Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

America is amusing itself to death — and the media still can’t face the truth

America remains in the grip of an existential democracy crisis: Donald Trump’s Republican-fascists and their movement are on the march, winning victory after victory while the Democrats and the “resistance” are hunkered down, doing little if anything to fight back.

Yet the gatekeepers among the American news media appear more interested in stories about Nicki Minaj’s cousin’s possibly imaginary friend, who supposedly suffered swollen testicles because of the coronavirus vaccine — supposedly damaging his marital prospects — than in doing the hard work of advocating for democracy and real accountability.

America is literally amusing itself to death, even as we learn further details about how Donald Trump and his agents attempted a coup to overthrow American democracy after his defeat in the 2020 election. The newest “revelation”: Step-by-step plans for this coup were outlined in a memo written by right-wing lawyer John Eastman, who became a key Trump adviser during the latter days of his presidency.

Some of the most influential voices in America’s mainstream news media — with the notable exceptions of CNN and the Washington Post — have largely ignored this story. At Mother Jones, Tim Murphy offers these details of Eastman’s memo, and the media’s non-response: 

In six concise bullet-points, the memo outlined a process by which Vice President Mike Pence could use his powers on January 6 to throw out the electors from seven states that President Joe Biden won in the 2020 election. The plan counted on Republicans in those states to submit competing sets of electors, based on the false and fabricated premise that Trump had somehow won those states … .

Not knowing for sure what happens when you dissociate “peaceful transfer of power” from “a society entirely predicated on it,” I sort of think this is a pretty big deal. This is a break-the-glass moment, as some have said, only someone else already broke the glass and took the axe and is running around with it.

But it is not such a big deal, apparently, if you watch network TV news. On Wednesday, Media Matters’ Matt Gertz reported that the total number of minutes devoted to the story on either the morning or evening editions of ABC, NBC, or CBS News in the first two days after the memo was published was zero. “In fact,” Gertz wrote, “the only national network broadcasts to mention Trump’s coup memo were the late-night variety shows hosted by Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers.”

In a new essay for the Washington Post, Margaret Sullivan offers this warning about what the media silence surrounding this newest “revelation” reveals about America’s democracy crisis:

In a normal world, the “Eastman memo” would be infamous by now, the way “Access Hollywood” became the popular shorthand in 2016 for the damning recording of Donald Trump’s bragging about groping women.

But it’s a good bet that most people have never even heard of the Eastman memo.

That says something troubling about how blasé the mainstream press has become about the attempted coup in the aftermath of the 2020 election — and how easily a coup could succeed next time.

The news media gatekeepers would likely defend their choice to focus on Nicki Minaj’s tall tale with an argument that stories about celebrities provide a way to pivot to larger issues of public concern. In essence, that a pop star’s Nicki uninformed comments about vaccines offer a “teachable moment”.

But the more basic and more plausible explanation is that the American people are attracted to juvenile and immature distractions, and that those impulses drive the mainstream news media’s ad revenues. Those concerns should wither away in the face of an unprecedented crisis of democracy crisis. Of course, that is unlikely to happen.  

The news media fulfills an important agenda-setting function in a society, and this is especially true in a democracy where freedom of the press is foundational. As a practical matter, the fourth estate tells the public what they should pay attention to and how they should think about it. In that context, elevating a story about a celebrity’s perhaps-invented vaccine anecdote over the details of a coup plot offers one more indictment of an American news media that continues to normalize neofascism.

Moreover, the news media’s evasion of any sustained conversation about the Republican-fascist coup attempt reflects the pathologies of an emotionally immature society, incapable of facing the crises it is now experiencing. Given that, how will American society possibly confront or address enormous challenges such as the global climate disaster, the continuing pandemic, mass shootings and gun violence, wealth and income inequality, profound technological disruptions to labor and the economy, racism and white supremacy, right-wing terrorism and other violence, dire threats to the rule of law and the constitutional order and so much more?

America’s democracy crisis reveals another frightening truth about our culture of distraction and immaturity: There are some in the media who actually yearn for Donald Trump’s return to national office. For many in the media elites — who believe themselves to be largely insulated from the day-to-day consequences of fascism, white supremacy, and other antisocial and anti-human behavior — Trump was a source of huge profits and heightened prestige. 

Media critic Eric Boehlert explored this in a recent newsletter, writing that while “American democracy is teetering increasingly close to the abyss,” the media “continues to play a dangerous game by refusing to acknowledge the danger”:

Even in the wake of the newest revelations of how Trump and his team aggressively tried to engineer a coup by invalidating millions of votes last year, he’s still being normalized in the day-to-day coverage, as the press eagerly awaits his return to the campaign trail. (“When Will Trump Answer the Big 2024 Question?” the New York Times asked.)

There’s nothing Trump could do at this point that would invalidate him in the eyes of the political press, and that includes him shooting someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue….

He remains a captivating topic who provides endless angles of intrigue and who is treated as a looming star of American politics. Forget about that coup stuff; Trump’s lawless, violent mob that rampaged inside the U.S. Capitol for hours, knocking officers unconscious and destroying offices of Democratic members. Whatever shock Trump’s deadly insurrection initially generated among Beltway journalists has since worn off.

Annoyed by President Joe Biden’s “boring” administration, journalists seem eager for the chaos and clicks that Trump creates — no defeated candidate has ever been showered with as much attention as he has.

Boehlert continues by observing that “the D.C. press can barely contain its excitement at the idea of the 2020 loser running again,” adding that “everyone knows if he wins a second term, every minute of every White House press briefing would be carried live and in full, just as they were for his first term. … A dangerous autocrat who’s devoted to wrecking the American election process is waiting in the wings to become the GOP nominee in 2024, and the Beltway press can’t wait.”

In other words, too many in the media refuse to focus on the serious threats to American democracy and society embodied by Donald Trump and the neofascist movement, largely because they find the spectacle so enthralling.

I continue to ask myself what kind of movie this is. What version of the simulation are we stuck in as America continues to slip deeper into fascist unreality?

Perhaps it’s as simple and complex as Mike Judge’s 2006 film “Idiocracy,” where the ignorant masses live in a full-on corporate dictatorship, where the most popular movie in the country consists of a naked butt farting on screen. Or perhaps America has surrendered to the prescient warnings of the 2018 film “Sorry to Bother You,” where the most popular reality show on television features contestants who allow themselves to be physically abused and otherwise humiliated. 

As the country succumbs to fascism, the American people, for the most part, are like the moviegoers in the cover image of the classic edition of Guy Debord’s “Society of the Spectacle,” sitting transfixed in 3D glasses, seduced by the images on the screen and numb to the world outside. Trump’s agents, allies, and followers have set the theater on fire, but to this point the audience hasn’t noticed and likely would not even care if they did. 

Hidden figures: In New Jersey and Mississippi, the COVID death rate is higher than Brazil

New Jersey recently lost the dubious distinction of having the highest per-capita COVID death rate in the nation to Mississippi, whose extraordinarily low vaccination rate and lack of a mask mandate have helped fuel the spread of the delta variant.

Mississippi, now closing in on 10,000 virus deaths, is registering 315 COVID deaths per 100,000 residents. New Jersey is approaching 28,000 fatalities, or 306 per 100,000,  a rate that is largely a consequence of the first several months of the pandemic, before we had a vaccine.

To get a sense of just how abysmal these numbers are, consider that our two states — a blue unionized labor state that fancies itself progressive, and a red state that was the cradle of the Confederacy — are both global standouts. In both cases, the legacy of generations of systemic racism and lack of access to regular health care has meant that people of color were the most vulnerable to COVID.

According to Johns Hopkins, that puts both states well above Brazil, the world’s hardest-hit nation, at 281.29 deaths per 100,000, followed by Argentina, which reports 255.52 per 100,000. The United States as a whole ranks fourth on the planet at 209.32 deaths per 100,000, only slightly below the rate of Mexico, at 215.33.

In contrasting the latest statistics from Mississippi and New Jersey you see the arc of the tragic American COVID experience, which was entirely avoidable. Our blind partisanship has short-circuited the ability of the states to learn from each other as the overall death toll from COVID blows past the 675,000 lost during the 1918-21 Spanish flu pandemic.

A year and a half plus into the pandemic, Mississippi is now seeing an exponentially higher death count and hospitalization rate than New Jersey. While Mississippi has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the nation, under Gov. Phil Murphy’s leadership, more than two-thirds of our state’s population is fully vaccinated. Mississippi’s vaccination rate is just over 43 percent. Unlike Republican Gov. Tate Reeves in Mississippi, Murphy has advocated universal mask mandates in New Jersey’s public schools.

Incredibly, former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, Murphy’s Republican opponent in this year’s gubernatorial election, wants to eliminate the K-12 mask mandate, which aligns him with Reeves, as well as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

Eight months into Joe Biden’s presidency, we remain a badly fractured nation where the seven-day average for daily COVID deaths count is over 2,000, something we haven’t seen since March. That’s two-thirds the number of Americans who died in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, each and every day.

Even as we close in on 45 million infections, and the reality that as many as 25 percent of those infected will have long-term health consequences of varying severity, Democrats and Republicans in Washington continue to haggle over whether and how to extend the debt ceiling.

Despite the tangible progress we have made battling COVID in New Jersey, we have yet to come to terms with just how vulnerable communities of color were and remain. Accelerating wealth inequality and longstanding health care disparities impacts hundreds of thousands of New Jersey residents of color, a cohort that includes many undocumented immigrants who served as frontline essential workers throughout the pandemic.

Back in April of 2020, Murphy signed legislation mandating that all of the state’s hospitals report the age, ethnicity, gender and race of everyone infected. “Understanding the impact of COVID-19 by demographic groups is critical to ensure equity in our response to the virus,” he said in a press statement at the time.  “We must do everything we can to protect the most vulnerable in our state during this unprecedented crisis. This data will inform our effort and allow us to make sure that no one is left behind.”

As one of the bill’s leading sponsors, Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, said at the time, “Decades of systemic poverty, lack of sufficient health care and chronic unemployment in our communities, especially Black communities, lends to the increased risk of coronavirus hitting residents living below the poverty line harder than others.”

Yet more than a year after that bill was signed, experts who have closely followed New Jersey’s efforts to document the racial disparities revealed during the pandemic say the state’s COVID data collection and dissemination efforts have crucial gaps. According to Dr. Laura A. Sullivan, director of Economic Justice for the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, the state Department of Health dashboard, which supposedly provides cumulative COVID-19 deaths and hospital discharge data for all the state’s municipalities, is “not accurate” and has not been updated since April.

Sullivan said that “localized information by race and ethnicity in communities” is crucial to developing and implementing “tailored approaches to the pandemic.” Without good data, it can be difficult or impossible “to make sure that people in the most vulnerable communities of color get their needs met,” she said. 

To cite one example, the official data for Essex County, in urban North Jersey across from New York City, does not appear to make sense. According to the NJDOH municipal data, while 8,752 Black residents in Newark contracted cases of COVID, or 24.6 percent of all the cases in the city, the site reports only three died, or 4.3 percent. In total, the site indicates just 69 deaths from COVID in Newark, an obviously correct number, with Asians accounting for 37 of those deaths, or 53.6 percent of that total.

For the upscale community of Montclair, the NJDOH chart for Montclair lists just 10 COVID deaths, all attributed to the Asian community. In Irvington, the NJDOH lists 280 deaths — 234 among Hispanic people, 16 among Asians, four in the Black community and none at all among whites.

A closer examination of all 20 Essex County municipalities on the NJDOH website, as updated in April, indicates that the county had close to 2,200 COVID deaths, distributed as follows: 1,150 Hispanic, 479 Asian, 447 “other,” 83 “unknown,” 59 Black and 15 white. In fact, according to USAFacts.org, as of Sept. 24 Essex County had 3,041 COVID deaths, the highest county total in the state.

Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, a senior analyst for New Jersey Policy Perspectives, says that after a “slow start” documenting the demographics of the pandemic, New Jersey has “generally done very well” in ramping up its data collection and is tracking this kind of data “more than some other states.”

“It is always going to be challenging when we rely on hospitals, rely on facilities, to report that racial and ethnic data,” Holom-Trundy said. “If you look at the percent of cases and deaths that we actually accounted for with racial and ethnic data, they are not actually covering all of the data.”

Years of public health program cuts at both the federal and state level, Holom-Trundy argued, have made agencies unable to respond effectively as the virus spread.

“Health disparities in the COVID-19 pandemic spotlight the long-standing inequities that permeate the health care system,” wrote Holom-Trundy in October of 2020. “Though the pandemic has been undeniably devastating throughout the country, the impact on Black and Latinx communities outpaces that on other populations. Nationally, Black and Latinx residents have been three times more likely than white residents to contract COVID-19 and nearly twice as likely to die from it. These patterns are also reflected at the state level.”

New Jersey’s increasingly diverse population “still sees the impact of structural racism in its housing and occupational divides,” she continued. “Past redlining practices have resulted in the segregation of neighborhoods and schools, with many Black and Latinx families living in densely populated metro areas with segregated school districts.”

Residents of color in New Jersey, she noted, made “up over half of employees in essential or ‘frontline’ industries, including grocery stores and pharmacies; trucking, warehouse and postal services; cleaning services; public transportation; health care; and childcare and social services.”

That essential worker mix in New Jersey also includes hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers and their families, Holom-Trundy noted, who remain vulnerable to COVID and are often apprehensive about getting the vital medical care that most other residents take for granted.

“We really do need to build toward universal health care,” she said. “As we saw during the pandemic, the first people hit by the pandemic … will be the essential workers, many of whom are undocumented. They are on the frontlines, yet they don’t have access to insurance and aren’t going to go to the doctor if they start feeling unwell because of the potential medical bills that come with them being uninsured.”

Even in the midst of a gubernatorial campaign, these were not the kinds of issues that came up during Murphy and Ciattarelli’s debate last week. As the issues we face, like the pandemic and climate change, loom ever larger, our politics continues to shrink, increasingly captive to the small-minded and self-interested.

 

Trump serves notice to Ron DeSantis about his 2024 presidential election prospects

In an interview with Yahoo Finance to be released on Monday, former president Donald Trump unequivocally stated that he has no doubt that he would beat Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

Despite Trump facing a wide array of lawsuits and criminal investigations, he is still making rumblings about a third run — although many believe he’s only teasing it out as a money-making scheme.

As Yahoo reports, “he was noncommittal on the subject of a hypothetical 2024 rematch with his successor — but made a bold prediction about his ability to prevail in a Republican primary that may include Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.”

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

According to Yahoo’s Ben Werschkul, “The former president was confident about his chances if he decided to run, even if it meant a potential head-to-head matchup with DeSantis, another GOP favorite.”

“If I faced him, I’d beat him like I would beat everyone else,” Trump stated while conceding DeSantis may opt out if the one-term president runs.

“I don’t think I will face him,” he added. “I think most people would drop out, I think he would drop out.”

You can read more here.

This Oath Keeper ‘oversees all operations’ at Arizona sheriff’s department: report

Hackers claim they have obtained a membership database of the right-wing paramilitary group Oath Keepers and an analysis of the list shows that one alleged member is one of the top officers at the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona.

“The data, some of which the whistleblower group Distributed Denial of Secrets made available to journalists, includes a file that appears to provide names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of almost 40,000 members. A search of that list revealed more than 200 people who identified themselves as active or retired law enforcement officers when signing up. USA TODAY confirmed 20 of them are still serving, from Alabama to California. Another 20 have retired since joining the Oath Keepers,” the newspaper reported.

Members of the group have been charged with conspiracy for the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The newspaper interviewed Major Eben Bratcher of the Yuma Sheriff’s Department.

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

“I may have signed up many years ago but do not recall any specifics,” Bratcher said. “I do know that I unsubscribed some time ago due to the sheer volume of email I received.”

