meaningful experience or a feeling of well-being. “While the first is focused on pleasure,” said Possler, “the second is focused on really developing the best in oneself.”

To gauge how people feel during or after a game, researchers use a variety of methods, including asking players to complete surveys, as well as monitoring brain activity and heart rate. In a review published earlier this year, Possler and others analyzed 82 individual studies and found strong evidence that some games elicit eudaimonic feelings and experiences that are meaningful, emotionally moving or challenging, and reflective. And while books, films, and visual art can spark a similar response, the authors note that players may be influenced by elements specific to video games, including their interactive nature.

“The vast, vast majority of the time, people come away from playing these kinds of games that have those emotionally heavy experiences, with a sense of like, ‘Wow, I’m so glad I played that.’ It was painful, it was difficult, it was hard, I cried,” said Kelli Dunlap, a clinical psychologist and game designer. “But that gave it meaning and enriched the gameplay experience.”

Bowman cited Red Dead Redemption II as one such game. It’s a John Ford-quality Western with a protagonist who has a troubled past and who dies of tuberculosis just as he begins to address his misdeeds. The cinematics are so realistic and the plot is so compelling, says Bowman, that players are completely immersed in the game.

“The emotional demands of this game are no longer just the basic emotions, like happy, sad, frustrated, angry,” he said. “You put that controller down and you’re trembling, and you go to bed crying after playing. Think about who would pay $60 to cry? The answer is, a lot of gamers who want that.”

According to Bowman, in 20 years, middle school English classes may approach Red Dead Redemption II like a piece of literature. “It’s that deep,” he said. “It really is complex.” He added: “I remember actually being shocked during gameplay, setting my controller down and just being done for the night. And not because I was offended, but because I was sad.”

***

Some games evoke not just sadness, but also downright unpleasant emotions not typically associated with eudaimonia, including guilt, shame, and remorse. Researchers say this could be a problem for some players. “Our research and work by my colleagues suggest that at least on a case-by-case basis, emotionally charged experiences can be overwhelming to some, leading to strong feelings of mental discomfort,” wrote Elisa Mekler, a professor of human-computer interaction at Aalto University in Espoo, Finland, in an email to Undark.

Mekler cited a game called Hellblade: Senua’s Sacrifice, which features a Celtic warrior, Senua, whose goal is to rescue the soul of her dead lover by doing battle and completing other challenges while also struggling with psychosis. The game was developed in consultation with neuroscientists, released in 2017, and then updated in 2018 so that it can be played with a virtual reality headset. The game can be intense, said Mekler, especially when played with a headset. “We don’t know yet if this can cause long-lasting detrimental effects on players,” she wrote. What’s known now is that some players do stop playing certain games when they become overwhelmed by emotionally challenging content.

Life is Strange, the game with the time-bending high school student, features a suicide scene that some researchers say is potentially harmful to players. While Max can redo almost every action, the attempted suicide of her friend, Kate Marsh, is not one of them. Max must talk Kate out of jumping off the roof of their dormitory. If Max is successful, Kate lives. If Max is not, Kate dies, and there is nothing Max can do to change that. Dunlap worries this irreversible scene could be upsetting for vulnerable players, particularly those in the LGBTQ community who like the game because it has LGBTQ content.

“The developers made a decision to heighten the tension, to make this really impassable, because this is something you cannot change in a game where you can change everything. And that, to me is crossing an ethical line,” she said. “It’s suicide. You don’t need to amp up the volume.”

Still, many researchers see a place for video games that elicit unpleasant feelings. Paul Formosa, a professor of philosophy at Macquarie University in New South Wales, Australia, conducted focus groups with players of a game called The Great Fire. Players expressed guilt and remorse about some of the moral choices they had to make, like killing one person to save three.

“Players took these choices seriously and imagined what they would do in that situation,” he wrote in an email to Undark. “The immersion that people experience during gameplay is thus a useful way to experientially transport players into tough moral situations that allow them to explore their moral identity in a realistic but safe way.”

Studies show the richer the narrative and the more background and complexity given to the main character, the more guilt a player will feel. And when those characters commit immoral acts, players have been left feeling guilt and shame, especially if they felt transported or wrapped-up in the narrative.

In another study, “Negative Emotion, Positive Experience?: Emotionally Moving Moments in Digital Games,” researchers analyzed 121 players’ accounts of emotionally moving game experiences like loss and character attachment and found that negative emotions like sadness were enjoyed or at least appreciated by most players. The researchers also found the emotionally rewarding and thought-provoking experiences, while negative, can still make the game enjoyable.

With some team-based games, like World of Warcraft and League of Legends, players can experience negative emotions, said April Welch, the director of esports and digital arts at Illinois Institute of Technology. Some of these players have been on the same teams with the same people for years, building bonds, relying on each other, and when a player lets their team down by missing a shot or killing the wrong person, they feel genuine remorse, she said.

“This is how people are spending their time, and they’re very invested in it,” Welch said. “And part of the reason they’re so invested in it because it’s such an emotional journey.”

Depending on where a player is emotionally, Welch said, any experience can be scary and set them back, but when they’re playing a game, they get an opportunity to overcome those fears — and to do it in a safe place. “There’s so much positive that can come from just facing those fears, and doing it over and over,” she said. The uncomfortable experience, she added, is “well worth it.”


Caren Chesler is an award-winning journalist whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Wired U.K., Scientific American, Slate, and Popular Mechanics.

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

Now evangelicals want to depict “social justice” as un-Christian: I hope God will forgive them

Like so many people in the working poor, I have lost a lot more than I have won in this life. I have been laid off four times. I have lost a house and a car. I owe more on my student loans at 45 than I did at 25. Like millions of others in the working class, I have never stopped working — I’ve done every job you can imagine and I will continue to fight for a better life for my daughters, and my working-class brothers and sisters until my last breath. As an ordained minister trained at an evangelical seminary, I find that motivation to fight for the least of these within what is called the “social justice gospel.” In recent years, however, that gospel has been twisted by the evangelical Republican machine, which now seeks to instill the belief that social justice is the gospel of godless socialism and communism.  