The newspaper, however, noted the message Bratcher allegedly added.

“We have 85 sworn officers and Border (of) Mexico on the South and California on the West. I’ve already introduced your web site to dozens of my Deputies,” he allegedly wrote.

The department’s website says Bratcher joined the department in 1993.

“Bratcher quickly promoted through the ranks of Corporal, Sergeant, Watch Commander, Lieutenant and Captain,” the department explained. “In January 2021, Bratcher was promoted to the rank of Major and assumed the position of Chief of Operations for Sheriff Wilmot. As Chief of Operations, Major Bratcher oversees all operations of the Sheriff’s Office.”

7 fake words that actually ended up in the dictionary

Ghost words have nothing to do with otherworldly apparitions, but they’re enough to scare the headwords off lexicographers.

Coined by philologist Walter William Skeat in 1886, ghost words are often the result of misreadings and typographical errors. But not all misread and mistyped words are so spooky. While some that have meandered from their original forms have mostly retained their original meanings, the meaning of ghost words, and by extension the words themselves, never existed, except, as Skeat said, “in the perfervid imagination of ignorant or blundering editors.”

Another kind of fake word is the Nihilartikel, which translates from Latin and German as “nothing article.” Nihilartikels are deliberately phony words included to ward off would-be plagiarists. In other words, you know your dictionary content has been stolen if it includes a word that exists only in your dictionary. Here are seven fake words that ended up in Webster’s, Oxford, and the like.

1. Dord

Dord is perhaps the most famous of the ghost words. First appearing in the 1934 second edition of Webster’s New International Dictionary, dord was said to mean “density.”

The phantom phrase hung out until 1939, when an editor finally noticed its lack of etymology. Spooked, he checked the files and found the original slip: “D or d, cont/ density,” which was actually referring to abbreviations using the letter D. At the time, words to be entered in the dictionary were typed with spaces between letters so “d or d” might have been interpreted as “d o r d.”

Despite having proved its non-existence, it would take until 1947 before Webster’s pages were dord-free.

2. Abacot

Abacot made its debut in the second edition of Holinshed’s Chronicles, edited by Abraham Fleming and published in 1587. It then found its way into Spelman’s Glossarium (1664), and every major dictionary since. Almost 300 years later, James Murray, the primary editor of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), discovered that the wordy wraith was actually a misprint of bycoket, a cap or head-dress.

By then, abacot had taken on a life of its own, referring to not just any cap but a “Cap of State, made like a double crown, worn anciently by the Kings of England.”

3. Morse

By the time morse appeared in Sir Walter Scott’s 1821 novel, The Monastery, it already had a couple of accepted noun meanings: a fancy clasp for a cape and another word for walrus. The verb morse, however, was a mystery.

Scott’s use — “Dost thou so soon morse thoughts of slaughter?” — elicited a few theories. The word was thought to be “excellent Lowland Scotch,” and perhaps meant “to prime,” as in the priming of a musket. Another guess was that it came from the Latin mordere, “to bite,” and thus meant “to indulge in biting, stinging, or gnawing thoughts of slaughter.”

In actuality, morse was merely a misinterpretation of the far less exciting nurse meaning to nurture or care for.

4. Phantomnation

A ghostly word in more than one way, phantomnation was defined by Webster’s 1864 American Dictionary of the English Language as an “appearance as of a phantom; illusion,” and was attributed to Alexander Pope’s translation of The Odyssey:

“These solemn vows and holy offerings paid
To all the phantomnations of the dead.”

The real word? The no less creepy phantom-nation, a society of specters. We can blame scholar Richard Paul Jodrell for this gaffe, who, in his book The Philology of the English Language, left out hyphens in compound words.

5. Momblishness

As the OED puts it, momblishness is “explained as: muttering talk.” Not surprising with its similarity to the word mumble. While this linguistic bogey was discovered to be a “scribal error” of the plural of ne-moubliemie, French for the forget-me-not flower, we think this is one ghost word that should be brought back from the dead.

6. Cairbow

The curious cairbow was mentioned in an early 20th-century proof of the OED in an example sentence of “glare”: “It [the Cairbow] then suddenly squats upon its haunches, and slides along the glare-ice.”

Cairbow? No one had heard of such thing. Was it some kind of polar creature with an affinity for ice? Did it have a big rainbow on its back?

Nope. Cairbow was merely a misreading of caribou.

7. Esquivalience

The one faker by design, this spurious term, meaning “the willful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities,” materialized in the second edition of the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD).

Its fraudulence was revealed in the New Yorker. According to the magazine, an “independent investigator” who had heard rumors that there was a fictitious entry under the letter E in the NOAD did some research and guesswork and narrowed down the options. After the investigator sent a list of six possibilities to a group of nine experts, seven identified esquivalience as the fake. A call to NOAD’S then-editor-in-chief, Erin McKean, confirmed it.

McKean said that another editor, Christine Lindberg, had invented the word, and added that esquivalience’s “inherent fakeitude is fairly obvious.” Not obvious enough for some: The charlatan ended up in Dictionary.com, which cited Webster’s New Millennium as its source.

Esquivalience is gone now from the online reference as well as the NOAD, but as with all ghost words, its semantic spirit still remains.

How Dolly Parton’s “Coat of Many Colors” became an LGBTQ+ anthem

Dolly Parton has many LGBTQ+ fans and has long been considered an enduring queer icon. Parton has spoken out on multiple occasions in support of LGBTQ+ rights and has also been vocal in support of marriage equality. She has also called out Christians for judging gay people, saying: “If you’re gay, you’re gay. If you’re straight, you’re straight. And you should be allowed to be how you are and who you are.”

Parton’s outspoken support for the LGBTQ+ community can first be seen way back in 1991 on the album “Eagle When She Flies,” which features the song “Family,” with its lyrics: “Some are preachers, some are gay, some are addicts, drunks and strays. But not a one is turned away when it’s family.”

But it is the title track on her “Coat of Many Colors” album, released 50 years ago this September, that resonates with so many LGBTQ+ fans. The song describes an episode from Parton’s childhood growing up in rural poverty where her mother sews her a coat out of different coloured rags. For the young Parton, this gives her a sense of pride in herself as well as helping her stand out and receive attention from her parents (which with 12 siblings was no mean feat). But upon going to school the other children just see the rags and make fun of her.

From Shame To Pride

Parton from through feeling proud wearing the coat to shame at the hands of the other school children. She attempts to resolve this by reasserting a sense of pride: “One is only poor only if they choose to be.” Far from blaming those who have no money for their misfortune, this line is about redirecting shame.

The song’s reworking of shame is what enables it to travel and resonate with so many different listeners. In the recent BBC biopic, “Dolly Parton: Here I Am” (later released on Netflix), Parton describes the song as her “philosophy”, saying: “It’s OK to be different. You know, it’s OK to not be like everybody else. In fact, it’s not only OK, it’s wonderful that you are who you are.”

This transformation of shame into pride has long been a strategy used throughout LGBTQ+ history and politics. And the wearing of the coat of many colours has striking visual similarities with the LGBTQ+ pride flag — an image that has become increasingly resonant as Parton’s LGBTQ+ advocacy has become more pronounced.

50 years on

“Coat of Many Colors” has now reached the ripe old age of 50, but it’s still as relevant now as when it was released in October 1971. Nominated for album of the year at the 1972 Country Music Association Awards, it also appeared at Number 257 on Rolling Stone’s 2020 list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.

The album was released when Parton was still heavily connected to her musical partner Porter Wagoner. And “Coat of Many Colors” showed she was fast outgrowing him. The album was a defining moment for Parton to assert her agency and independent identity as an artist.

“Coat of Many Colors” continues to be one of Parton’s most popular songs, as shown by the enthusiastic response to it during live shows.

The song also connects with audiences worldwide — Parton has a lot of fans in Nigeria and Kenya — due to its relatable story of family, struggle and acceptance. But as wonderful and historically significant as this song is, the “Coat of Many Colors” album has more than just one song of note.

Further gems

Parton wrote seven out of the ten songs on the album. All of them showcase the refinement and evolution of Parton’s craft from the comic representations of sexuality in Traveling Man, where a young girl falls in love with her travelling man only for him to abandon her for her mother, to the evocative pastoral imagery of the mountain landscape where she grew up in “Early Morning Breeze” and “My Blue Tears.”

A key song that captures the essence of Parton’s philosophy is “Here I Am,” which Parton recently re-recorded with Sia for the Netflix film “Dumplin’.” A gospel-inflected country song, Parton’s vocals and lyrics enable its message to travel wide. Parton acknowledges the hardship of people’s situations so that her message of belief is not invalidating.

Through Parton’s storytelling, others from all walks of life that are facing difficulties can identify with the emotional content of the song and hear the resounding message of hope.

Indeed, Parton’s crossover appeal, from country music fans to pop audiences, and her solid songwriting core set a precedent that artists today who straddle multiple genres still build on — artists like Taylor Swift, Kacey Musgraves and most recently Lil Nas X.

Parton has herself indicated that she would like to be remembered foremost as a songwriter. Not to disregard the significant impact Parton has had on the LGBTQ+ community via her media persona and image, but an understanding of Dolly is much more enriched by a deeper understanding of her songwriting.

James Barker, PhD Candidate in Music, Newcastle University

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

“Dementia brings up everything”: Two new books offer emotional (and practical) advice for caregivers

My mom and my mother-in-law have never had much in common. Indeed, my relationships with both of them have been vastly different. Yet, somehow, they find themselves now in nearly identical plights: deeply withdrawn into the dark, frightening worlds of their own respective dementias.

In a relatively short span of time, I’ve watched them both transform into nearly unrecognizable versions of their former selves. It is not a gentle or a peaceful experience. In observing these joint crises, there is much I didn’t know — or never even thought about — before I had to. Yes, there are emotional things, the grief before the grief. But also the practical things, the “You don’t remember how to brush your teeth?”-type things.

The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that more than 11 million Americans are caregiving for someone with Alzheimer’s or dementia. It can be an incredibly lonely, overwhelming and confusing experience. So I got some help.

I have read an awful lot on this subject, and the two best books of their kind happen to have both come out in the past month. Andrew E. Budson and Maureen K. O’Connor’s “Six Steps to Managing Alzheimer’s Disease and Dementia: A Guide for Families” offers practical, refreshingly plainspoken information on helping your loved one — and yourself — through through the process. And author Patti Davis’s “Floating in the Deep End” is a frank, judgment-free account of how she got through her father Ronald Reagan’s illness, and the wisdom she’s acquired from experience and her support group, Beyond Alzheimer’s. Both books left me tearful with recognition and gratitude, fortified with acceptance and the permission to let go of unconstructive guilt. I can’t say enough how simultaneously informative and consoling both books are.

Facing this absolute bastard of a condition has to start, first and foremost, with challenging the stigmas of our youth-oriented, individualistic culture.

“We as a society need to work on normalizing the conversation as people are getting older, about the fact that at some point, everyone is going to need help with managing some of their affairs, whether we’re talking about helping with their finances, helping to make sure medications are administered correctly or helping with things like bathing and toileting,” says Andrew E. Budson, chief of cognitive & behavioral neurology at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System. “Everyone is going to need help at some time in their life with those things, and I think we need to feel comfortable introducing those topics.”

Meanwhile, in our more immediate day-to-day relationships, we all need to get good at recognizing the signs of Alzheimer’s and dementia — especially in these isolation-accelerated times. “Anybody can be halfway through telling a story to a good friend and say, ‘Oh my God, I told you this already, didn’t I?,” says Budson. “But if one notices a pattern of an individual frequently repeating the same questions, the same stories, over and over and over again, that really is not normal. That’s a pretty good red flag.” 

Budson adds that another red flag is “if the person is having a lot more trouble than they normally would doing the same types of tasks.”

Those kinds of symptoms may seem well-known, but there are others that are sneakier, that disguise themselves as something else.

“We see a lot of patients in our clinic who have just been told, ‘Mrs. Jones, you’re just suffering from depression,'” says Budson. “The fact of the matter is, Mrs. Jones really is depressed, but Mrs. Jones is depressed because, number one, she is terrified that she’s developing Alzheimer’s. Number two, the actual pathologic process of Alzheimer’s disease does affect the neurotransmitters in the brain that lead to depression. So Mrs. Jones has depression, but it’s not that the depression is causing the Alzheimer’s, it’s really the other way around.” And when you learn your loved one isn’t just being forgetful or sad, as Patti Davis writes in her book, hang on.

“It’s scary,” Davis says during a recent early morning phone call from her home in California. “It’s scary to go through grief. It’s scary to surrender yourself to it, and we don’t want to do it. So we find all sorts of ways to avoid that.” Davis understands that paradoxically, it’s that fear that can lead us — as adult children, spouses and friends — to take on too much, to avoid getting the help we need. But managing care is not a simple case of familial reciprocity. It is instead, as Davis puts it in her book, more like “childproofing on steroids.”

“Right out of the gate, you have to point out the absurdity of comparing a parent taking care of a child to an adult taking care of an 85-year-old. It is not the same,” says Davis. She cites, for example, how “it commonly comes up around the issue of bathing.” It’s exactly the sort of thing you can’t fully grasp until one day your spouse uses the word “harrowing” to describe the ordeal of giving his mother a bath.

Davis says, “While I understand that there are some situations where there is no choice, often there is a choice. There are a lot of reasons that people take on that intimate task, but I think it’s just too emotionally difficult and too emotionally fraught. That’s where people usually reach for some kind of defensive reason, like, ‘Well, she bathed me as a child.’ Bathing a child is a completely different thing than bathing an elderly person, particularly your parent. First of all, just dealing with your parents’ naked body is emotionally loaded, no matter what your relationship with them was. It uses up a lot of your emotional resources. That’s actually why I think people do it, because instinctively, we know that if we’re using up all our emotions on something like that, we’re not going to have enough left to take care of our own grief.”

“We’re very clever at running away from grief,” she says. “I’ve heard it in general care issues — ‘They cared for me when I was a child, so I have to sacrifice my entire life to take care of them.’ There are some situations where it’s just unavoidable. There’s no money, there’s no opportunity, no financial room to have anybody help you out. I do get that, but there’s respite care that’s available sometimes. So I think usually it’s something else is being played out there.”

In her book, Davis advocates for keeping a sense a humor, and writes compassionately about the challenges of taking away a parent’s car keys and discovering that “lying is your friend” when “the truth isn’t going to be soothing.” Budson concurs.

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

“It’s not helpful to continually tell your loved one that they have Alzheimer’s or that they have dementia. It’s not helpful to argue with them if they have a false memory or are having a hallucination,” he says. “We typically want to respond in the same way that we always have done for thirty years, maybe sixty years. When any really form of dementia hits, caregivers just can’t use the same approach, the same language, the same tone that they otherwise would have.”

This is deep, deep work for all parties here, to learn a new way of communicating.

“We wanted to try to help people understand at an emotional level,” says Budson, “that you really have to have a different mindset. You can’t continue to think about the person as your mother in exactly the same way you used to, or think of the person as your spouse in exactly the same way that you used to. It’s difficult because it can be frustrating for anybody if they ask you the same question thirty times in two hours. It’s particularly difficult when in order to answer a different way, you have to come to the emotional realization that the person that has been your partner or someone that you’ve looked up to for many years, that they’re just not the same person they used to be.”

That also requires examining honestly what that prior relationship was, and acknowledging the complicated dynamics that will still come into play as you manage care. As Davis says, “The thing about Alzheimer’s or any kind of dementia is that it brings up everything. It brings up everything in families. It brings up everything in you, the things that you thought you resolved in therapy ten years ago. Guess what? Maybe not completely, because here they are again. One of the most powerful lessons that this disease taught me, was to grow up and be an adult and accept that my family was what it was, and then go, ‘Okay, now, where do I go from here?'”

Acceptance is tough. But a new relationship is not the same as a nonexistent one. A person with a cognitive issue is still a human being, and there may yet be unexpected experiences of connection to be found. The last conversation I had with my mother was probably the sweetest one we’ve had in decades. It reminded me of the interview I had last year with “On Vanishing” author Lynn Casteel Harper, who said hopefully, “I think a gentler world is possible.”

“If you are sitting there with an attitude of, ‘This person’s not here anymore,’ you’re going to miss those really precious moments and very illuminating moments,” says Patti Davis. “I always feel, ‘don’t say that,’ because then that’s going to become your reality and you’re going to miss what you can learn from this disease and how you can grow from it. You’re not going to be there for them in the ways that they need you to be there for them, because you just decided they’re not there.” Instead, “You have to be really on the alert,” she says, “for those moments where there’s some clarity and there’s an aperture, a little opening that you can see through the disease — and past the disease.”

As hard as it is to look at the older women in my life and not fear my own future, Alzheimer’s and dementia are not inevitable. Science is still investigating the root causes — and potential treatments.

“It’s a huge misconception that many people think that’s just what happens,” says Budson. “We now recognize that people can be living healthy with very good cognition — maybe not quite as good as when they were in their middle ages — but with very good cognition up into their eighties and nineties. Most of the time, when people are having significant problems with thinking and memory, it’s because some type of disease process, sometimes reversible, sometimes not, has come about.”

I am still figuring out new things every day with my mother and my mother-in-law, still searching for moments of grace when they appear, and letting go of a tremendous amount. “One of my mantras became, ‘I don’t know,'” says Davis. “I don’t know what my father is going to be like today when I go visit him. I don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow. I don’t know what’s going to happen next week. We like to map things out and everybody likes to be in control, but I think to have that openness of recognizing that this disease is in control. You have to plan ahead. But I think there’s a balance there of doing that, but also deep inside yourself going, ‘I have no idea.'”

Where to go apple picking in New York, according to an expert

Every month, Melina Hammer, Food52’s very own Hudson Valley correspondent, is serving up all the bounty that upstate New York has to offer.

* * *

Did you know? New York State’s official state fruit — and, who knew, state muffin — is the apple. Appropriately, apple picking heralds in the fall in the Hudson Valley. From August through October, the crisp, sweet air is just right for orchard day trips.

* * *

A few tips for apple picking

  • Remember to check the weather. Recent rains can cause muddy conditions, so dress accordingly.
  • Each orchard sets their prices differently (admission per person, parking fee, pay per bag before or after filling, pay by weight). Familiarize yourself with what to expect.
  • Research the apple varietals available for when you visit. Not all apple types ripen at the same time, and certain parts of orchards may be reserved for cider production or farmers markets, not pick-your-own (PYO).
  • If you want to make it a day with your furry friend, check beforehand to see if the orchard allows pets. Some orchards do not allow dogs on their farm, especially those with petting zoos.

Now that you know what to look for, here’s a handy list of some wonderful orchards throughout the Hudson Valley.

* * *

Where to pick apples in New York state 

Maynard Farms, Ulster Park, NY. Located on rolling hills, overlooking the majestic Hudson River. Pack a picnic lunch and make a day wandering and harvesting. Varietals include Stayman Winesap, Braeburn, and Evercrisp (my personal eaten-out-of-hand favorite, without question).

Fix Brothers, Hudson, NY. Established in 1899, these orchards have been worked by five generations of farmers. In addition to apples (you can find Jonagold, Gala, Crispin, Fortune, and then some), Fix Brothers orchards are highly sought out for their legendary cherry season, including sour cherries.

Greig Farm, Red Hook, NY. Since 1942, this farm has been family-run. In 1975, they dedicated the farm as a destination to share the experience of agriculture, and PYO took center stage. Their farm practices take special measures with sustainability in mind, like incorporating circular agriculture, or the idea that every source of waste can be used as an input elsewhere on the farm to build soils and the overall health of crop ecosystems. Included on the 70 acres dedicated to PYO, depending on the season: asparagus, strawberries, pumpkins, and, of course, apples. Apple varietals include: Blondee, Red Rome, Jonamac, Empire, and more. Beyond seasonal produce, stock up on grass-fed beef, poultry, cheeses, eggs, raw honey, and craft beer.

Stone Ridge Orchard, Stone Ridge, NY. A 115-acre farm on the beautiful rolling hills of Stone Ridge. During harvest season, expect to find Golden Russet, Northern Spy, Honeycrisp, and Macoun apples. The orchard farm stand is open Friday through Sunday, selling produce, cider doughnuts, pies, apple cider, their award-winning hard ciders, and wood-fired pizza, served al fresco.

Love Apple Farm, Ghent, NY. With views of the Catskill Mountains, this farm has been part of the agricultural community in the Hudson Valley for over 50 years. During picking season, you can get Honeycrisp, Gala, and Ruby Mac, to name a few. Also: various berries, peaches, and plums through their growing seasons. Love Apple Farm market showcases local producers, including cheese and dairy, breads, honey, maple syrup, and farm-raised meats and poultry.

Cedar Heights Orchards, Rhinebeck, NY. A family-owned orchard for over 150 years. Their trees are situated high on a large hillside with views of the Hudson Valley and Catskill Mountains. Expect unusual apples such as Calville Blanc d’Hiver (tart, effervescent, and originally from France) as well as Yarlington Mill, Cortland, and Pixie Crunch.

Fishkill Farms, Hopewell Junction, NY. Started in 1913, this farm has a diversity of crops, with organic practices placed front and center. Their PYO, eco-certified apples include: Gala, Gingergold, Earligold, and Chestnut Crabapples. Try their hard cider tastings at the orchard bar and visit the farm store to stock up on fresh produce.

Rose Hill Farm, Red Hook, NY. Their mantra: “Fresh, local produce is most delicious, nourishing, and rewarding when picked by you.” The farm is committed to preserving the environment through the use of renewable energy, water conservation, and responsible farming practices. Throughout the seasons, look forward to an array of sweet and sour cherries, berries of many kinds, plums, apricots, and peaches, in addition to lots and lots of apples. Some highlights: Gingergold, Shikuza, Mutsu, Twenty Ounce, and Gala. They also have a winery and cider brand of the same name — visit their taproom and bottle shop to bring more of the harvest home.

Wilklow Orchards, Highland, NY. Wilklow Orchards strives to farm with sustainable practices, “because we want this farm to last us another six generations,” according to their farmers. From currants to squash to apples, they grow a range of produce. Their PYO apple season includes Winesap, Rome, Fuji, and Cameo. Stop by their farm bar, serving hard cider and local beers, and their food truck if you haven’t packed a picnic. And yes, they make delicious cider doughnuts, too.

* * *

What to do with your apple haul:

Cider-Braised Chicken with Apples, Onions and Thyme

Brown Butter Apple Pie Cookies

Want a more decadent chocolate cake from the box? Add a spoonful of Duke’s Mayo to the batter

I’ve spent summers in South Carolina since I was a kid. It was there at a beachside sandwich shop that I first heard the story of how Duke’s Mayo came to be. It was a wartime invention, actually, created by a woman named Eugenia Duke and her daughter, Martha. In 1917, the two began selling sandwiches slathered with homemade mayonnaise at YMCA-run army canteens in Greenville and at the nearby Camp Sevier. 

The sandwiches — which included mayo-heavy varieties like chicken salad, egg salad and pimento cheese — sold for 10 cents a piece. They shortly developed a cult following among infantrymen who were about to be shipped out to fight in World War I. 

Soon, Duke’s market area began to expand, and with most local men serving overseas, her salesforce was primarily women. Over time, Duke transitioned from being a self-described housewife who had married at 17 to the founder of a booming sandwich business that reached local factories and drugstores. According to a history of Duke, “In the spring of 1919, she [sold] more than 10,000 sandwiches in one day.” 

RELATED: Roast a pumpkin for your own spicy and smoky harvest season hot sauce

A decade later, Duke “sells her mayonnaise recipe to C.F. Sauer, who establishes a Duke Mayonnaise factory in the Upstate. Eugenia also sells the recipes for her spreads to her bookkeeper, Alan Hart, who establishes a wholesale market for the sandwiches.” 

The rest, as they say, is history. 

For a very long time, Duke’s remained a beloved, regionally-recognized condiment. I couldn’t reliably get it in Chicago, where I lived for more than a decade, though once I moved to Kentucky, it was everywhere. Once, when working for a local magazine, I pitched a story where I’d write up the contents of a dozen or so chef’s refrigerators. At least 10 of them had a tub of Duke’s tucked among the ingredients, its distinctive yellow cap almost signaling a halo of culinary approval. 

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

In 2013, Emily Wallace wrote an article for The Washington Post detailing the fanaticism with which certain people regard the spread. Some wrote fan mail and feverish requests to the factory, which is now located in Richmond, Va. 

“There was the man on his hospital deathbed who asked for a tomato sandwich made with Duke’s,” Wallace wrote. “There was the mother of the bride who, after the company made its switch from glass to plastic containers around 2005, demanded four glass jars with labels intact to use as centerpieces at her daughter’s wedding.”

And there was the elderly woman from North Carolina. 

“She wrote in hopes of obtaining just three glass jars, saying she’d like to be cremated and have her ashes placed in the containers for her three daughters,” Wallace added. 

The company kindly obliged. 

But beyond regional pride, what is it about the Duke’s that has drawn such a fandom? The answer is easy: flavor. 

Unlike many commercially-made mayos, Duke’s doesn’t contain sugar — though it does contain both distilled and cider vinegar. This results in a distinct tang, or “twang,” as the company’s promotional materials boast. 

“‘Twang’ is our way of expressing that hard-to-describe, southern-inspired, ‘something special’ that sums up what Duke’s mayo brings to the table,” said Stan Richards, the creative director/principal at the Richards Group, which led a 2020 rebrand of the company. 

He continued, “It’s a southern thing, an essence and a feeling — all wrapped up and captured in one, powerful word.”

The mayonnaise also has a slightly smoky kick, which comes from the addition of just a touch of paprika. Much like Japanese mayo brands, including chef-favorite Kewpie, Duke’s also has a higher percentage of egg yolk to white than most American mayonnaise brands, which gives it a fuller, richer texture. 

All of that combined makes it the perfect base for a mayonnaise-laden potato salad. In my mind, it’s also the only appropriate spread for that peak-summer tomato sandwich. For what it’s worth, the company leans hard into tomato season; this year, it launched both a seasonally-inspired beer with Champion Brewing Company and held a weeklong event in Richmond called “Hot Tomato Summer.” 

Duke’s is also my secret ingredient in what is perhaps a totally unexpected dish: chocolate cake. 

I’m not sure which of my grandmothers tipped me off to using mayonnaise for a more moist chocolate cake, but I swear I can tell the difference (though don’t worry, you can’t taste the “mayonnaise”). If you think about it, it’s not an outlandish suggestion — most boxed cake mixes call for oil and eggs, which are the main ingredients in any mayonnaise worth its stuff. 

It doesn’t take much. For a typical boxed chocolate cake mix, add a 1/2 cup of Duke’s along with the recommended egg and oil count. The result is decadent, spongy with just a hint of extra flavor. As Duke aficionados would say, it’s got that twang. 

Read more Saucy:

Ex-Trump aide Corey Lewandowski bragged about killing two men before groping donor: police report

A top Republican Party donor who accused ex-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski of groping her during a fundraiser outlined his entire night of bad behavior to local police — including the fact that he apparently bragged about stabbing and killing two men.

Trashelle Odom, who is married to an Idaho-based construction executive and conservative donor, said the comments made her fear for her safety, especially after her denial of Lewandowski’s advances set off a fit of rage that prompted him to throw a drink at her.

According to Odom’s statement, which was published in full by the U.K.-based tabloid The Daily Mail, Lewandowski was discussing his childhood in a “bad part of Boston” when he started talking about the people he had killed. 

“I initially believed that he was joking and attempted to laugh it off, Odom told police, adding that he did not appear to be drunk. “That is when Lewandowski went into detail and stated something to the effect of, ‘When I was 10, I stabbed someone over and over again, killing him.’ He continued and shared that when he was older he stabbed a man in the back of the head, also killing him.”

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

The story, along with Lewandowski’s “aggressive sexual advances,” made Odom visibly “intimidated and frightened and fearful,” prompting another guest at the event to ask if she was okay. In fact, Odom alleges the incident was so blatant that South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem texted Lewandowski to stop touching her.

Earlier this week Noem was also forced to deny reports in the right-wing press that she was engaged in an extramarital affair with Lewandowski. 

Lewandowski’s attorney, David Chesnoff, told NBC News that the “accusations and rumors appear to be morphing by the minute and we will not dignify them with a further response.”

Following the allegations being made public, Lewandowski was fired from his job at the pro-Trump super PAC Make America Great Again Action. John Odom, Trashelle’s husband, subsequently released a statement to the Daily Mail thanking “President Trump for taking swift and decisive action.”

He also said his family “believes in law enforcement, and are hopeful that the police and prosecutors will use this information to pursue justice.”

“For all others with information regarding this man’s violent, harassing, and traumatizing behavior, we encourage you to speak up. Accountability is sorely needed,’ he added.

Noem also announced this week that she would be severing ties with the embattled ex-Trump aide.

Read Trashelle Odom’s full statement to police below:

On the afternoon of September the 26th, 2021, I was riding in a Las Vegas bus with my sister and several other individuals, including Matt Schlapp. During that time, I was personally invited to attend a dinner with Gov. Kristi Noem by Jackie Siegal.

I was told that due to limited seating, I was the only one who could attend. Therefore, my family made other plans, and I changed clothes and arrived at the event at approximately 5:30pm to the Benihana private banquet room. At the event, there were seating arrangements, I was seated between Bubba Saulsbury and Corey Lewandowski.

Almost immediately, there were amicable jokes between Bubba Saulsbury and GOP operative Chris DeWitt (present and across the table) where they referred to one another as ‘Cheese Dick.’ Lewandowski entered the conversation with the comment that his ‘dick is four inches bigger than a normal dick.’ From there, Lewandowski proceeded to come on to me aggressively by first stating that, he works out twice a day, that he runs 400 miles a week, and that’s why he can last for 8 hours at a time in bed.

He went so far as requesting the suite number I was staying in and indicated he was staying in the ‘Elvis Suite’ which I now know as untrue. Eventually, he showed me his room key, room 2991, which was next door to my suite, 2989, where I was staying with my sister and children.

Trying to change the subject, I asked Lewandowski about his wife and kids, as I am very proud of the fact that I am happily married, with children. Mr. Lewandowski replied that, ‘he does not do anything with his wife- he gets his sex elsewhere.’ Around that time, he commented that Gov. Noem is hot. I have a cell phone case and on the back of it, it displays ‘Mrs. Odom.’

Lewandowski saw that and became visibly angry with me and demanded to know why I would have that. It was as if he thought he had a sense of ownership over me, from the start. He stated several times that, ‘he is very powerful and can destroy anyone.’ He said he was close with President Trump and can get anyone elected or can take anyone out.

The conversation turned to California as Lewandowski told me he was traveling there. I mentioned that I was from a bad area of California near where he was traveling. That is when Lewandowski told me that he ‘was from a bad part of Boston and have killed people.’ I initially believed that he was joking and attempted to laugh it off.

That is when Lewandowski went into detail and stated something to the effect of, ‘when I was 10, I stabbed someone over and over again, killing him.’ He continued and shared that when he was older he, ‘stabbed a man in the back of the head, also killing him.’

Those statements, coupled with his demeanor and aggressive behaviors, I was intimidated and frightened and fearful for my safety and that of my family members.

I immediately tried to think of how I could delicately extract myself from Lewandowski while simultaneously trying to respect the event and staying near others for safety.