Over the last few years, the evangelical movement has gone to great lengths to vilify any message coming out of any church that connects with the social justice movement. In a brief statement widely circulated in the evangelical world, prominent Christian leaders and pastors have claimed that the social justice movement is a danger to Christians, “an onslaught of dangerous and false teachings that threaten the gospel, misrepresent Scripture, and lead people away from the grace of God in Jesus Christ.”

The problem for evangelicals is that the Bible is quite clear around the issues connected to social justice. Ignoring these issues requires completely ignoring the teachings of Jesus. It is fascinating to me, in a grim way, that the very people who claim to be holding onto the true form of Christian faith are in fact committed to destroying it. 

RELATED: How evangelicals abandoned Christianity — and became “conservatives” instead

Connecting the social justice agenda to socialism is an intentional lie — although of course it’s true that Christians can be socialists, and vice versa. The Christian faith pushes its followers to fight for equality of opportunity, and teaches a belief in the possibility for every individual to be better, if given the chance. Our faith calls for providing every human being a chance to succeed while offering the basic need of forgiveness, grace, mercy, and love.  

No one exemplified this calling more than a dear friend of mine who died a couple weeks ago. Her name was Gale Hull, and she created the finest example of a mission organization I have ever come across. Her organization, Partners in Development, started its work in Haiti and brought its mission to Guatemala, Peru and rural Mississippi. Her beautiful idea of “whole-person change” provided the opportunity for thousands to have a better life and inspired thousands more to be better people.  

Gale understood that people needed an opportunity. Through a mortgage program, micro-business loans, child sponsorship and free medical care, families thrived. People within the program pay for their own homes with money they earn from their own businesses while having their basic needs of education and health met. That is the type of social justice that lies at the foundation of the Christian faith. 


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


I have worked as a career and life coach for first-generation immigrants and low-income folks for more than 20 years, and I can say with authority that most people just want an opportunity to succeed. The people I have worked with desire an opportunity to earn their keep, provide for their family and, most important of all, the chance for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  

How is it that using the Christian faith to serve the poor, heal the sick and welcome the foreigner is destroying America — in the minds of far too many evangelicals — but manipulating the Christian faith to condemn women as murderers and condemn LGBTQ people to hell is somehow proper Biblical teaching?  

These political distortions within the evangelical movement are far advanced, and will be difficult to overcome. I still want people to understand that hateful and judgmental language has nothing to do with the core of Christian faith and everything to do with false evangelical hypocrisy. The truth is that the Christian faith should be used as a shield for the oppressed and a sword against the oppressors. The working poor have been completely ignored by the evangelical movement and it’s time for people of good faith to find themselves some new leaders. Preferably among people who want to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not the teachings of Donald Trump.    

There are millions of people in the U.S. who remain in the working class, struggling to make a living and pull ourselves up just a little. We will continue to work our tails off. We manage your buildings, install your toilets, build and clean your homes, deliver your packages, teach your children, bag your groceries, serve your food and do the rest of the grunt work no one else wants to do. Many within the working class will keep fighting for the American dream, and will keep on losing a lot more than they win. Some of their dreams will be lived out by their children, and too many will not. But the fight never ends. My dream is that people of faith and people of conscience, especially if they have voice, power and influence in our society, will begin to align with the idea of equality of opportunity. That would be doing God’s work for real. 

More from Nathaniel Manderson on the evangelical predicament in the age of Trump:

Report: Poor countries need 5 to 10 times more funding to adapt to climate risks they did not create

The COP26 climate negotiations taking place in Glasgow this month are charged with the inequity of the climate crisis. Wealthy nations like the U.S., Germany, and the U.K. have sent carbon emissions into the atmosphere unchecked for more than a century, and now some of the poorest parts of the world, which did nothing to contribute to climate change, are being eaten up by rising seas, devastated by drought, or irreparably damaged by extreme weather and wildfires.

International cooperation to cut emissions hinges on rich countries recognizing and rectifying that injustice. But by all accounts, they’re failing. Developed countries have yet to meet the $100 billion per year promise they made to help poorer countries pay for clean energy and climate adaptation projects. And most of the money that has flowed has gone toward climate change mitigation, and not adaptation. 

report released by the United Nations today finds a growing gap between the cost of climate adaptation in developing countries and the amount of public finance available for it. The report estimates that developing countries need five to 10 times more funding than they’re currently getting to help them manage climate impacts, or up to $300 billion per year by 2030.

Adaptation refers to any action to reduce the risks that communities face due to climate change. That could mean developing early-warning systems for storms, increasing access to air conditioning during heat waves, making infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather, moving homes away from coastlines, or shifting agricultural practices to become more resistant to drought.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 stipulates that when doling out money, rich nations “should aim to achieve a balance between mitigation and adaptation.” But in 2019, the most recent year for which data is available, only 25 percent, or $20 billion*, of the climate-related financing flowing from developed to developing countries went to adaptation projects — the rest went to clean energy or projects that cut emissions.

“The word ‘balance’ is open to a wide variety of interpretations, but I don’t think there will be many people who say a quarter is balanced,” said Joe Thwaites, an associate at the World Resource Institute’s Sustainable Finance Center.

Vulnerable countries are pushing for a 50-50 split between funding for adaptation and mitigation. Much of the developing world is at much greater risk of dangerous climate impacts than of becoming a major source of carbon emissions. But the U.S. doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo. On Monday, President Biden proclaimed that the U.S. would give $3 billion in annual adaptation funding to developing countries by 2024, or about 26 percent of America’s total climate-related international finance.

Adaptation has always been a politically difficult subject in international climate negotiations. Developed countries are more bullish on cutting emissions because the benefits are global, and the faster we cut carbon, the less adaptation the world will need to do. 

“I think that’s a misunderstanding of the problem, because we’re already at a point where there’s going to be huge impacts,” Thwaites said. He added that there are global benefits to helping poorer nations reduce their risks, considering how extreme weather events can disrupt global supply chains or create refugee crises.

There are other challenges to increasing finance for adaptation projects. Wealthy countries like to finance international projects that can attract additional private investment in order to scale up overall funding. It’s much easier to attract private investment for a project that has expected financial returns — like a solar farm, for example — than for an essential project that doesn’t directly generate revenue, like stormwater infrastructure. Many rich countries also provide much more of their climate aid in the form of loans rather than direct grants, and loans don’t make sense for projects that don’t turn a profit. In 2019, 71 percent of public climate finance took the form of loans, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an intergovernmental research group.

The United Nations adaptation report also sounds the alarm about another concerning gap. The authors note that finance is “a means rather than an end: the availability of funds does not guarantee that they will be used efficiently and effectively.” But there’s a lack of information about whether the money that does go to adaptation, in countries rich and poor, is making a difference. They found that only 26 percent of countries around the world have systems in place to monitor and evaluate whether their adaptation plans are working, and only 8 percent of countries have actually completed an assessment.

recent paper published in the journal Nature Climate Changehighlights the widespread lack of data showing whether adaptation projects are reducing risk. A group of more than 100 researchers undertook an enormous review of the peer-reviewed literature on adaptation to climate change. Of more than 48,000 articles about adaptation, only about 1,700 documented projects that had actually been implemented. And only 58 of the 48,000 studies analyzed whether a given adaptation project or plan was working.  

“A response to climate change, even if it’s well intended, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to reduce risk, and that needs to be evaluated,” said Paige Fischer, an associate professor at the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, and one of the authors of the Nature Climate Change review.

Harjeet Singh, a senior advisor for climate impacts at the Climate Action Network, sees the adaptation gap as a harbinger of another growing problem that is becoming more urgent in international climate talks: “loss and damage.” Loss and damage refers to the unavoided or unavoidable losses that many countries are experiencing due to climate change, including loss of life, impaired public health, economic losses, and damage to homes and infrastructure. 

Singh said you can think of climate action on a continuum: The less we do to mitigate climate change, the more we will need to adapt. But if the adaptation gap is not filled, and countries cannot manage the risk of extreme weather and other impacts, they are going to suffer increasing amounts of loss and damage. Many countries don’t have an agency like the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the United States to help people rebuild their lives after disaster strikes.

Small island states and the world’s least developed countries are pushing for a new stream of funding for loss and damage in addition to mitigation and adaptation. Singh said that while there are already international funding mechanisms for humanitarian aid, loss and damage should be a distinct, additional type of funding. “You have to look at it much more from a responsibility and obligation perspective,” he said.

Historically, the U.S. and other developed nations have shown huge resistance to the idea of loss and damage, and tried to keep it off the agenda during international climate negotiations, due to the sticky legal implications of admitting liability for damages. But the tide may be shifting at COP26. On Monday, Antigua, Barbuda, and Tuvalu announced a new commission to explore whether they might actually have legal rights to loss and damage funding from polluting countries. That same day, Scotland became the first country ever to pledge funding for loss and damage. Though the amount was tiny — just $1.4 million — Singh said it was a breakthrough.

“This is a tangible way of saying that the world stands in solidarity with people who are suffering now,” he said. “Yes, we are talking about 1.5 degrees, but what about people who are suffering at 1.1 degree of temperature rise?”

Bari Weiss’ field of right-wing dreams: Will the “University of Austin” ever actually exist?

In May 2018, Bari Weiss — then an editor and writer at the New York Times — published an op-ed that introduced an informal network of writers and thinkers hellbent on stamping out what they perceived as a grievous assault on America’s most cherished value: freedom of speech. This group, which mostly derived from elite academic institutions, professed the supposedly courageous view that the American left — with its fetish for diversity, intersectionality and “political correctness” — had infected higher education with an authoritarian culture of censorship, suppressing unpopular views on issues like race, sex and gender. This phenomenon, they proposed, was “tearing American society apart.” 

That was the genesis moment, more or less, for what has become known as the “intellectual dark web.” Now, after three years of spreading their contrarian gospel, several members of the IDW (along with ideological fellow travelers) have announced an ambitious effort to begin sewing the fabric of society back together. This week, Weiss formally unveiled the University of Austin (UATX), a proposed but largely still hypothetical private liberal arts college in Austin, Texas. Not to be confused with the University of Texas at Austin, one of the premier land-grant institutions in the country, UATX sets out to provide an alternative locus of learning for students seeking “the unfettered pursuit of truth.”

“We are alarmed by the illiberalism and censoriousness prevalent in America’s most prestigious universities and what it augurs for the country,” the school’s website reads. “But we know that there are enough of us who still believe in the core purpose of higher education, the pursuit of truth. That’s why we are building UATX.”

RELATED: Rising GOP star Ron DeSantis goes after campus thoughtcrime with vague, threatening new law

The not-quite-existent university’s board of advisers includes 31 high-profile public figures, ranging from school administrators, journalists, and artists to scientists, historians, and business leaders. Founding trustees include Weiss, historian Niall Ferguson, evolutionary biologist Heather Heying, venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale and the former president of St. John’s College, Pano Kanelos. 

There are several points of commonality among the school’s emergent leadership, but the primary through-line is that just about all of them are persona non grata in left or progressive circles, largely because of disputes over things they have said or done.

In 2018, for instance, Ferguson, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, resigned from his leadership role on a university speaker series after it was revealed that he had asked conservative students to conduct opposition research on a left-wing student activist. Five years earlier, Ferguson suggested at a conference that 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes lacked concern for the future because he was gay and had no children. (In fact, Keynes can better be described as bisexual, and had a long and apparently happy marriage with former ballerina Lydia Lopokova — the sort of historical fact Ferguson ought to know.)

Lonsdale, a technology entrepreneur and investor who founded the Peter Thiel-backed data analytics firm Palantir Technologies, has also sparked considerable controversy. Over the past decade, Palantir has been hit with accusations of fraud, conspiracy, copyright infringement and racial discrimination. In 2017, The Intercept found that Palantir was “mission critical” to the Trump administration agenda of arresting and deporting the parents of undocumented migrant children. 

At least two members of the school’s board had direct ties to the now-deceased child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, including economist and former Treasury secretary Larry Summers and the best-selling author and psychologist Steven Pinker. Another board member, Princeton classics scholar Joshua Katz, has been accused of engaging in inappropriate conduct with three of his past female students.

RELATED: Steven Pinker, Sam Harris and the epidemic of annoying white male intellectuals

None of this has gone unnoticed by commentators on the left, who over the course of the past week have launched a stream of satire, vitriol and more serious accusations at the newly-born institution. 