His behavior was so aggressive that others began to notice and another guest even came over to ask if I was okay. I even texted my sister (and others) in a group message, ‘wtf.’ Lewandowski was watching me type, and so I did not feel safe to expound more.

Throughout the dinner, Lewandowski willfully and maliciously engaged in a course of behavior that made me scared and fearful. He began to physically touch me. Lewandowski tried to hold my hand. I rebuffed him. Lewandowski used his pinky to play with my hand. I rebuffed him. Lewandowski grabbed the napkin off of my lap and touched my bare leg. I rebuffed him and pulled my dress over my bare skin to prevent him from touching me again.

Lewandowski told me that he was ‘sore from a workout’ and proceeded to demonstrate where he was sore from a workout, on the side of his butt, and he (without my permission or desire) touched me there. Ultimately, I believe I rebuffed him approximately 10 times.

When dinner arrived, I was still very uncomfortable, and Lewandowski’s behavior continued. He began ordering me drinks, that I wasn’t drinking, so he ultimately drank them. He also ate directly from my plate and used my utensils. He would occasionally try to play with my upper back with his fingertips. I did not eat. I eventually was able to leave my seat and sought out Chris DeWitt and asked him to help me get away from Lewandowski. I retreated to a small sitting area and called my sister.

When I hung up I told her that I love her. Lewandowski was right there following me and gave me a glaring look and demanded to know who I was speaking with. I complied, told him my sister, out of fear. As I walked to the elevator, to go to the Verona Suite, where the hosts were having a reception after the dinner on the 30th floor.

There was an auction, speakers, and socializing. Rick Kofoed was present as was Lewandowski. We elected to take the stairs instead. While descending the stairs, Lewandowski repeatedly commented, ‘Nice ass’ to me. Rick apologized to me stating, ‘Corey does this a lot.’ It was apparent that my reactions to Lewandowski’s stories, threats, and aggressive sexual advances were not normal for Lewandowski as Lewandowski ultimately threw his drink at me, hitting my dress, shoe, and foot.

When I confronted Lewandowski and asked if he threw his drink at me, I believe he called me stupid. I followed up and asked, ‘Did you call me stupid?’ He responded with, ‘Why, you don’t like that?’ I spotted my sister and went with her up the elevator to the reception on the 30th floor.

Please note that these were my first events as a member of the advisory board of this charity, so it was important to me to attend and be supportive. I never expected to have this experience.

While in the Villa, I saw Gov. Noem and intended on introducing her to my sister and stepson, who both had joined me on the trip. Gov. Noem told me that she had texted Corey to stop touching me. This was confusing for my sister and stepson.

At some point, after I briefly spoke with Gov. Noem, Lewandowski appeared and immediately came over to my stepson, sister, and me. He stated he wanted a ‘private tour’ and beckoned me to leave the group and take him on a tour. I immediately declined and walked off with my sister and stepson.

I went to the bar on the other side of the suite with my sister and stepson to try and escape Lewandowski and his stalking. I approached Mr. Dewitt and asked him why he didn’t help me. He stated that he told Stacey Kofoed, the wife of Rick Kofoed, so that she could potentially help me. I went to the bar, Lewandowski followed.

Stacey Kofoed and Chris DeWitt brought me to the other side of the bar to get me away from Lewandowski. Stacey said that, “Corey is always like this.” Lewandowski continued to move around and wrapped his arm around Mrs. Kofoed to try and touch me. He touched my back to which I immediately adjusted my posture and he shot me a nasty look.

Eventually, Lewandowski left. Gov. Noem left. I stayed to attend the other portions of the event then wanted to head to my room as I wanted to take my family for ice cream on the strip to try and calm down.

As I walked to the elevator, Rick Kofoed was coming off the elevator. He said he was so sorry. Stacey was talking to Corey. I took the elevator to my room, which I knew was next to Lewandowski. He was in the hall. He looked angry and terrifying. It was very clear he was not sorry for his actions but mad.

He appeared sober in his speech and actions. I went into my room crying and trembling as I did not know if I had just ruined everything that my family had worked so hard to grow. My family told me that he was pacing outside my room in the hall while on the phone. However, I gathered myself and took my family members out for ice cream.

After, I was convinced to join friends at the Conrad Hotel, I did, but left quickly after having a glass of water. I made sure my family was with me as I went back to the hotel as I was fearful knowing that Lewandowski was staying next to me.

I received a call from Mina Lu stating that Lewandowski grabbed her rear end and that she yelled at Lewandowski the morning. She added that he was leaving the hotel in 30 minutes. I intentionally waited approximately an hour with the hope I could avoid him. I then left the hotel in the morning.

“Scenes from a Marriage” boss Hagai Levi on empowering the wife to leave: “I have to fight for her”

Hagai Levi didn’t plan to remake Ingmar Bergman‘s “Scenes From a Marriage” but was invited by Bergman’s son Daniel to do so, which makes sense. At that point Levi had built a reputation for creating stories about intimate relationships and agonizing truths: He was in the midst of making “The Affair” for Showtime, which followed his American adaptation of “In Treatment” for HBO. Each wears the influence of Bergman’s “Scenes” on its skin.

“I just got an email from a person who said, ‘I’m the son of Ingmar Bergman,’ which was just unbelievable,” Levi recalled. “He felt that it was about time, and he had some ideas, so we started to speak.”

The product of that conversation is currently airing on HBO, Levi’s remake of Bergman’s seminal series about the dissolution of a marriage. It stars Jessica Chastain as the soon-to-be-ex-wife of the couple, Mira, with Oscar Isaac playing Jonathan, her estranged husband. Together the actors carry most of Levi’s “Scenes” with intense dialogues that take place inside of the home the couple shared, similar to how Bergman shot his 1973 series. But Levi made one key change by flipping the story’s gender roles, making Chastain’s character the one who initiates the divorce. 

Levi’s “Scenes from a Marriage,” like the original, is an intimate, painful portrayal of how long-term relationships fall apart and why some couples who decide to split up can never entire let go of each other. In the same way Bergman’s piece elicited highly emotional responses among viewers, Levi’s remake has stirred up strong emotions as well, more than a few of which revolve around Chastain’s Mira.

Plans for this production may have been in progress for most of a decade, but the confined setting makes this interpretation of “Scenes from a Marriage” feel particularly timely. That wasn’t intentional, although Levi notes it was one of the first shows to go to production.

“It’s a very COVID-friendly show in a way,” he explained, referring to production being limited only to a small number of people and taking place in a small, remote studio.  

But as Levi explains in a recent video conversation with Salon, what makes Bergman’s story so timeless are its universal themes.

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

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

Let’s talk about one aspect of the production you’ve spoken about before, which is the conceit of showing that dividing line between those moments when the actors are coming on to the set, getting ready with the crew and then saying action.

First of all, what you wrote about acting and about that device was so interesting for me to read.

Oh good! Well, now I get to ask you about it and find out the real answer.

Well, you have a better answer than myself, from what you wrote. Because I’ll tell you the truth, it started from kind of distress. I was close to shooting and I saw the sets in the building. We started rehearsals, and everything was great. But I felt suddenly, very vividly, that this is not my language. And it was a big issue for me – that this is not my culture, and everything that I know about my own culture, and all these nuances that I know very, very precisely, when I direct in Israel, I know in America, like 95%, but not 100%.

When I did “In Treatment,” it wasn’t exactly like this specific characters from Israel . . . it  was more like archetypes of characters that I wanted to discuss. The couple, a girl coming of age, these very, very basic archetypes.

So here too, it was a way to say, there is something a little bit artificial about it. And I’m not going to hide it. Actually, quite the opposite, I’m going to put a focus on it. To tell you this is more of a conceptual of abstract discussion about monogamy.

I don’t know if it all makes sense to you. But that was like the instinct I had. And then I thought . . . it was a nice way to remind us that we are in a COVID time. Because we had this question, we didn’t know if we should put it in the series or not. But yeah, and it’s not, but then there was like, not ignoring the time. And it was also a way to say, this is not an original show. It’s an homage to another show. A lot of things came together, and it felt right. But it started as, you know, just kind of an instinct.

Sometimes artists commit to a conceit for a reason that can be, as you say, very practical. And then in the execution of it something’s revealed to them that brings an unexpected element to their work. What did the execution of that conceit, where you have this divide, what did that reveal to you?

One of the things that was very surprising is like what I can call the power of the suspension of disbelief. The fact that after a minute, you forget about that. You see this device and I tell you very clearly, “This is a show,” right? And then after a minute or two, you just forget about it and dive in as the viewer. I didn’t expect that to be so effective. And so this is something I could reveal only in editing when I saw it.

I think afterwards it said something about Jessica and Oscar, because of the relationship they had before, what happened during the production and afterwards . . . I wanted to show them, in a way, to show something about themselves, as people, to say something about the relationship between them, and probably about the state of mind that they were in during the shooting.

The way that I thought about it was just this idea that setting it in one space, as you said, is not only COVID-friendly, but it also makes the setting of the house that they share into a canvas. And I was wondering how much of that idea went into your decision to place all the action in one space versus depicting locations beyond the boundary of the home?

We shot it in one place, but of course it represents different places. You know one of the first moments that I had this idea was, I divorced five, six years ago and I’m living in the house where we lived together. It’s my ex-wife who designed this place with a very specific design. And then I’m here alone and it was an experience of living in a place which is not totally mine. I felt this uncanny . . . weird.  So I did some changes, and when she visited at some point, I saw on her face how she experienced it, how the house is changing, and what did it say? There was something sad about it, but maybe something new about it too. It really came from a personal experience. Then I thought yeah, a house is a character.

I want to briefly return to something that you mentioned, that stuck out to me. You said that when you were filming this, you had this acute sensation that, “Wait a minute, this isn’t my language.” Can you elaborate on that? I ask because you did “The Affair,” a long-running but very different show about how a marriage comes under pressure. What was it about this particular treatment of relationships and marriage that made you feel that sensation of, “This is not my language”?

Well, you know, with “The Affair”  I had an American partner, Sarah Treem.  At a certain point, she took over. That was for me, like, a safety net.

I feel that in American shows, which is the way it should be, they’re always about specific American phenomenon and American places, and American types. I think about “Succession,” or I think about “White Lotus,” or every other show. Or think about “The Wire.” The sense of time and place is very evident. I think this is the power of television, that it says a very particular, specific story which is totally rooted in a place and in a culture.

I’ve been experiencing that since “In Treatment.” It’s been adapted to many, many languages. This year, I had the 19th adaptation of “In Treatment,” which was the French one. Which was amazing.

Did you say 19th? That’s impressive.

It was really crazy over the last 15 years. Yeah, the American was the first – not even the first, the second. So again and again, I came to a specific culture to help them adapt it. And we had to crack how can we do the adaptation, culturally, adapting it to a different place.

Here, I wrote it myself in Hebrew, and then translated it and then rewrote it. And then I had another American writer, Amy Herzog, who helped me with the whole process. But the show itself was abstract ideas as it is, originally. We wanted to make it a little bit more local. So just before the shooting, I felt like, “Yeah, I mean, I know a lot. I research a lot, and I have an American writer with me, but still feel it’s not 100% that I know.”

There are some elements that I want to kind of dive into now specifically with regard to Jonathan and Mira. First of all, I don’t know if you’ve noticed the response to the show, but there have been very specific responses to the gender flip, in terms of Mira as being the one who has the high-powered, high-paying job – and Jonathan being a professor, the stay at home dad, and an intellectual. So let’s talk about that. What’s your impression of how people reacted to it?

I read here and there. It’s very different. It’s very interesting because their reactions is very different in America, and they’re different in Europe or Israel as well. Maybe you mean something specific, so why don’t you say exactly what you mean about that reaction?

There have been specific reactions to Mira and to her decisions. I think that within the original Bergman, with the husband, Johan, making the decision to leaving the marriage, and being very cold about it, the reactions to that seemed almost like, “Oh, of course, that’s the way it goes.” But when that’s turned around, and you have Mira doing the leaving, and you have Jessica Chastain playing that role and allowing us to view it from from a perspective of a woman doing the leaving, that has a very different impression on some people.

This whole thing is kind of a gender experiment for me. That was actually the decision that helped me to start working on it. Before I didn’t know what to do exactly with it. But I knew that I’m going to do a remake and not something else.

I felt some people wrote about it with the idea that this is loosely based on or inspired by [the Bergman series]. The idea was totally to make a remake, and that was, for me, the essence of it.

And one of the problems that I had when I started working is that I couldn’t live with Johan. I couldn’t identify with him. I couldn’t stand him, you know? I didn’t know what to do with this kind of character. And whenever I tried to make him nicer, it just didn’t work.

So I just read the parts as the opposite gender, and suddenly something started to happen. And what happened for me is that immediately I identified with the woman who leaves. With the same text, I felt she has to. I felt she deserved to, I felt she’s struggling with something big, and I felt so many strong feelings about how she should liberate herself, how she repressed something for many years, and she cannot do that anymore.

. . .  I know many stories like that and researched this specific idea of women who in order to, like, to keep their home stable, their family stable, just repress something very, very important and essential that we can learn we cannot really live without. In this series, it’s overnight. It’s very extreme. But the idea by itself is totally common.

. . . I have to say that women get it more than men. I feel a lot of time that men kind of . . . I shouldn’t say this, probably, but sometimes their own chauvinism is projected on me in a way that they say, “What kind of woman is this?” But maybe it’s your problem that you think about women as this and this and this. Jonathan is, of course, representing myself very much. I made him Jewish and ex-religious and put a lot of biographical elements in his character. But for me, she’s the character I’ve invested so much in, and in a way that I have to fight for her.

I wonder if you’re coming up against something else that’s very typically American, and it’s a combination of the binary thinking of, there’s the right person, the wrong person in these situations, and unless you’re in that situation, or you’ve ever been in something like it, that’s never the case.

But you’re also coming up in this idea we have about celebrities. These are two very famous people that people have projected their feelings upon, even before they go into this production. There is this kind of casual comedic nickname that people once assigned to Oscar Isaac, describing him as “The Internet’s Boyfriend.” There may be some sort of compulsion of people saying like, wait a minute. Mira is leaving not only this person who doesn’t seem to have done anything wrong, but she’s a woman leaving a man played by . . . Oscar Isaac. And it goes the same way with Jessica Chastain.

But I have to say again that a lot of people, and a lot of women again, could identify with the idea that he’s too restrained and sometimes too cerebral and you know, probably too soft in a way that they were angry at him. Personally, I have to say that I know very much this feeling of, yes, I’m a very nice person myself, but sometimes it’s not what you what is needed from you by a woman. You need something more vivid, more sensual, more passionate. And that, he doesn’t have at this at this phase in his life.

. . . In a lot of research it’s very obvious that these days divorce most of the time is initiated by women – I’m talking about statistics – and most of the time is because of kind of emotional dissatisfaction. Men can somehow just keep going, keep on, with limited emotional communication but it’s OK. For women, they just can’t live with that, so they’re the people who would initiate the divorce.

This is what I had in mind. Sometimes I think it feels, especially in America, it’s not easy to speak about the differences between men and women. It’s not very, maybe, correct to say.  I feel in Europe they’re more open to it, but I love Mira.

The thing about Jessica is very tricky because I always dreamed of Jessica for that role for years. She wasn’t available, and then she was, so that was totally a miracle for me. But I think Jessica can be very vulnerable and, at the same time, very tough. And she can be very passionate and desirous but at the same time she can hold this façade you know.? And this combination, it’s not always easy to like her because she’s a very strong woman. But I always see her vulnerability in a second.

You were saying like you more or less just remade it, but there’s the interpretation of it through a cultural lens is what changes a lot of the feeling about it. And when I say the cultural lens I’m not talking about from your end, I’m talking about from the people who are receiving it, from audiences. That’s one thing that’s really interesting is that you can take this work, keep the essence of it the same, save for a few changes. But through those minor flips people see completely different things about what it says about not just marriage, but marriage in a certain culture.