What may be of greater concern, though, is the considerable ambiguity surrounding the school’s legal, financial and administrative status, which has led some of its most strident critics to wonder whether UATX is more than another Trump University.  

As the school’s website admits, UATX is unaccredited and is currently not authorized to operate as a private post-secondary institution in the state of Texas. Accreditation can take several years, depending on the entities involved, but the UATX site suggests, without explanation, that “conversations with our accredited partners lead us to believe that we’ll have a much shorter time frame than that.” 

Specifically, UATX is seeking accreditation from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), a regional accreditor that has been criticized twice by the Department of Education over its accreditation of for-profit colleges, including American InterContinental University and the now-defunct Art Institute of Colorado. In 2010, the department considered sanctioning the HLC, but ultimately chose not to.

Though UATX outlines no clear path toward accreditation, it has promised to offer classes in “entrepreneurship” and “leadership” to graduate students next year, with a specific program dedicated to “forbidden courses” that will promote “spirited discussion about the most provocative questions that often lead to censorship or self-censorship in many universities.” UATX says it intends to roll out an undergraduate program in 2024, with the first two years focused on helping students learn “self-mastery” and the second two “mastery in their fields.”

Some experts in education, law and leadership ethics are dubious that the school’s ambitious academic plans can possibly jibe with its ill-defined path toward accreditation. 

Joanne B. Ciulla, director of the Institute for Ethical Leadership, told Salon that UATX has offered “a very odd model.”

“Anybody can teach classes — you just can’t get university credit for it,” Ciulla said in an interview. “So what [UATX] will have to do is say, ‘You’ll start taking classes, and then when we get accredited, you’ll get your credits for them.’ But who would want to do that? Because it’s not just when we get accredited, but if we get credited.”

Tristan Snell, a managing partner of MainStreet.Law, which prosecuted the case against Trump University, posted a series of tweets casting doubt on the university’s legal and organizational integrity. “Is the University of Austin licensed as a school in the State of Texas? Is it allowed to call itself a university?” Snell asked. “Parallels to Trump University could be closer than you think.”

Others expressed concern about UATX’s apparent lack of faculty and administrative staff, aside from the school’s three founding faculty fellows. 

“While not accredited yet, UATX will seek accreditation and try to enroll its first master’s students next fall,” Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, wrote in The Washington Post. “And might I just say good luck to the nonexistent admissions staff that will have to gin up that process this late in the game!”

UATX has also revealed nearly nothing about its finances. According to the school’s website, UATX is seeking nonprofit status, which prevents it from directly taking non-taxable donations from benefactors. Instead, the university has partnered with Cicero Research, a nonprofit incorporated last December that it’s using as a fiscal sponsor. 

“Cicero Research is not a funder of UATX; it is the fiscal sponsor of UATX while UATX waits for its applied tax-exempt determination from the IRS,” Hillel Ofek, the school’s vice president of communications, told Salon by email. “Sponsorship is a frequently used practice of a previously-approved non-profit organization offering access to its legal and tax-exempt status to another group. Joe Lonsdale is one of our leading benefactors and we are honored to have his support. We have several seven-figure donors committed and have already received over 600 donations.”

In a brief email to Salon, Lonsdale attempted to assuage concerns about UATX’s financing, saying that “there are several hundred funders at this point and a lot of major donors have stepped up alongside me both before this announcement and more after already.” He declined to comment further.

But according to a Cicero filing from December, the nonprofit reported zero financial assets and no full-time employees. It appears to operated from a residential address in Austin owned by Jen Dirmeyer, who told Salon through a message on LinkedIn that she “left [her] position as Head of Operations for Cicero in May of 2021 and [has] not had anything to do with the legal or financial structuring of the university.”

For that matter, the physical address for UATX listed on its website appears to be a small office building near the University of Texas campus that is home to the law firm RashChapman, which specializes in oil and gas litigation, according to journalist Eoin Higgins. The website says that the school is “in the process of securing land,” and intends to have a physical campus at some point.

Though Cicero’s filings reveal virtually nothing about its finances, the entity’s reported leadership includes Lonsdale and his wife Tayler, along with Clay Spence, who is described as “Philosopher-in-Residence” at 8VC, Lonsdale’s current venture capital firm. Spence is also a board director at Cicero Institute, a political organization (also run by Lonsdale) that published a white paper last year advocating for a “performance-based funding formula that allocates state public higher education funding based on the post-graduation earnings of an institution’s students.” Spence did not return Salon’s request for comment. 

Cicero’s description of its mission and services includes a pledge to “create and distribute non-partisan documents recommending free-market based solutions to public policy issues.”

UATX, however, says it is “committed” to “freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience, and civil discourse” and intends to remain “fiercely independent — financially, intellectually, and politically.” Asked whether that mission conflicts with the apparent free-market or libertarian orientation of Cicero, neither Lonsdale nor Ofek responded.

While the apparent birth of UATX may appear sudden, it’s just one of the many conservative attempts in recent history to break free from the perceived constraints of liberal academia.

“For a full century, conservative activists of different stripes — religious, free enterprise, anti-cancel culture — have dreamed big, hoping to build dramatically different institutions to salvage what they perceive as ‘truth’ and proper teaching,” wrote historian Adam Laats in Slate.

In the 1920s, evangelical Christians like T.T. Shields and Bob Jones Sr. attempted to build a new system of “conservative scholarship” at schools like Bob Jones College and Des Moines University. More recently, Republican operatives, religious leaders and wealthy conservative donors have bankrolled such schools as George Mason University and Liberty University.  

RELATED: Scandal at Liberty University: How a Christian college dismisses students’ reports of sexual assault

Of course it’s conceivable that UATX will break new ground and revolutionize the academic space. But running a successful college, as Laats writes, takes more than impressive names and grand ambitions: “Big dreams of school founders have been punctured by not-so-big details … Without accreditation, classes, or degree options, all of which the founders say are forthcoming, the answer may be no. It takes more than accusing mainstream colleges of being ‘broken’ to create something that will actually work.”

MTG whines about being in Congress: “I don’t want to have anything to do with politics”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Friday complained about having to work in the realm of politics, despite the fact that she chose to run for Congress.

While appearing on Steve Bannon’s podcast, Greene lamented that too many Republicans in Congress were supposedly unwilling to do what she believes is necessary to stand up to President Joe Biden.