And in a time. Because you know, I probably know a lot about American culture because it’s everywhere. So that’s why I felt that I can do something in America. But still, I felt a foreigner and not only in the language, but also in my conceptions you know it was. 

What is it about this format that makes it so both adaptable to different forms and to different cultures? For instance, the “Master of None” interpretation involves two Black women. That has an entirely different meaning to me and has a different feeling than this. It can say very different things about relationships by doing essentially the same thing. So what quality makes it so adaptable, and what makes it so open to interpretation by the people who are receiving it?

It’s a very conceptual show. It’s not very specific. I could see it in Israel and connect with what happened there because unlike a lot of other Bergman films which contain a lot of religion and symbols, this does not. This is very, very bare.

And, the format, as you say – when I did “In Treatment,” I went to see again the original “Scenes from a Marriage.” It was totally influential about everything I did, because of the idea that two people can talk in real time, for a lot of time, it was to me a revelation that it can work. So I think this is very, very appealing for people who like dialogue and long scenes, and who like some theater.

My first rule in “In Treatment” was that every episode should be non-stop, like continuous, real-time dialogue for half an hour. There shouldn’t be any cut in it. When you don’t have this device of “cut to,” you find yourself having to get into the bone of something very much, because you cannot leave in the in the peak of it. You just need to find out what would happen if it were a real conversation. And that takes you to different places than you’re used to.

“Scenes From a Marriage” airs Sundays at 9 p.m. on HBO with previous episodes streaming on HBO Max. Ingmar Bergman’s 1973 film version of “Scenes From a Marriage” is currently streaming on HBO Max.

The part of the “Free Britney” saga that could happen to anyone

When Britney Spears last went before a judge, in June, she bristled as she told of being forced into psychiatric care that cost her $60,000 a month. Though the pop star’s circumstances in a financial conservatorship are unusual, every year hundreds of thousands of other psychiatric patients also receive involuntary care, and many are stuck with the bill.

Few have Spears’ resources to pay for it, which can have devastating consequences.

To the frustration of those who study the issue, data on how many people are involuntarily hospitalized and how much they pay is sparse. From what can be gathered, approximately 2 million psychiatric patients are hospitalized each year in the United States, nearly half involuntarily. One study found that a quarter of these hospitalizations are covered by private insurance, which often has high copays, and 10% were “self-pay/no charge,” where patients are often billed but cannot pay.

I am a psychiatrist in New York City, and I have cared for hundreds of involuntarily hospitalized patients. Cost is almost never discussed. Many patients with serious mental illness have low incomes, unlike Britney Spears. In an informal survey of my colleagues on the issue, the most common response is, “Yeah, that feels wrong, but what else can we do?” When patients pose an acutely high risk of harm to themselves or others, psychiatrists are obligated to hospitalize them against their will, even if it could lead to long-term financial strain.

While hospitals sometimes absorb the cost, patients can be left with ruined credit, endless collection calls and additional mistrust of the mental health care system. In cases in which a hospital chooses to sue, patients can even be incarcerated for not showing up in court.  On the hospital side, unpaid bills might further incentivize a hospital to close psych beds in favor of more lucrative medical services, such as outpatient surgeries, with better insurance reimbursement.

Rebecca Lewis, a 27-year-old Ohioan, has confronted this problem for as long as she has been a psychiatric patient. At 24, she began experiencing auditory hallucinations of people calling her name, followed by delusional beliefs about mythological creatures. While these experiences felt very real to her, she nevertheless knew something was off.

Not knowing where to turn, Lewis called a crisis line, which told her to go to an evaluation center in Columbus. When she drove herself there, she found an ambulance waiting for her. “They told me to get into the ambulance,” she said, “and they said it would be worse if I ran.”

Lewis, who was ultimately diagnosed with schizophrenia, was hospitalized for two days against her will. She refused to sign paperwork acknowledging responsibility for charges. The hospital attempted to obtain her mother’s credit card, which Lewis had been given in case of emergencies, but she refused to hand it over. She later got a $1,700 bill in the mail. She did not contact the hospital to negotiate the bill because, she said, “I did not have the emotional energy to return to that battle.”

To this day, Lewis gets debt collection calls and letters. When she picks up the calls, she explains she has no intention of paying because the services were forced on her. Her credit is damaged, but she considers herself lucky because she was able to buy a house from a family member, given how challenging it would have been to secure a mortgage.

The debt looms over her psyche. “It’s not fun to know that there’s this thing out there that I don’t feel that I can ever fix. I feel like I have to be extra careful — always, forever — because there’s going to be this debt,” she said.

Lewis receives outpatient psychiatric care that has stabilized her and prevented further hospitalizations, but she still looks back on her first and only hospitalization with scorn. “They preyed on my desperation,” she said.

While it is likely that many thousands of Americans share Lewis’ experience, we lack reliable data on debt incurred for involuntary psychiatric care. According to Dr. Nathaniel Morris, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of California-San Francisco, we don’t know how often patients are charged for involuntary care or how much they end up paying. Even data on how often people are hospitalized against their wishes is limited.

Morris is one of the few researchers who have focused on this issue. He got interested after his patients told him about being billed after involuntary hospitalization, and he was struck by the ethical dilemma these bills represent.

“I’ve had patients ask me how much their care is going to cost, and one of the most horrible things is, as a physician, I often can’t tell them because our medical billing systems are so complex,” he said. “Then, when you add on the involuntary psychiatric factor, it just takes it to another level.”

Similarly, legal rulings on the issue are sparse. “I’ve only seen a handful of decisions over the years,” said Ira Burnim, legal director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “I don’t know that there is a consensus.”

People who have been involuntarily hospitalized rarely seek a lawyer, Burnim said, but when they do, the debt collection agencies will often drop the case rather than face a costly legal battle.

The media will be obsessed with Britney Spears’ next day in court, expected to be Sept. 29. She will likely describe further details of her conservatorship that will highlight the plight of many forced into care.

Others won’t get that kind of attention. As Rebecca Lewis put it, reflecting on her decision not to challenge the bills she faces: “They’re Goliath and I’m little David.”

Dr. Christopher Magoon is a resident physician at the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry in New York City.

Pandora Papers: “Biggest-ever” bombshell leak exposes financial secrets of the super-rich

In what’s being called the “biggest-ever leak of offshore data,” a cache of nearly 12 million files published Sunday laid bare the hidden wealth, secret dealings, and corruption of hundreds of world leaders, billionaires, public officials, celebrities, and others.

The bombshell revelations—known as the Pandora Papers—were published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and include private emails, secret contracts, and other records obtained during a two-year investigation involving more than 600 journalists in 117 countries and territories.

“This is the Panama Papers on steroids,” said ICIJ director Gerard Ryle, referring to the 2016 exposé of the tax-evading secrets of the super-rich. “It’s broader, richer, and has more detail.”

According to The Guardian:

More than 100 billionaires feature in the leaked data, as well as celebrities, rock stars, and business leaders. Many use shell companies to hold luxury items such as property and yachts, as well as incognito bank accounts. There is even art ranging from looted Cambodian antiquities to paintings by Picasso and murals by Banksy.

“There’s never been anything on this scale and it shows the reality of what offshore companies can offer to help people hide dodgy cash or avoid tax,” said ICIJ’s Fergus Shiel, who added that the people in the files “are using those offshore accounts, those offshore trusts, to buy hundreds of millions of dollars of property in other countries, and to enrich their own families, at the expense of their citizens.”

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

The leaked documents reveal how some of the world’s wealthiest people avert the financial consequences of their misdeeds by using offshore entities. Dozens of current and former world leaders feature prominently in the files, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Jordanian King Abdullah II, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

While most of the richest Americans do not appear in the files, The Washington Post reports that “perhaps the most troubling revelations for the United States… center on its expanding complicity in the offshore economy.”

“South Dakota, Nevada, and other states have adopted financial secrecy laws that rival those of offshore jurisdictions,” the paper says. “Records show leaders of foreign governments, their relatives, and companies moving their private fortunes into U.S.-based trusts.”

ICIJ said Sunday that the “publication of Pandora Papers stories comes at a critical moment in a global debate over the fairness of the international tax system, the role of Western professionals in the shadow economy, and the failure of governments to stanch the flow of dirty money into hidden companies and trusts,” and that the documents “are expected to yield new revelations for years to come.”

Teaching students to think has become a risky proposition

No shortage of ink has been spilled on how the pandemic has affected school-aged children: the pitfalls of remote learning, the digital divide, the psychological effects of social isolation on young brains, and upticks in domestic violence brought about by stay-at-home orders have made headlines throughout lockdown.

But there’s an issue, a more invisible one, that hasn’t received quite as much attention. Yet as an educator, I see it as the elephant in the room. 

COVID-19 has provided fertile ground for teaching about polarizing topics in the classroom. The Black Lives Matter movement, the right’s incoherent outrage over critical race theory, mask mandates, vaccination requirements and the public’s response to all of these issues have made it impossible to avoid these topics in the classroom.

As a college professor and former K-12 teacher, I am worried about the pandemic’s impact on an entire generation’s ability to navigate adulthood with a finely tuned capacity to discern fact from fantasy and science from conspiracy. In other words, I’m concerned about what will become of our children’s ability to think, particularly as teachers’ freedom to teach about real-world and contentious issues is increasingly threatened by circumstances beyond their control.

I’m reminded of an email that’s been circulating on social media in recent weeks. It was written to school administrators by a parent of a fifth-grade student. In it, the parent expresses disgust over their child being required to read an award-winning novel titled “Front Desk” by New York Times bestseller Kelly Yang. The story is loosely based on the author’s experiences immigrating from China to America. It’s a book about one family’s struggles with language barriers, discrimination and other difficulties inherent to moving to a country built on racism and xenophobia.

According to a starred review from Booklist (a publication of the American Library Association), “This book will help foster empathy for the immigrant experience for young readers, while for immigrant children, it is a much-needed and validating mirror… deserving of shelf space in every classroom and library.”

It seems that the author’s story, replete with cross-cultural themes and efforts to foster empathy in young readers, was a little too much for one parent to bear. In the email, they demanded that their child be removed from the classroom at those times during which this “CRT book” is read and discussed, and also forbade the teacher from assigning their child any other work published by Scholastic, the world’s largest publisher and distributor of children’s books — as, according to the parent, “Scholastic is behind the BLM movement.”

I do not know how administrators or teachers responded to the parent’s racist diatribe. In my fantasy world, I like to think that the parent was strongly advised to find a school for their child in which it’s considered a waste of time to foster empathy, humility and the capacity for students to think outside of themselves. I also like to think that the teachers teaching this book were fully supported by the administrators. We’ll never know how this situation played out behind the scenes.

My concerns, however, mostly rest with the child growing up in a home environment in which parents fight tooth and nail to protect their children from books featuring non-white characters; a home where empathy and antiracism are considered controversial. As a matter of self-preservation, I’ve stopped short of allowing myself to imagine this child’s chances and future and the sort of impact on society they might have later on, when they’re old enough to do real damage. An educator, such thoughts can overwhelm me into a state of panic.

According to the national Common Core Standards, students across the U.S. are expected to “contribute accurate, relevant information; respond to and develop what others have said; make comparisons and contrasts; and analyze and synthesize a multitude of ideas in various domains” in the name of being productive communicators – and receivers – of information. For me, the operative term here is productive.

It’s not a reach to argue that our nation’s democracy relies on this work. But are teachers free to do the work we need them to do? In other words, are teachers free to teach their students how to think?

As a former middle school English teacher in New Jersey, I often asked my students to deconstruct, analyze, and think about issues as they played out in the world around us. Topics ranged from homelessness to homeschooling, to politics and voting, to school policies to international affairs. I relied on credible organizations like the National Association for Media Literacy Education, Learning for Justice and Common Sense Media for many of these lessons and carefully vetted my sources. Sometimes students would scour the media and identify topics and issues of interest to them. If they happened to bring in questionable information, I encouraged them to explore other perspectives. I’d often provide resources for them to peruse on their own.

We read an array of novels, many written by authors of color that dealt with true stories about racism and other social issues. During my time as a K-12 teacher, I never received one complaint from a frothing parent. To the contrary, I was overwhelmed by school administrators’ and parents’ trust in my capacity to do what I was educated to do: Teach the children to think.

I’ve long believed that it was my job to teach students how to think. Facilitating robust discussion and reading books about difficult topics was my favorite thing to do with my students, and I never felt as though I were jeopardizing my career for daring to discuss issues deemed polarizing and controversial by those committed to reinforcing the status quo.

In a lot of ways, I was luckier than today’s school teachers. I never had to contend with how the rise of a demagogue followed by a global pandemic and subsequent explosion of conspiracies and digital misinformation narrated my work with children. If I were to pursue K-12 teaching now . . . well, I’d probably think twice about pursuing it at all. If the current news cycle is any indication, it is not far-fetched to wonder whether teachers might be risking their safety—and possibly their livelihood—by daring to ask their students to engage with facts, history, and the realities of this historical moment.

Teaching students to discern information—to think—is perhaps one of the most pressing tasks facing teachers today, a truth brought to bear particularly across the past year and a half. According to a report from nonprofit research groups Public Religion Research Institute and Interfaith Youth Core, 15% of Americans believe in conspiracy theories. Some of these people are being elected into powerful positions on school boards.

For the uninitiated, school boards determine most — if not all — of the learning that takes place in schools. My own school board was forward-thinking and supportive of their district’s hard-working teachers. But we also weren’t infiltrated with elected members whose entire brand relies on the of spread misinformation in the name of saving the country from Satan-worshipping pedophiles. And while I sure experienced my fair share of interesting run-ins with parents, it wasn’t over their refusals to follow CDC guidance or their desire to shield their children from non-white storybook characters.

It’s a unique time for teaching and learning, and ripe with opportunity. New media evaluation tools like Checkology, developed by the national education nonprofit News Literacy Project, should — in theory — make the work of teaching kids to think and discern information even easier. If only.

COVID-19 has infiltrated the classroom in more ways than we can possibly see at this moment. But it won’t take long. Anecdotally, I learned of a student who spent his senior year of high school on lockdown. During this time, he received a full athletic scholarship to his first-choice university. When he learned of the school’s mask mandates (all students and faculty were required to wear masks indoors on campus), he forfeited his spot. When we consider how an entire industry of misinformation dominated digital media since schools went remote, this student seems like another casualty of COVID-19 — just in a very different way.

The health of our democracy requires that schools work to undo the damage that has been wrought this past year. As we move forward, schools are faced with the question of what’s worse: Not asking students to grapple with these big issues and facing the long-term ramifications of this decision; or, teaching as we know we must, and setting teachers up for the inevitable fallout. It’s a delicate line to walk, and teachers must tread lightly. But not too lightly: Our democracy is at stake. 

How to make bakery-worthy pie crust designs

One of the first articles I wrote for Food52 many moons ago was about my favorite subject: making pies — and making them pretty, to boot. I covered a few decorative edges in that post, but I figured it was about time for a second go-around. There are so many ways to crimp the edge of your beautiful pie crust — calling that index finger! — and with strawberry season nearly behind us, and stone fruit, berry, and pumpkin pie ahead, I wanted to give step-by-step guides for 9 pretty edges.

***

How to make beautiful pie crust designs 

Use a pie recipe you love.

This All Buttah Pie Dough is a classic. It’ll turn out expertly flaky, so long as you let it chill well before rolling. Which brings me to the next point . . .

Make sure your pastry is well-chilled.

Start with cold dough, then chill it after you’ve rolled it out and lined the pan. I’ll even chill it with the excess hanging all about before I trim it, which helps the dough relax and prevents shrinking! I’m a fan of chilling it in the freezer, but be warned: If your dough is too cold, it will be difficult to work with and may be likely to crack.

Give yourself some excess. 