“The stupid Republicans that just won’t push the line and won’t cross the line and won’t go far enough, because they’re scared!” she fumed. “Because somebody might stand up and challenge them, or someone’s going to write a bad news story, or simply whatever it may be!”


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


Greene went on to accuse Republicans of being weak later in the segment as well.

“It’s not the Democrats that are screwing you, it’s our own party,” she lamented. “And that is what happened, just like you said, Steve, after the Tea Party wave back in 2009 and 2010, when we took over and things that were supposed to be better, the Republican Party turned around and failed us!”

Greene said that it was these failures that led her to run for Congress, even though she then said, “I don’t want to have anything to do with politics.”

Over 84 million people forcibly displaced by climate emergency, insecurity and violence

A United Nations agency revealed Thursday that a rising number of people worldwide are fleeing violence, insecurity, and the effects of the climate emergency, with over 84 million relocating within and beyond their home countries during the first half of this year.

“It is the communities and countries with the fewest resources that continue to shoulder the greatest burden in protecting and caring for the forcibly displaced.”

The new U.N. Refugee Agency, or UNHCR, report—released at the tail end of a global climate summit—says that “durable solutions for forcibly displaced populations remained in short supply due to unresolved and escalating conflicts in many countries of origin, as well as the continuing restrictions on movement in response to Covid-19.”

Internally displaced people (IDP) make up more than half of the agency’s total tally at 48 million. According to UNHCR, from January to June, there were also 26.6 million refugees—nearly a fifth of whom are Palestinians—as well as 4.4 million asylum-seekers and 3.9 million Venezuelans displaced abroad, which is its own category.

“The international community is failing to prevent violence, persecution, and human rights violations, which continue to drive people from their homes,” said Filippo Grandi, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees, in a statement. “In addition, the effects of climate change are exacerbating existing vulnerabilities in many areas hosting the forcibly displaced.”

Grandi added that “the international community must redouble its efforts to make peace, and at the same time must ensure resources are available to displaced communities and their hosts.”

“It is the communities and countries with the fewest resources that continue to shoulder the greatest burden in protecting and caring for the forcibly displaced,” he noted, “and they must be better supported by the rest of the international community.”

Along with the overall rise in forcibly displaced people from 82.4 million at the end of 2020, the agency found that:

  • Developing countries hosted 85% of refugees and Venezuelans displaced abroad;
  • 73% of refugees and displaced Venezuelans lived in neighboring countries;
  • Asylum-seekers submitted 555,400 new claims, with the United States receiving the most applications—72,900;
  • Turkey hosted the world’s largest refugee population at 3.7 million people;
  • 16,300 refugees were resettled during the first half of this year;
  • 1.1 million people returned to their areas or nations of origin; and
  • 68% of all refugees—including those from Venezuela—came from just five countries.

The countries from which the most people fled were Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar. Some of those nations also have large amounts of internal displacement.

More than a million people were newly displaced within both Congo and Ethiopia. Globally, the nations with the next highest new internal displacements were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Nigeria, Syria, Mozambique, and Burkina Faso.

“Consistent with 2020, Africa witnessed the most new internal displacements as conflict and violence flared in several countries across the continent,” says the report, specifically noting the impact of civil war on Ethiopia’s Tigray region, problems in Mozambique’s northern province of Cabo Delgado, and “a crisis of governance and instability in rural areas of Burkina Faso linked to the presence of armed insurgents.”

The report adds that “internal displacement also surged in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly in Afghanistan and Myanmar,” pointing to a drawdown of U.S. troops after a nearly 20-year occupation in the former and a violent military coup in the latter.

“Pursuing voluntary, safe, and dignified solutions for millions of IDPs remains a critical priority for UNHCR,” the report continues. “This includes supporting law and policymaking processes that reduce needs due to displacement and help IDPs enjoy their rights without discrimination.”

As for people seeking asylum abroad, UNHCR expressed alarm about pending applications. According to the report:

At the end of June 2021, the number of pending individual asylum applications of all types stood at 4.4 million, nearly 7% more than the 4.1 million ending at the end of 2020. This trend is concerning, as lengthy backlogs heighten the risk that individuals with international protection needs will not be able to access protection and solutions in a timely and effective manner. If backlogs become protracted and asylum-seekers wait multiple years for a final determination of their claims without meaningful access to rights or certainty about their future, there will be negative consequences for everyone, including erosion of public confidence in the system, increased costs, and difficulties in returning rejected applicants.

While “returning home in safety and dignity based on a free and informed choice remains the preferred solution for most of the world’s refugees,” UNHCR also highlighted the important role of resettlement and local integration, due to protracted conflicts.

The report concludes with a section acknowledging that “the actual number of stateless people in the world remains unknown,” due to a lack of accurate data. While 94 nations currently provide some data on the populations, the agency urges improvements on a global scale.

“The Shrink Next Door” is a compelling stranger-than-fiction anchored by Paul Rudd and Will Ferrell

If you subscribe to the philosophy that tragedy is comedy’s buttress, the casting for “The Shrink Next Door” is spot-on. That seems like an easy observation since the limited series pairs “Anchorman” co-stars Paul Rudd and Will Ferrell again alongside Kathryn Hahn, who has a significantly greater presence here compared with that movie. But honestly, even if their screen chemistry wasn’t previously established, people enjoy each of these actors even if they don’t always love their projects.

Rudd and Ferrell also serve as co-executive producers for this series, making it more honest to say that the two have brilliant instincts when it comes to selecting projects. In their roles as a psychiatrist and client who take doctor-patient boundary violations to bizarre extremes, they’re compelling even when the script falls short.

As journalist Joe Nocera chronicles in his 2019 Wondery and Bloomberg podcast of the same name, Martin Markowitz  was to Dr. Isaac “Ike” Herschkopf what wealthy marks are to grifters. Herschkopf manipulated Markowitz into paying him $3.2 million over the course of 27 years, draining Markowitz’s accounts and treating his patient’s second home in the Hamptons as if he owned it.

Herschkopf took up residence in his client’s psyche to such an extent that Markowitz behaved like Herschkopf’s servant as opposed to his host. And Dr. Ike, as he was known, is a charismatic and especially dangerous type of confidence man because he has a medical degree.