This is one of my favorite pie tips, and it’s specifically helpful for beautiful edges. When you go to trim away the excess dough, leave yourself about 1 inch of excess from the edge of the pie plate. Fold this excess under itself, then press gently all the way around to seal it and make it flush with the edge of the pie plate.

This excess serves a few purposes. First, it creates a thicker “wall” of dough at the edge, which is less likely to fall or shrink in the oven, especially if properly adhered to the pie plate with a well-sealed crimp. Second, it makes it easier to apply decorative edges. Thicker dough gives you more to work with, and it’s more likely to hold its shape in the oven. Last but not least, it gives you more crunchy, flaky pie dough at the end of each slice — and that’s seriously delicious. I pity the fool who tries to cheat me out of as much crust as I can possibly get on my pie, so I like to build in a little extra right from the get-go.

Rotate the pie plate while you work. 

As you crimp, rotate the pie plate occasionally rather than stretching your arms or adjusting your body to work around the edge. You’ll get more even crimps if you stay in the same spot!

After you’ve got your edge, get it even colder. 

Once you’ve applied your decorative edge, go all out with the chilling — the freezer included. The colder the pie dough is when it hits the oven, the more likely it will be to retain its shape.

Use a pie plate with a wider edge. 

This is a trouble-shooting tip for those who just can’t seem to keep their edges from sloping down once they hit the oven. A lot of pie plates have almost no edge at all, and that means there’s a higher margin for error. If your dough isn’t sealed strongly, crimped tightly, or chilled thoroughly, it may slide down in the heat of the oven. But if you use a pie plate with an edge (at least a 1/2-inch wide), you’ve given yourself a (literal) support system! Once you get the hang of it, you can make a gorgeous pie with any plate you wish, but it’s a great place to start if you’ve had trouble!

* * *

Classic Finger Crimp/Tiny Crimp


Photo by Linda Xiao 

This crimp is my go-to, and the one you see on many a beautiful pie. It’s made by using your fingers to make a V-shaped crimped edge all around the pie. The wider you hold your fingers, the larger the crimp will be; the more narrow your fingers, the smaller the crimps. I normally hold my fingers about 1/2 inch apart for the classic look, but recently, I’ve been loving the polished look of an even smaller crimp, holding my fingers as close together as I can to make a really teeny (cute!) crimp. Whatever you choose, the process is the same:


Photo by Linda Xiao 
  1. Your dominant hand will be doing the bulk of the action, and your non-dominant hand will be providing the shape. Use the index finger of your dominant hand, and use the index finger and thumb of your non dominant hand to form a V shape.
  2. Start anywhere on the pie. Push down and slightly outward from the inside of the pie with your dominant index finger, and let the V shape of your non-dominant hand form the crimp shape from the outside edge of the dough as you push. I press inward with the V shape, but only slightly; the main action should be coming from your dominant hand. The wider your fingers are, the larger the shape will be.
  3. Start the next crimp where the first one ended, and work your way around the pie. When you’re finished, you can go back around and adjust any misshapen crimps as needed.

* * *

Rope Crimp


Photo by Linda Xiao 

I love, love, love the look of this edge. People who are super-skilled can do this look with one hand, using their thumb and index finger to make the shape all the way around. But I find it’s easier to get a uniform look using the index fingers of both hands.


Photo by Linda Xiao 
  1. To make this crimp, you’ll use your two index fingers held parallel next to each other at a slight angle. Squeeze the dough between the inner edges of your fingers, raising it up in the center and flattening it a bit on both sides.
  2. Rotate the pie, then repeat the process, being sure to hold your fingers at the same angle as you did the first time. Start the next crimp where the first one ends, and work all the way around the pie. When you’re finished, you can go back around and adjust any misshapen crimps as needed.

* * *

Scalloped Edge


Photo by Linda Xiao 

This edge looks rather delicate, I think — and I first learned it as the traditional edging style for the classic pithier pastry. But like many décor techniques, it totally works for pie too! The key to this edge is well-chilled pastry. Warm pastry won’t hold its shape at all! The size of the edge is pretty much determined by the size of your finger, so it’s not one you can make wider or smaller as desired.


Photo by Linda Xiao 
  1. Your dominant hand will form the initial shape. Use the index finger of your dominant hand to press imprints into the edge of the dough. Start the next imprint where the first one ends, and go all the way around the pie.
  2. Hold a paring knife in your non-dominant hand. Pick one of the indentations, and put your finger back inside one of the indentations and press again, but this time, hold the blade of the paring knife in between the indentation you’re working on and the one next to it. Pull the sharp knife gently towards the center of the pie, while pushing outward with your finger. This will help define the rounded part of the scalloped edge. Repeat all the way around the pie!

* * *

Crimp ‘N Fork


Photo by Linda Xiao 

I love this one, too. It combines the looks of two classics: a finger crimp and a forked edge. In order for this look to work properly, you need to set the crimps a little further apart, giving yourself plenty of room to apply the fork marks later. I also find it’s especially helpful to use a smaller fork, with tines that are a little closer together — but you can use whatever you’ve got!


Photo by Linda Xiao 
  1. This edge starts a lot like a classic crimp, but in reverse. Your dominant hand will be doing the bulk of the action, and your non-dominant hand will be providing the shape. Use the index finger of your dominant hand, and use the index finger and thumb of your non-dominant hand to form a V shape.
  2. Start anywhere on the pie. Your index finger will work from the outside of the pie and push inward, and the V will form the shape from the inside edge of the dough. Push down and slightly inward with your dominant index finger, and let the V shape of your non-dominant hand form the crimp shape as you push. I press outward with the V shape, but only slightly; the main action should be coming from your dominant hand. Leave some space between the finger crimps (I usually opt for about 1/2 inch between each crimp), so you’ve got room for the fork crimps.
  3. Once you’ve crimped the pie all the way around, use your index finger to press the excess dough in between crimps flat to the edge of the pie plate. This makes it easier to make the fork crimps in a few moments!
  4. Press floured fork tines onto the dough you just flattened in between each crimp. Press firmly, but not so hard you hit the pie plate. Continue all the way around the pie!

* * *

Foldover


Photo by Linda Xiao 

This easy, breezy look is how many galettes are finished — but why should they get to have all the fun? This look is perfect for a traditional pie, too, and gives a little extra crust-to-filling action for all my fellow crust-lovers out there.


Photo by Linda Xiao 
  1. When you line the pie plate, be sure you leave at least 1 inch (and up to 1 1/2 inches) of excess dough all the way around the plate. If you want a more precise look, trim the rough edges away with scissors; otherwise, leave it as it is!
  2. Add filling to the pie, ideally filling it so it’s flush with the edge of the pie plate. Once the filling is inside, fold one piece of the dough over onto the filling. Fold the next piece over, allowing it to overlap on the first fold as needed. Repeat all the way around the pie!

 

* * *

Crosshatch


Photo by Linda Xiao 

This is a nice rustic look for pies. It’s as easy as the traditional fork crimp, with a little something extra. I like this look on double-crust pies, too! Different forks have different widths of tines (and spaces between those tines); you might find that you like the look from certain forks better than others.


Crimp first vertically, then horizontally. (Like the crosshatch on top of peanut butter cookies!) Photo by Linda Xiao 
  1. Start by making a traditional fork crimp all around the pie, holding the fork tines vertically along the dough (i.e. as though making a cross with the tines and the crust). Press floured fork tines into the pie firmly, but not so hard you mash the dough down and hit the pie plate.
  2. Press around the pie again, this time holding the fork tines horizontally (i.e. opposite the last crimp, following the crust all the way around). Press with just the edges of the fork, then start the next press where the last one ended. You’ll end up with little boxes of crosshatched dough.
  3. Sometimes, pressing with a fork can cause the dough to become a bit uneven at the edges of the pie. If this happens, chill the crust after you do the crosshatch, then use a paring knife to cut the excess dough away, holding it flush to the edge while you cut.

* * *

Fork Chevron


Photo by Linda Xiao 

This is my favorite fork crimp because it looks so snazzy but it’s insanely easy. Same rules about the size of the fork go as above with the crosshatch!


Angle right, angle left. Photo by Linda Xiao 
  1. Hold a floured fork at a 45-degree angle toward the right, to make diagonal lines on the pie. The tine furthest to the left will make a long line and the tine furthest to the right will make a short line. Press firmly into the dough, but not so hard that you mash the dough and hit the pie plate.
  2. Rotate the fork to hold it at a 45-degree angle, this time toward the left. This time, you’ll make diagonal lines the other way. In theory, the lines will line up to make a triangular or chevron-like pattern (but even if they don’t line up exactly, it still looks cool)! Press firmly into the dough.
  3. Repeat this process all the way around the pie, first by angling right then again by angling left. If the dough becomes a bit uneven at the edges of the pie, chill the crust after you do the chevron, then use a sharp knife to cut the excess dough away, holding it flush to the edge while you cut.

* * *

Spoon Scallop


Photo by Linda Xiao 

Forks aren’t the only utensil that can help make a pretty edge. This simple scallop is so easy, and looks great on hand pies, too! Different spoons will have different looks when pressed into the pie: Rounder-edged spoons will leave a swoopier look, while pointier-edged spoons will give a sharper look.

Spoon me.
Spoon me. Photo by Linda Xiao 
  1. Coming from the outside of the pie, press the edge of a floured spoon into the dough, close to the inner edge of the pie plate’s edge. Repeat all the way around the pie.
  2. Press the spoon into the dough again, this time just below the impressions you made the first time, making two little scallop shapes.
  3. If the dough becomes a bit uneven at the edges of the pie, chill the crust, then use a paring knife to cut the excess dough away, holding it flush to the edge while you cut.

* * *

Checkerboard


Photo by Linda Xiao 

This is a fun old-school edge that’s commonly used for chess and other custard pies, though looks great on all kinds. You’ll want a trusty pair of scissors (one of my favorite tools for all pies!) on hand to help you achieve the look. You can successfully do the edge before you fill the pie, but I personally find it easier to fill the pie first, then finish the edge.


Photo by Linda Xiao 
  1. When you line the pie plate, leave 1 inch of excess all the way around, then thoroughly chill the pie. Once the dough is nice and cold, use scissors to trim the dough flush with the edge of the pie plate.
  2. Pick a place to start, gently lift up the edge of the dough, and use scissors to cut anywhere between 1/2 inch to 1 inch into the dough. Make another cut of the same size 1/2 to 1 inch in either direction from the first cut, making a square shape. Repeat this all the way around the pie, making sure you have an even number of squares when you’re finished.
  3. Fill the pie, then begin to finish the edge. Fold one of the squares over the filling. Skip the next square, leaving it sitting on the edge of the pie plate. Then fold the next square over the filling — and continue, folding alternating squares over the filling all around the pie.

* * *

10 pretty pie crust designs

1. Black Bottom Cherry “Sunflower” Pie

Take a walk through a sunflower field in the form of this blooming fruit pie recipe. Use a leaf cookie cutter to create small and large pie petals and arrange them atop the chocolate-cherry filling.

2. Fresh Blueberry Pie

Sometimes we’re all about over-the-top pie crust designs that totally wow. But simple can be appealing too! This “open-faced” blueberry pie recipe has a single crust shell that features a classic finger-crimped edge.

3. Deep-Dish Cherry Pie

This beautiful pie crust design is nothing too fussy or fancy, but it’s elevated based on the fact that it’s formed in a springform pan rather than a regular pie dish, resulting in more filling than ever before.

4. Peach, Cherry, and Mint Pie

A lattice topping can do no wrong. Not only does it look beautiful, but it provides plenty of coverage for crust lovers. And yet, the peach and cherry filling bursts beneath the seams, giving readers a peek at what’s on the inside.

5. Triple Berry “Rose” Pie

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet as this berry pie filled with strawberries, blueberries, and raspberries. Use Erin’s single-crust pie dough recipe to form a beautiful flower crust on top. The key, she says, is keeping the pie dough as cold as possible so that it’s easy to shape exactly how you please.

6. Concord Grape Galette

Slab pies and galettes are rustic and free form, but that doesn’t mean they’re ugly. In fact, leave it to Erin Jeanne McDowell to make a simply stunning one using diagonal strips of dough.

7. Peach Butter Slab “Hydrangea” Pie

“Clusters of baked tiny ‘flowers’ made from pie crust make it pretty, but also add a nice crunch without the fuss of a double crust,” writes recipe developer Erin Jeanne McDowell.

8. Cranberry Pithivier

Use a paring knife to score the puff pastry with a decorative pattern of your choosing. The pattern will be more subtle and the pastry will be evenly golden brown.

9. Epic Single Crust Apple Pie

There’s only a single layer bottom crust for this all-American apple pie, but that’s because the filling is unlike any apple pie we’ve met before. Erin arranges cinnamon-sugar apple slices in the form of a rose and bakes it for a show-stopping dessert.

10. Honey Pistachio Pie with Saffron Meringue Dahlia

“This pie isn’t baked in a pie plate; it’s a freeform pie that uses puff pastry as the base. The filling is easy to make and is not too sweet, which makes a saffron meringue the perfect finishing touch,” writes Erin.

When American “Christians” turn away the Haitian people, they turn away from Jesus Christ

Loving thy neighbor and serving the poor are the foundations of what it means to be a faithful Christian. For more than and 200 years, this “Christian nation” has failed in that calling. Back when Haiti gained independence from the French in 1804, John Adams wanted to recognize Haiti as an independent country. He hoped to open trade with the newly formed government, but Thomas Jefferson refused, out of fear that American slaves would start to see themselves as equal. In the modern era, any new immigration laws created either by Democrats or Republicans over the last 50 years always finds a way to ignore the needs and requests of the Haitian people. Apparently, Haiti is too poor and too Black for America to love and to serve. The church has failed Haiti, the politicians have failed Haiti and America has failed Haiti.

Somewhere along the line in American Christianity, loving thy neighbor became loving ourselves, and serving the poor became the conviction that the poor get what they deserve. I hear it all the time. It is found in every level of our culture, in our books, our movies, in politics and certainly in the church.

“Blessed are the poor.” That’s the opening phrase of the Sermon on the Mount, and also of the sermon I gave in Cité Soleil, Haiti, in 2001. This was in a tiny church, in an upper-story room, and I had no prior knowledge I would even be preaching. It is a message that everyone in that room completely understood — and one that has remained a complete mystery to the American church. In America, those that have are blessed, and those that are blessed, have. In God’s kingdom, however, the first are last, the cursed are rich and the blessed are poor.  

The sermon continues with, “blessed are those who mourn,” a phrase that was all too familiar for the Haitian people in that room. Death and loss is all around these amazingly resilient people. Their faith never wanes, their smiles never cease and their sense of God’s blessing always remains. In America, where we have so much, our faith is limited, our smiles are infrequent and our sense of self-worth is minimal.  

“Blessed are the meek”? Seriously, is anyone in the U.S. willing to embrace such a phrase? Those of us who have been put upon and forced to submit understand this phrase well. None of us enjoy the experience, but Christ believed the earth was ours. I can say that the Haitian people in that church that day knew this phrase well and their screams of “Amen” began to get louder. If there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit, then that small upper-room church in the poorest city in the Western Hemisphere was filled with it more powerfully than I have felt at any other moment in my life.  

The sermon continues with blessings for those who hunger for justice, for those who show mercy and for the peacemakers. It was as if Jesus spoke these words specifically for the Haitian people. American evangelicals have attempted to reclaim that passage, but in their hearts they know those words are not for them. This is why evangelicals try to focus their attention on words that Christ never spoke — because he never once spoke about the values of current American white evangelicals.  But with every phrase I spoke that day in that small upper-room church, the amens grew louder and louder.

And then I got to this phrase: “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness.” The man who interpreted my sermon into Creole preached as if we had worked together for years, despite the fact that we had never met before and have never met since then. After I spoke these words from Christ I asked the church, “Have you not been persecuted?” Once my Haitian preaching partner repeated my words, the church exploded with the loudest and most passionate “Amen” I have ever heard. I was surprised the roof hadn’t been blown off. That is still the most powerful moment I have experienced in all my years of ministry. The Haitian people knew that Jesus was speaking to them. They were seen and heard and loved, and their reward was to come.  

As I watch Haitians being turned away at the Mexican border with such disdain and violence, I remember my time in Haiti. I remember the words of my savior in Christ. I remember the calling upon all Christians and the calling upon what some people try to call a Christian nation. We are lost today in the United States, in desperate need of a better understanding of what it means to be a member of a community. We are selfish, self-obsessed, isolated, hateful, greedy and lacking in empathy for anyone who is not experiencing our own painful path.

The Haitian people have very little but they know what it means to have faith. They understand community, they understand family, sacrifice, suffering, defeat, mercy, grace, love and forgiveness. These are the elements we are missing, and when we turn these people away at the border we turn our backs on what it means to be human. For supposed people of faith, to reject the Haitian people is to reject Christ. This could mean, if you believe in such things, that our lack of mercy will be applied against us when we look for entry into the kingdom of heaven. It certainly means we are lost and unhappy here on earth. The U.S. has so much potential and so much possibility to show love, grace and mercy. If we are to survive this trying time in our nation’s history, we must look to those who already have these traits and try to live accordingly.

‘I am concerned and I am also crazy’: SNL nails sketch about parents hijacking school board meetings

Saturday Night Live took time out to delve into the latest hotbed of conspiracy rumors and parents gone wild with a hilariously brutal sketch illustrating the difficulties of running a simple school board meeting which, as of late, have turned into magnets for ranting and potential violence.

Using the uptick of parents storming the once-placid meetings to complain about mask mandates and critical race theory (CRT) as a springboard, the sketch saw bellowing cast-member Cecily Strong began by telling the startled board members, “I am concerned and I am also crazy– let’s begin,” before rambling about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and concluding, “This is all about Israel.”

Asked, “Okay, ma’am, do you have a question about the district’s Covid policies or your child’s safety?” Strong shot back, “I don’t have a child, and I don’t live in this town.”

Another mom (cast member Heidi Gardner) stepped up to state, “I am so mad I am literally shaking right now. Forget Covid, the real threat is critical race theory. My question is: What is it? And why am I mad about it?”

You can watch below:

Here are 5 things we learned about Melania Trump from Stephanie Grisham’s new tell-all book

Stephanie Grisham’s new book, “I’ll Take Your Questions Now,” offers a robust account of various occurrences she witnessed during her five years working for former President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump.

While many reports on the book this week have centered on Grisham’s wild encounters working under the disgraced former president, her book also sheds light on what it was like to work for Melania.

Since Grisham worked as both a communications director and chief of staff for the former first lady, she witnessed what life was like behind closed doors for the Trump family. From Melania’s seemingly halfhearted work ethic to her marriage to the president and her relationship with her adult stepchildren, Grisham has recounted a number of details about the Trumps.

Here are five takeaways from her experiences working with the former first lady, according to CNN.

1. Melania Trump gained the nickname “Rapunzel” because of how rare her in-person appearances were.

According to Grisham, Secret Service agents gave Melania the nickname “Rapunzel,” “because she remained in her tower, never descending.” Self-care was reportedly a priority for the former first lady and much of her time was spent focusing on that.

“She believed that relaxation was central to one’s beauty regimen, as were, of course, spa treatments and facials,” writes Grisham.

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

As for her work life, Grisham revealed the first lady had been “working from home long before the country was” when the COVID-19 pandemic led to the United States shut down.

“When warranted, we would have in-person meetings, but those generally took place in the Map Room across from the elevators to the residence. There we would plan out schedules, respond to pressing queries, and discuss goals. Other than that, the first lady kept to her rooms in the residence.”

2. The former first lady was just as obsessive about her press as her husband.

To the public, Melania Trump may have seemed cool, calm, and collected as if she did not care about public opinion. However, according to Grisham, she had a tendency to obsess over the things being written about her. “Like her husband and all of his kids, Mrs. Trump scrutinized her press clippings like an expert architect focusing on blueprints,” Grisham wrote. “No detail was overlooked, nothing missed her eye. She had Google alerts set up for herself and saw everything.”

3. Melania Trump also has a nickname for Ivanka Trump.

While Melania and Ivanka did their best to maintain a united front for the public, behind closed doors there was noticeable tension between the two. In fact, Grisham notes in her book that Melania had a nickname for the president’s oldest daughter: “the princess.”

“Melania Trump’s ire toward her stepdaughter would often flare during foreign trips, Grisham writes, mostly because the former first lady was a student of protocol and a stickler for abiding by traditions in each country that were reserved only for a president and a first spouse — not a president’s daughter and her husband,” reports CNN.

4. She wasn’t pleased about her husband’s reported affairs making headlines in the news.

The White House never confirmed distance between the president and first lady amid reports about his scandal with adult film star Stormy Daniels but, according to Grisham, it is true that Melania was not pleased with that situation. In fact, Grisham revealed Melania did make an effort to distance herself from her husband.

“I felt that Mrs. Trump was embarrassed and that she wanted him to feel embarrassed, too. Whether he is capable of that or not, I don’t know,” Grisham wrote.

“I received a call from her to let me know that she wanted to drive to Air Force One ahead of her husband,” she wrote. She surprised me, saying ‘I do not want to be like Hillary Clinton, do you understand what I mean? She walked to Marine One holding the hands with her husband after Monica news and it did not look good,’ referring to Monica Lewinsky. I didn’t argue.”

5. There’s a story behind Melania’s infamous jacket.

Melania Trump faced lots of blowback for wearing her infamous jacket that read, “I really don’t care. Do u?” when she visited an immigrant center in Texas. While the book doesn’t explain why she chose to wear that particular jacket for the occasion, she wasn’t happy about the negative press it garnered.

Per CNN:

“Grisham says that once the images of the jacket hit the press, while the first lady was flying back to Washington from Texas, she and Melania Trump huddled in her private cabin on the plane, trying to find a way to divert the media attention. Grisham writes at one point in the conversation, Melania Trump suggests putting a circle with a line through it over the “don’t” part of the message on the jacket — ostensibly turning it into “I really do care” — and then claiming the press had read it wrong.”

In response to the reports about the book, Melania Trump’s office issued a statement to The Washington Post criticizing Grisham for her writing.

“The intent behind this book is obvious,” Melania Trump’s office said. “It is an attempt to redeem herself after a poor performance as press secretary, failed personal relationships, and unprofessional behavior in the White House. Through mistruth and betrayal, she seeks to gain relevance and money at the expense of Mrs. Trump.”

Grisham’s book, “I’ll Take Your Questions Now,” is set to be released on Tuesday, October 5.

Why Billy Eichner’s Matt Drudge deserves all the “Impeachment” screen time

In the third episode of FX’s “Impeachment: American Crime Story,” we meet Billy Eichner’s Matt Drudge as he gives a sanctimonious lecture to tourists in Washington, DC’s CBS gift shop about the all-time greats of journalism. 

“Picture jazz-age New York, a reporter in a trench coat and snap-rim fedora, ready with a wisecrack and a hot tip on the mob, plus some broadway buzz, oh, and some dirt on the Roosevelts too,” Drudge theatrically tells a student visitor in the shop. “That’s Walter Winchell, he did it all — with panache. The best that ever lived.” 

“I just need a poster for class,” the student replies disinterestedly, in one of the dark crime drama’s rare moments of comic relief.

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

Drudge’s character is one of many iconic political and media figures introduced in the drama as it breathes new life into the interwoven stories of Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, the women who lay at the heart of the scandalous 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton that shocked the world.

Drudge is, at this stage in 1997, a reclusive political gossip blogger who goes dumpster diving for CBS secrets to air out on the rapidly growing Drudge Report by night, and manages a gift shop by day. 

Beyond the comedic beats of the cold open, however, our glimpses into Drudge’s life and character have been limited so far. But with the rather minimal scenes in which Eichner features, he’s managed to steal the show, leaving audiences hungry for more insight into Drudge’s role in eventually propelling Lewinsky’s story into the public — and certainly more of Eichner’s masterful impressions. 

After all, Clinton is known as the first “internet president” for a reason, and Drudge and his website played a key role in popularizing the internet for news and blogging under Clinton’s presidency — arguably preparing us for the Twitterverse of today. Even before Drudge reported the news that broke the internet and cruelly helped make Lewinsky a household name against her will in 1998, he had mastered the art of clickbait, predating the existence of most blogs and social platforms.

Drudge had achieved this feat by breaching the inner circles of elite conservative media and political figures, despite lacking a background in journalism or politics. With these inside scoops, and flashy, urgent headlines splashed across his web page, the Drudge Report showed Americans the power and accessibility of the internet age, pulling back the curtain on the most salacious and exclusive political scandals and gossip du jour. 

With Drudge’s eventual breaking of the Lewinsky story to the world, a development “Impeachment” has yet to reach in its drawn-out timeline, Drudge all but pioneered the beginning of digital media — and digital media consumption — as we now know it.

At different points in “Impeachment” so far, we’ve gotten glimpses into Drudge’s growing power, and at times underhanded approaches. We’ve also been treated to plenty of comedic relief through him, too, thanks to Eichner, a comedian by training, as he paws through garbage for CBS-related scoops, and works his dial-up internet to share his findings on his blog — all while donning a fedora. 

Later, we watch as Eichner’s Drudge networks with conservative firebrands at a dinner party at Laura Ingraham’s home, still crowned by a fedora. Among these firebrands are Ann Coulter (Cobie Smulders) and George Conway (George Salazar), two lawyers propelling the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit against Clinton forward from the shadows. Ingraham makes the introduction between Drudge, Coulter and Conway, who are familiar with and excited by his work, although Coulter expresses confusion about whether Drudge’s hat is being worn ironically. 

Hat-shaming aside, they’re impressed by Drudge’s blog, with good reason. “You know how many people read the holy goddamn New York Times? A million,” Drudge tells them. “At the rate I’m going, I’ll blow by that next year. Print is dead!”

Drudge winds up wielding these connections from Ingraham’s party to break the story that Kathleen Willey (Elizabeth Reaser), a White House staffer, is accusing Bill Clinton of groping her — beating a Newsweek journalist who accuses Drudge of being nothing but a “gossip” to the story he’s been following for weeks. 

In “Impeachment,” Eichner has brought Drudge’s mysterious politics and private, quietly sinister energy to life with the actor’s characteristic color and humor. Drudge’s story on the show has primarily served as a background one thus far. But considering his historical role in the events to come, including being the first to break Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky and puttin her name out into the world, “Impeachment” would be almost inconclusive without circling back to Drudge, and his pronounced role in helping to drive the sexist media circus of 1998.

Drudge’s long-term political influence aside, Eichner’s charming performance of him alone — as somehow both reclusive and desperate for attention and relevance — is enough reason to yearn for more screen time for this particular gift-shop-manager-slash-wannabe-investigative-reporter and fedora enthusiast. Eichner almost visibly enjoys playing Drudge as much as we enjoy watching him, and he’s even recounted to New York Magazine in a recent interview that he related to Drudge as two “gay boys who grew up on the East Coast,” and spent the ’90s hitting refresh on the Drudge Report web page.

But the ultimate appeal of watching Eichner’s Drudge is the light he shines on a man who shrouds himself in mystery to this day. Drudge has never revealed how he received the intel he reported on the Lewinsky affair, or a number of other key scoops. Meanwhile, his politics continue to perplex many, as the rabidly anti-Clinton, conservative media darling at one point seemed to support Trump, only to decisively turn against him. 

The dramatized version of Drudge that we see on “Impeachment” might just be one of the most revealing and evocative glimpses into his life, and his era-defining work, that we’ve ever seen, or possibly ever will see, given his well-known, private nature. Drudge is the man who almost single-handedly sparked the advent of digital media today as we know it. He circumvented the rigid traditions of most journalists and newspapers of his day to break a story that changed one woman’s life, as well as the political fabric of our country. Yet his shocking and at times plain bizarre origin story has seldom been told — before “Impeachment,” that is.

“Impeachment: American Crime Story” airs Tuesdays at 10 p.m. on FX.

Can you teach your brain to worry well?

The butterflies in your stomach, the sweat on your palms — they’re your friends. Our ancestors evolved those responses to keep us safe. You just need to direct that energy into something more productive than midnight doomscrolling. You need some good anxiety.

Dr. Wendy Suzuki knows that your complicated, amazing brain can be a real downer sometimes, and she’d like to help you put it to better use. In her latest book, “Good Anxiety: Harnessing the Power of the Most Misunderstood Emotion,” the neuroscientist explains the reasons our brains react the ways they do and why anxiety can be a secret superpower, and offers tools for a real world practice of healthier emotional regulation. Salon spoke to Suzuki recently about our epidemic of anxiety, and how we can learn to “worry well.”

As usual, this conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

How many of us are dealing from anxiety?

Basically everybody. Every single person has some form of anxiety. It’s so important to start with that, because there’s still a shame and embarrassment. You don’t want to say it out loud, because it sounds like you have a mental illness and that sounds really bad. But everybody has feelings of anxiety, and even more so right now.

There’s everyday anxiety, which we all deal with to a certain extent. Then there’s the kind that really, really interferes. How do we distinguish a tough period in life from something more serious?

The easiest way to separate out clinical levels of anxiety (where you must go see a medical professional) is when it is truly debilitating. This is not like, “Oh, this is so annoying.” Annoying is not debilitating. Debilitating is: you cannot go outside, you can’t go to work, you can’t interact with your family, you can’t have relationships.

Those numbers before the pandemic of number of people diagnosed with that level of anxiety was almost 20% of the population, so 40 million people. There are a lot of people like that out there — and that number has been estimated to have gone up about 30% in particular subpopulations. African-Americans, young millennials — that is people in their early twenties — and adolescent girls seem to be suffering particularly from clinical levels of anxiety these days.

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

There are things that all of us, regardless of our level of time, money, social constructs can be doing with our anxiety. You use the phrase, “Worry well.”

We have to get away from the idea that anxiety is a weight around our necks that is just inevitable, we have to deal with it, it’s always there and there’s nothing good about it. That is so wrong. Anxiety and the underlying physiological stress response evolved to protect us. Is that important? Yes. It protects us from outside threats that were there 2.5 million years ago. Now those threats are mainly internal, the threats come from the newsfeed, from the pandemic updates, from the weather updates every hour. So for everybody out there saying, “I don’t feel protected at all from my anxiety,” The answer is, because the volume is way too high.

Anything at too high a level is not good any more. We’ve all of us, collectively, reached too high level of anxiety. It can no longer be protective. But it’s a very different idea that “I want to get rid of it” versus, “I want to get it to the level where it can help me.” That’s a very different mindset and that’s one of the big ideas that I hope everybody will take away.

This is what I love to teach in my neuroscience classes, neuroscience that makes a difference. This comes from our basic understanding of the physiology and neurobiology of the brain. It was evolved there for a reason, not just to annoy us. It evolved to help us move, help us fight or flight. It can come back to that really, really valuable level, but we need to turn the volume down. That is the very first step.

What really happens inside of our brains when we do the work, when we practice changing our behavior, changing our thoughts?

The best and fastest way to do that is simply to activate the part of our nervous system that evolved to help us relax. It’s called the parasympathetic nervous system. All Neuroscience 101 students learn about it, and they’re like, “Memorize this, this is what it does, go on.”

But it’s doing something really important for all of us these days. It is decreasing our heart rate, decreasing respiration and it’s bringing blood from the muscles, from our fight or flight response back to our digestion and reproduction. I can’t control in my mind my blood going into my digestive system, but I can slow my breathing down.