That afforded him a level of legitimacy that eases his way into the most exclusive social circles, chronicled in his collection of celebrity photos and prideful moments he professionally framed before prominently displaying them.

Assuming the real Dr. Herschkopf is as celebrity-obsessed and narcissistic as he’s written, he’ll probably love the fact that he’s being played by Rudd, a guy whose name typically appears next to descriptors like “handsome” and “likable” – a face, not a heel. The actor plies his reputation in a performance that weaponizes that trait.

Related: Six documentaries about con artists

Rudd’s sympathetic comportment smooths the way to our comprehending how Herschkopf successfully preyed upon insecure people and persuaded them to heed him above all others, in the name of self-actualization and growth.

But while Rudd plays to type while twisting our expectations, Ferrell realizes Markowitz as a more woeful, tortured version of a character he’s played in movies like “Get Hard.” Marty, as his friends know him, is a sweet pushover hogtied by social anxiety and gastrointestinal distress when he’s introduced in 1981, on the verge of turning 40.

Overwhelmed by the recent deaths of his parents and his inheritance of the family’s fabric company, he leans on his protective sister Phyllis (Hahn, whose brilliance is re-affirmed here) to handle confrontations that give Marty asphyxiating panic attacks. But she can only do so much. She persuades Marty to seeking therapy with Dr. Ike based on their rabbi’s recommendation.

People who know these stars but not the story may assume they’re signing on to some version of “What About Bob?” That 1991 comedy classic pitted Richard Dreyfuss’ psychiatrist Leo Marvin against Bill Murray’s multi-phobic Bob Wiley, a hysterically fearful man who encroaches upon the self-involved doctor’s vacation.

Not so with “The Shrink Next Door.” Here, it’s the doctor that ruins his patients’ lives, cutting them off from their families and persuading them that the nightmarish circumstances he foments are necessary to manifest their best selves.

Rudd’s kind smile and gentle nuggets of wisdom disguise his obsessive greed and predatory mind games. First, Ike pries Marty’s self-doubt out of him – questioning, for example, his frequent minimizing of his problems with dismissive repetitions of “It’s fine!”  Then he starts prying money out of Marty’s wallet by extending their sessions beyond office visits into long walks, impromptu lunches and basketball games, each containing therapeutic lessons.

Soon he infiltrates Marty’s workplace, then his company, and so it goes until Marty is remodeling his family’s vacation home to erase all memories of the time spent there with his parents and sister in order to make it feel like the personal domain of Ike and his guilt-ridden wife Bonnie (Casey Wilson).

All of this unfolds through episodes guided by showrunner Georgia Pritchett and directed by Michael Showalter with the sensibility of a New York-based comedy that feels weirder than funny, and grows heavier as the story progresses.


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


“The Shrink Next Door” narrative isn’t uniformly woven. The energy palpably lags in some spots, requiring the viewer to remember they’re watching a true crime story that isn’t a thriller. But it doesn’t quite meet the level of a frog slowly boiling in a pot, either.

Rather, it’s a methodically paced, odd but mesmerizing piece set to an infectious soundtrack highlighted by its strategic use of ’80s soft rock hits. Besides, the cast hoists the show over and through its slack spots. Despite its imperfections, the script holds some outstanding lines, particularly when Dr. Ike drops prompts that appear as keys meant unlock progress but actually function as foreshadowing or warnings.

“Do you think the goal of life is to avoid getting hurt?” he asks Marty. “The goal of life is to live! Getting hurt is just the price of admission, my friend.” Sounds very carpe diem without the context: They’re in line at a local deli when Ike says this, and he is enthusiastically trying to talk Marty, his patient, into eating spicy food despite knowing it could make him ill.

Ferrell and Rudd are as pleasing to watch in this scene as they are in their best movies. Wilson’s also a pleasure to watch, molding Bonnie into a reluctant accessory to Ike’s vanity and deceit as she chafes against his self-serving actions. None will win any awards for their New York Jewish accents, which they slip out of as frequently as they over-emphasize. Still they are, to use a word Dr. Ike can’t stand, fine.

But Hahn is the spark plug that gets the story’s engine started, lending a buttery tartness to every line of dialogue she utters. She inhabits Phyllis in a way that makes us feel and know the reality of this woman without ever having met her real-life counterpart. This adds a lovely layer to the melancholy spicing the plot once Dr. Ike inevitably comes between Phyllis and Marty. “That’s what family is, huh?” Phyllis says in a despondent moment. “It’s a collection of people you owe an apology to.”

Rudd and Hahn share a scene in Dr. Ike’s office where she comes face to face with his superpower, nearly falling for his invasive therapy tactics before he jerks her out of her spell with a veiled insult he tries to pass off as an “ah-ha” moment. He reads her, but the way she furiously reads him in kind is simply outstanding.

Therapists of all stripes are bound of find “The Shrink Next Door” upsetting regardless of the fact that the real Dr. Herschkopf had his license revoked. In the way of all such strange-but-true stories, this is the nightmare scenario of what can happen when one lets the wrong people into their life and makes them privy to their deepest vulnerabilities.

The real Marty Markowitz, we eventually find out, has never returned to therapy. But you won’t mind traveling with him on this crooked tale to understand how he arrived at that breakthrough.

The first three episodes of “The Shrink Next Door” debut on Apple TV+ on Friday, Nov. 11. Watch a trailer below via YouTube.

More stories like this:

Capitol rioter Jenna Ryan says remorse is a “thought crime” ahead of prison sentence

Convicted Capitol rioter Jenna Ryan — the Texas realtor who flew to the attempted Jan. 6 insurrection on a private jet and later said she wouldn’t be sent to jail because of her “blonde” hair and “white skin” — is hard at work preparing for her stay in prison, she told local reporters at WFAA-TV in Dallas during an extended sit-down interview this week.

How? By watching YouTube videos.

“I’m watching all the YouTube videos on how prison is, how to go to prison, what to do.” Ryan said. 

When asked about whether or not she was sorry for breaking into the U.S. Capitol as part of an attempt to stop the lawful certification of a presidential election, she appeared to shift blame to the Capitol police officers who failed to stop her and the other rioters from entering the building.


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


“I wish that (door) had not been open,” Ryan said, “but a police officer was standing next to me. “It was kind of like a Walmart greeter.”