Deep breathing is good. You are literally stimulating your relaxation parasympathetic nervous system by this conscious act of deeply inhaling with intention and deeply exhaling. That can help start the entire process of relaxation in your body. It can help when you’re in the depths of an anxiety attack, it can help when you’re just starting.

The best thing is that I talk a lot to parents and kids that are worried about going back to school. Parents, you can do it in the middle of a conversation when it’s starting to get a little bit tense and just take a moment to breathe while the other person is talking. Kids can do it standing in line, sitting in class, they just need a little guidance. How do we do it? What does slow mean? But it’s very, very powerful.

That’s the first step, activate your parasympathetic nervous system. Let me go to brain plasticity. Brain plasticity is our brain’s ability to adapt to the environment. A lot of the tips in the book are shifts of mindset. How do you shift your mindset? We already talked about one big one. Anxiety is not so bad that we have to get rid of it and throw it out the door. It was evolved to protect us. That is a mindset shift, and that helps you. How do we learn that? We learn that with our hippocampus, important for learning new facts and events. We can consolidate that piece of information by thinking about all the ways that perhaps our own anxiety have helped us.

If I don’t have butterflies before a TV interview, or before that big lecture, I’m not going to go to give a good talk. That is my definition of good anxiety, and was one of the pillars that I started writing this book on.

How does that manifest for you? Maybe you’re not a speaker, but maybe you have those butterflies before a really important conversation or a really important test, where you’re able to use that to harness that energy that it created to help you perform better. That is at the heart of good anxiety, which is very empowering. It’s like, “I could use this thing that’s always around anyway and I could make myself actually perform better if I could harness it.”

To go through the process of, “This is what I feel, this is signaling something to me and then here are the actions that I can take.”

I think of this in steps. What do we do with this knowledge that anxiety could be protective? First step, dial down the volume. Step two is another one of these lost ideas —anxiety is protective. Think about those uncomfortable emotions that come up with anxiety — fear, worry, anger. Those are the ones that feel like that weight around your chest and you just want to kick them out the door and never see them again. That is the big mistake. We are humans and we have a huge wide plethora of emotions. If we lived only in the happy ones and we were just Teletubby-happy all the time, that would not be a fulfilled life.

We have these uncomfortable emotions for a really important reason. They tell us what’s important. They give us sadness when something important has gone away for whatever reasons, which is life. The second step is to realize that those negative emotions that are on high volume right now are valuable. What can they tell me about what I value in my life? What is there too much? What is not there enough? Learn from that because that’ll make you realize, “I see why it’s protective. It’s protecting me by showing me what is important using these uncomfortable emotions that really get my attention. These are important messages.

So much of the messaging has been, let me show you how to be happy, but let’s just focus on the happiness. I love happiness. Happiness is great. But the thing that I learned the most in writing this book and researching is that I found myself making friends with my own anxiety and those uncomfortable emotions. Yes, it’s not a warm and fuzzy friend. My anxiety is a prickly friend, but sometimes those prickly friends have your best interests at heart and are saying, “Look at this right now. What is it really telling you?” But if I’m so anxious that I can’t think of anything, I can’t use my prefrontal cortex, then I can’t appreciate that.

You talk about concepts that are hard for many people to get — doing things like increasing your compassion, slowing down. For a lot of us right now, we’re in this moment of deep scarcity and fear. You see many of us retreating into our fears.

So, let’s talk about what happens to us as a species and happens in our brains and why, when we were feeling that kind of anger and reactivity and fear — that is, when we have to reach deep and find those spaces of compassion.

You’ve brought up one of the gifts or superpowers that comes from anxiety, which I know is very counter-intuitive. Let’s translate that into the current situation in fear or whatever you’re fighting for. If you turn that fear towards the outside, you can recognize that in others. Even reaching out empathetically and saying, “This is so hard because I want to share but this is so hard. What do you think that we should do?” starts to bring the wall down.

From a neuroscience point of view, empathy and doing something for others, helping somebody else in a difficult fearful situation, releases dopamine in the brain. We know this from studies. So you’re not only practicing empathy and compassion for others, but you’re doing something that will reward yourself with higher levels of dopamine, which we all need when we deal with these kinds of situations anyway. That is the gift of empathy that comes from anxiety.

Come for the empathy, stay for the dopamine.

This book is the book that it became because of chapter four, the resilience chapter. I had a tragedy in my life and dealt with these really horrible, uncomfortable, saddest emotions I’ve ever had because of the death of my father and my brother I couldn’t write the book on anxiety. I took a little break but came out of it having experienced these difficult feelings and with a reminder from a workout coach, that with great pain comes great wisdom. I thought, I’m a different person on the other side, but I’ve learned a lot about love and appreciation that was theoretical.

Because of that experience, I thought, every bout of anxiety is a pain, it’s a difficulty. What if I try and squeeze out all the wisdom from that, what would that do? That’s how all the gifts or superpowers came out. They would not have been written this way if I hadn’t gone through that. I did explore my own anxiety but I explored from the perspective of, I must get something good out of them. What is that, that I can get out of it? It was therapeutic for me because I needed to pull out good stuff from this book that I was writing right after this terrible event.

I want to ask you about change, and about really believing and buying into this idea that we can change. There is a certain pride that comes from being a stressed out person, who’s too busy to meditate and too anxious to slow down. How do we take that step back and say, “I don’t have to be this way. I can change and that I might feel better”?

My optimism around change comes from my lifelong study in neuroscience of brain plasticity. The very first time I realized I wanted to become a neuroscientist was the first day of my freshman year. I walked in on a classroom of the woman who discovered brain plasticity at UC Berkeley. She reminded me and the other students in the class that the human brain is the most complex and amazing structure known to humankind, in part because it can change. It was evolved to be able to change, and learn, and adapt to the environment. She spent her career figuring out how to positively change the brain with things like environmental enrichment — a lot of exercise, social interaction. Our brains can do that. We’ve evolved to be able to really survive.

I’m talking about the brain. If you ask me as a neuroscientist, can people do this? Can people learn to shift their mindset to adapt to these different things that will decrease their anxiety? Like breath work, like exercise? Absolutely. Absolutely. I come from the school of thought that I’m very optimistic, that everybody can do this. They can take all the tools in the book and change everything from their mindset to their breathing patterns when in situations of anxiety. Instead of having it be this thing that you just can’t wait to get rid of, wouldn’t you like to be able to optimize your anxiety response and pull out all of that energy and use it for things you want to use it for?

The real reason Trumpworld wasted no time cutting ties with Corey Lewandowski

It appears that despite a long track record of alleged poor behavior being swept under the rug, longtime Trump advisor Corey Lewandowski may not emerge from his latest scandal unscathed.

A new op-ed published by Politico explores the aspects of Lewandowski’s current legal situation and why TrumpWorld suddenly began making efforts to distance itself from him. Currently, Lewandowski is facing sexual misconduct allegations for is questionable interactions with Trashelle Odom.

She claims Lewandowski “repeatedly touched her, including on her leg and buttocks, and spoke to her in sexually graphic terms” and “stalked” her throughout the night while they attended a Las Vegas charity event last weekend. She also claims he “allegedly remarked on the size of his genitalia, described his sexual performance and showed [her] his hotel room key.”

Although Lewandowski has a history of accusations for this type of behavior, Politico pointed to a recent report by York Times reporter Maggie Haberman who explained why this situation is particularly different. Lewandowski’s actions could lead to a domino effect of problems the former president does not want contend with. Hagerman reports that Trashelle Odom happens to be the wife of an Idaho construction company CEO who happens to be longtime Trump donor.

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

“Aides to Mr. Trump insist this latest incident is different, particularly because it involves a donor to the former president,” Haberman reported.

In short, money matters to Trump and his campaign team far more than Lewandowski despite his longtime loyalty to the former president. In fact, on Wednesday, Trump’s spokesperson Taylor Budowich tweeted a statement confirming the PAC had cut ties with Lewandowski.

“Pam Bondi, the very talented and honorable [former] AG of FL, has our complete faith and confidence in taking over” the super PAC, Budowich’s tweet read. “Corey Lewandowski will be going on to other endeavors and we very much want to thank him for his service. He will no longer be associated with Trump World.”

Haberman also noted, “With Mr. Trump out of office, most of his advisers now have clients outside his immediate world. But Mr. Lewandowski’s efforts came under intense scrutiny from other Trump aides.”

Preliminary research finds that even mild cases of COVID-19 leave a mark on the brain

With more than 18 months of the pandemic in the rearview mirror, researchers have been steadily gathering new and important insights into the effects of COVID-19 on the body and brain. These findings are raising concerns about the long-term impacts that the coronavirus might have on biological processes such as aging.

As a cognitive neuroscientist, my past research has focused on understanding how normal brain changes related to aging affect people’s ability to think and move — particularly in middle age and beyond. But as more evidence came in showing that COVID-19 could affect the body and brain for months or longer following infection, my research team became interested in exploring how it might also impact the natural process of aging.

Peering in at the brain’s response to COVID-19

In August 2021, a preliminary but large-scale study investigating brain changes in people who had experienced COVID-19 drew a great deal of attention within the neuroscience community.

In that study, researchers relied on an existing database called the UK Biobank, which contains brain imaging data from over 45,000 people in the U.K. going back to 2014. This means — crucially — that there was baseline data and brain imaging of all of those people from before the pandemic.

The research team analyzed the brain imaging data and then brought back those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 for additional brain scans. They compared people who had experienced COVID-19 to participants who had not, carefully matching the groups based on age, sex, baseline test date and study location, as well as common risk factors for disease, such as health variables and socioeconomic status.

The team found marked differences in gray matter — which is made up of the cell bodies of neurons that process information in the brain — between those who had been infected with COVID-19 and those who had not. Specifically, the thickness of the gray matter tissue in brain regions known as the frontal and temporal lobes was reduced in the COVID-19 group, differing from the typical patterns seen in the group that hadn’t experienced COVID-19.  

In the general population, it is normal to see some change in gray matter volume or thickness over time as people age, but the changes were larger than normal in those who had been infected with COVID-19.

Interestingly, when the researchers separated the individuals who had severe enough illness to require hospitalization, the results were the same as for those who had experienced milder COVID-19. That is, people who had been infected with COVID-19 showed a loss of brain volume even when the disease was not severe enough to require hospitalization.

Finally, researchers also investigated changes in performance on cognitive tasks and found that those who had contracted COVID-19 were slower in processing information, relative to those who had not.

While we have to be careful interpreting these findings as they await formal peer review, the large sample, pre- and post-illness data in the same people and careful matching with people who had not had COVID-19 have made this preliminary work particularly valuable.

What do these changes in brain volume mean?

Early on in the pandemic, one of the most common reports from those infected with COVID-19 was the loss of sense of taste and smell.

Strikingly, the brain regions that the U.K. researchers found to be impacted by COVID-19 are all linked to the olfactory bulb, a structure near the front of the brain that passes signals about smells from the nose to other brain regions. The olfactory bulb has connections to regions of the temporal lobe. We often talk about the temporal lobe in the context of aging and Alzheimer’s disease because it is  where the hippocampus is located. The hippocampus is likely to play a key role in aging, given its involvement in memory and cognitive processes.

The sense of smell is also important to Alzheimer’s research, as some data has suggested that those at risk for the disease have a reduced sense of smell. While it is far too early to draw any conclusions about the long-term impacts of these COVID-related changes, investigating possible connections between COVID-19-related brain changes and memory is of great interest — particularly given the regions implicated and their importance in memory and Alzheimer’s disease.

Looking ahead

These new findings bring about important yet unanswered questions: What do these brain changes following COVID-19 mean for the process and pace of aging? And, over time does the brain recover to some extent from viral infection?

These are active and open areas of research, some of which we are beginning to do in my own laboratory in conjunction with our ongoing work investigating brain aging.

Our lab’s work demonstrates that as people age, the brain thinks and processes information differently. In addition, we’ve observed changes over time in how peoples’ bodies move and how people learn new motor skills. Several decades of work have demonstrated that older adults have a harder time processing and manipulating information — such as updating a mental grocery list — but they typically maintain their knowledge of facts and vocabulary. With respect to motor skills, we know that older adults still learn, but they do so more slowly then young adults.

When it comes to brain structure, we typically see a decrease in the size of the brain in adults over age 65. This decrease is not just localized to one area. Differences can be seen across many regions of the brain. There is also typically an increase in cerebrospinal fluid that fills space due to the loss of brain tissue. In addition, white matter, the insulation on axons – long cables that carry electrical impulses between nerve cells — is also less intact in older adults.  

As life expectancy has increased in the past decades, more individuals are reaching older age. While the goal is for all to live long and healthy lives, even in the best-case scenario where one ages without disease or disability, older adulthood brings on changes in how we think and move.

Learning how all of these puzzle pieces fit together will help us unravel the mysteries of aging so that we can help improve quality of life and function for aging individuals. And now, in the context of COVID-19, it will help us understand the degree to which the brain may recover after illness as well.

[Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.]

Jessica Bernard, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University

What will happen to R. Kelly’s music? Inside the push to deplatform abusive artists

Following years of controversy and open secrets about R. Kelly’s horrifying treatment of women and girls, the disgraced R&B singer has been found guilty and convicted of racketeering and sex trafficking. His New York trial featured testimonies from many women who claim to have survived violent abuse and even imprisonment from Kelly, often starting when they were underage.

With Kelly finally convicted, the outcome of his case raises a key question of what will now happen to his music, which continues to stream on major platforms like Spotify and Apple Music, making somewhere in the millions in royalties each year, and frequently appearing in video content on social media. As streaming platforms, brands, record labels, and really any and all media companies that handle music determine what — if anything — should be done about Kelly’s work, their approaches could set an important precedent for the many other artists accused or found guilty of abuse, moving forward in the #MeToo era.

Defenders of artists accused of abuse often condemn brands and streamers for any moves to censor and violate these artists’ “free speech” — as if Spotify is the federal government — or assert that these artists are “innocent until proven guilty.” Kelly’s conviction now pokes a significant hole in at least one of these arguments, and may open the door for brands and music companies to take clear stances on what behaviors from artists aren’t acceptable.

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

Then of course, there’s the important distinction between the corporate policies of a streaming service like Spotify on whether to publicly promote an abusive artist’s work, and the personal music consumption and preferences of individuals. In the long history of artists accused of harm and abuse, there have never been one-size-fits-all solutions.

R. Kelly’s contemporaries also accused of abuse

To understand what fate that R. Kelly’s music could face, it’s wise to look at other artists who have been in similar but not necessarily equivalent situations. The severity of the accusations against Kelly, including rape and assault of often underage victims, are so horrifying that the idea of stepping away from his music in some form doesn’t seem that far-fetched.

Other well-known, even alarmingly popular artists accused of abuse include Chris Brown, who pleaded guilty to felony assault of his then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009, and has been accused of rape and violence by other women in the years since. He continues to feature on tracks with music legends like Drake, and create widely streamed singles, pretty much without a peep from Spotify or the other streaming giants and record labels that gleefully release his music.

The late XXXTentacion, who was killed in 2018, was accused of and admitted to strangling his pregnant then-girlfriend the year earlier — all while his wildly popular music continues to stream and generate millions in royalties for his estate to this day. And in 2015, 6ix9ine pleaded guilty to the use of a child in a sexual performance, and has been charged and convicted of other crimes including racketeering and his role in a drive-by shooting. His songs and features on Nicki Minaj tracks continue to draw millions of streams.

Another artist, Ryan Adams, has been dropped by his record labels, and has struggled to put out new music since several women including Mandy Moore and Phoebe Bridgers accused him of emotional abuse in 2019. Still, Adams’ existing music and music he’s released through his own PAX AM independent label, remains readily available on streaming platforms.

Marilyn Manson, accused of rape, grooming, and other jarring acts of sexual violence by several women, sings about the night