She later doubled down and attempted to distance herself from past statements of contrition — even going so far as to call remorse a “thought crime.” 

“I’m not one to go hide — and as far as remorse, I have a problem with remorse because it’s like a thought crime,” Ryan said.  Earlier this month, Ryan said she was “remorseful” for entering the Capitol in another interview. 

RELATED: “I’m a big-time victim”: Jan. 6 rioter whines after flying to insurrection on private jet

During the wild sit-down, Ryan also tried to rewrite history, telling reporters the riot was “peaceful” and that coverage of the events that day had distorted the truth.  

It was a claim immediately refuted by WFAA’s sister outlet in D.C. — “WUSA9 can verify that statement is false,” a disclaimer in the online story reads.

Protestors injured as many as 150 police officers on Jan. 6 — with some still hospitalized to this day. To boot, Ryan was photographed beside other protestors destroying camera equipment owned by the Associated Press. 

RELATED: Jan. 6 rioter given jail sentence — after bragging she’d skate because of her skin color

Ryan has already pleaded guilty to entering the Capitol for roughly two minutes on Jan. 6, where she tweeted a photo of herself beside a smashed in window with the caption: “If the news doesn’t stop lying about us we’re going to come after their studios next.” 

Immediately following her conviction, Ryan posted a video to Twitter of an American flag. 

She is expected to begin her 60-day sentence in January.

Britney Spears freed from “abusive” conservatorship

39-year-old pop star Britney Spears was released from the conservatorship of her father Jamie Spears, who had effectively controlled her life, finances and medical decisions for more than 13 years — a situation that Spears had previously characterized as “conservatorship abuse.” 

“The conservatorship of the person and estate of Britney Jean Spears is no longer required,” Judge Brenda Penny stated during a Friday afternoon hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court. In the process, the judge moved beyond the mere suspension of Jamie Spears’ conservatorship that had been implemented on Sept. 29. The elder Spears was first granted the conservatorship in 2008, citing his daughter’s public mental health struggles and possible substance abuse as evidence that he should have authority over the famous musician’s finances and major life decisions. Although the conservatorship was initially temporary, Spears successfully applied to have it ended by the close of that year.

Over time, fans began to question the arrangement, pointing out that conservatorships are ostensibly intended for people who cannot care for themselves and that Britney Spears was maintaining the full work regimen of a professional entertainer.

By the start of 2021, documentaries like “Framing Britney Spears” and trending Twitter hashtags like #FreeBritney were raising awareness about her dilemma, while unrelated controversies like pop star Justin Timberlake’s vulgar comments about Spears received renewed scrutiny. In June, Spears publicly spoke out against the conservatorship for the first time — after having been silent for years — accusing the executors of the arrangement of denying her basic freedoms and saying she did not know she could file to end her arrangement. Among her accusations, she claimed that she had been forced to use birth control and to take medications she did not want. Spears has also accused her father of financial mismanagement, and her new lawyer Matthew S. Rosengart is calling for an investigation of both the elder Spears and Tri Star Sports & Entertainment Group.


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


In addition to being a personal ordeal for Spears, the conservatorship saga has also raised awareness about ways in which individuals with mental health issues are exploited in the American legal system. It is one that frequently shows bias against a person with a mental health disability, instead deferring to professionals and experts. That dynamic can lead to exploitation.

“The scales are tipped towards trusting doctors, towards trusting experts, and not trusting the words of the people who have the living experience of either having a mental health disability or being labeled as having a mental health disability,” Anna Krieger, senior attorney at the Center for Public Representation, observed to Salon in July when discussing the Spears case. “Those are the folks who are the experts in their own lives.”

Spears ability to free herself is a luxury that many others in these situations cannot afford. Even so, it is being hailed as a step in the right direction.

“It’s about time that we are able to see that Britney Spears is capable of being independent,” Haley Moss, an autism advocate who has written about the case, told Salon. “And then of course, if she wants to get support from the people she loves, she can get that. This is a huge win for disability rights, because it does continue to shine a light on the guardianship and conservatorship issue and show that it is possible to be able to get out of those arrangements.”

“What Do We See When We Look at the Sky?” director counters a curse using cinema as “modern magic”

“What Do We See When We Look at the Sky?” is a magical, realistic romance. Set in Kutaisi, Georgia, it has Lisa (Oliko Barbakadze) meeting Giorgi (Giorgi Ambroladze) outside a school. (The scene is cleverly framed; only the couple’s legs and feet are shown). The pair later encounter each other on the street at night and arrange to meet at a café the following evening. However, a curse falls upon the would-be lovers, and they wake up as different people, (Ani Karseladze and Giorgi Bochorishvili). As such, they may never be able to find each other again. It is an enchantment right out of Shakespeare. Or Claude Lelouche. Or even Alan Rudolph‘s “Made in Heaven.” And it is charming.

Writer/director Aleksandre Koberidze is examining chance as well as everyday life in the town of Kutaisi, as long observational scenes of ordinary people flesh out the storyline of will Lisa and Giorgi break the curse and end up together? This unhurried film features many lovely shots that use color, light, and texture, from a slow-motion sequence of kids playing soccer, to montages of people sitting on benches, to many scenes featuring the town’s dogs, who choose which bar to watch the World Cup.

RELATED: The bonkers twist in Netflix’s “Behind Her Eyes” is an unresolved mess of problematic narratives

Koberidze also includes a voiceover narration that describes how once cursed, Lisa, a pharmacist, and Giorgi, a soccer player, lose their knowledge and talents and end up working for the owner (Vakhtang Panchulidze) of the café where they were supposed to meet. A subplot has two filmmakers, (played by Koberidze’s parents) seeking couples for a project, and, of course, they chance upon Lisa and Giorgi. Will they break the spell? One has to see “What Do We See When We Look at the Sky?” to find out.

Koberidze spoke with Salon about his spellbinding romance.

One of the things I admired about your film is how often you tell by not showing. Some scenes feel right out of a silent movie — characters are talking, and while viewers don’t hear the conversations, they can understand what is being discussed. How did you conceive of this story and the way to tell the story?

One of the reasons for me to make genre-like films is to understand how to tell these stories, and how I can communicate what I want to say about the subject. I don’t have film theory to know how things should be done; it’s more like I discover something every day I am writing, shooting, and editing. I do have knowledge of filmmaking, but, for me, this kind of [organic] approach works best. Through this way of working we can take this form, which is a more personal way to tell the story. It’s a portrayal of people making this film, and what we were thinking.

Did you have any specific Influences or inspiration?

One director I watched was Nanni Moretti. His film, “Caro Diary,” was about a city and how different you can make a film like that — the disappearing border between fiction and documentary. How he builds his image, works with actors, and uses a narrator. I had a narrator in every film I’ve made, even before I watched Nanni, but after seeing his films, it was my wish to narrate the film myself. This time I dared, even though I am far from his quality.

Can you talk about the filmmaking subplot, which features prominently in “What Do We See When We Look at the Sky”?

When I was writing, I was deciding how to [beat] this curse, and is there a way for the characters to find each other? Or are they completely helpless? There are not too many solutions for this problem. If I wake up tomorrow in a different body, I wouldn’t know what to do, who to call, or what to Google. I had different ideas about this kind of magic, so I had to find some magic that still exists in this world and that everyone is familiar with. And cinema is one of the few things that has that power. I thought cinema can be seen as a kind of modern magic, and the idea was to have one magical thing against another magical thing.


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


We often imagine what life might be like to be someone else. I like that Lisa and Giorgi don’t try to figure out how to break the curse, but instead, just go on living, making the best of their new situation but still try to find the one they love. Can you talk about that decision?

The characters of the film spend time when we don’t see them. It was important that there are scenes that [do not feature] them or where we don’t know what they are doing. It is important that they seem to be OK about their situation; it’s not the biggest part of their lives when we see them, which is why they are off-screen at times. It was not a statement. These are characters who, when they are outside, among people, don’t create a huge drama of their private problems in a world where we have much bigger problems than not being about to find someone you love. I think, in many films, private problems are made too big when they are shown to other people, and privacy is a big issue of our time and it was important to give this privacy to the characters and to have characters who keep things private and are not interested in sharing their private lives with people they don’t know, [including] people who watch the film. 

Is the film an allegory?

For me, first there is an idea, which is just an idea, and then it becomes: what does it mean, and how can I understand this loss? I have my personal ideas about the meaning, but it is better to leave it open. If I say what I think it will narrow the view. It is like the title of the film, which is more open and not focused on one thing. 

Your film is certainly leisurely, with long sequences that capture the rhythms of everyday life unfolding. Can you describe your intent of these episodes and how they inform the central narrative? 

Making this film, I tried to understand filmmaking, but it was also a way to understand my surroundings, and where I live, and how the world works. It’s very different if you just go outside and look around or if [as a director] you look into this monitor which gives tension to normal moments. The time goes in different ways because 40 people are behind you, waiting for you to say “cut.” For people who watch it in the cinema, time goes by differently there too. It is a concentrated way of looking, so it becomes a way of showing a place and how you can look at it or what I see when I look at it. For this kind of effort to understand the world, you need this time because things are not always controlled. We tried not to block our set to see and understand what can happen in the frame. 

Can you talk about your observations on human nature that are expressed in the film? 

One thing is that both characters have some kind of trust that at some point, things will happen the way they should. You can watch TV and know things don’t always happen the way they should. It’s not that I want to tell someone that they should be calm, and everything will be fine. But in this film, the characters have faith and somehow fulfill their expectations. It’s more than reality, it’s a fairy tale world, so we can work with narratives that are not directly part of our everyday life. But deep in my heart, I want to trust. I have a feeling that things that happen around us make some sense. At the same time you might say that is silly and senseless because of what is happening around us, but still . . .

Your film looks gorgeous. Can you describe how you designed the film visually and used the town and its townspeople as characters in the story? 

I spent quite a lot of time in Kutaisi, and we knew we didn’t want to make a big thing out of the art direction, or build decorations and paint walls. We tried to find places outside and inside that were there and important for the story. Every day, the city is alive and changing. It’s an old town, but there are many young people. It is generally quite a poor place, but people manage to live with dignity and not be completely broke. It was very interesting, and it took us time to find places that would transport the mood of our story and our feelings. We created the café, which doesn’t exist, but when we looked for a place where we could have the café, it was important to have it in a place that is open in every direction — to have a river on one side a bridge in another, and in a small park to involve the place in our narrative. It was way to have people come alive in the space. When we storyboarded, we used images. So it was very precise work, but we tried to keep it open. 

Franklin Foer wrote the book “How Soccer Explains the World,” and your film certainly shows how the sport is so ingrained in life In Kutaisi. Are you a fan, and what did you want to show with the emphasis on this sport?

I’m a fan, yes. I am a disappointed football player. I never became what I really wanted to be, a pro athlete. I sometimes play it with my friends, but it’s not the game I dream of, in a big stadium with 100,000 fans cheering. I watch the Georgian national team and when Barcelona plays — especially since Messi is there. I watch him a lot. From his first game, I was following him and his ups and downs. It is interesting because he’s not a normal human being. He is special and represents a lot, and you can learn from him how to handle time, difficulties, losing and winning. But also, it was very interesting to film people watching football because that is where you see big emotions. The main characters in the film don’t have many big emotional moments, so you see the emotions of the kids in the slow-motion sequence, where you see great happiness or anger, which is not connected to a big drama, but this game which is not important in general, but in the moment is the most important thing. 

Your film deals with chance and a curse. What accounts for your cockeyed optimism? Do you believe in such superstitions?  

Yes, sometimes I am superstitious, but not too much. I just do the same things my mom does. [Laughs] I have a feeling that she knows why not to put a bag [a backpack, or a purse] on a table, or put a knife in someone’s hand. Making this film, I was thinking a lot about things like this. There are three directions. There are moments where I have to make a decision. On the other hand, I see there are coincidences; things happen, and they change your life. I also sometimes think that there is some kind of — let’s call it destiny, a bigger narrative which is also there. These three things do not work against each other. There is one big narrative, and in this big story you still can make decisions and sometimes things will happen that are not planned by you or by someone who makes the “big story.”

“What We See When We Look at the Sky” is in theaters on Friday, Nov. 12. Watch the trailer below via YouTube.

More stories you might like: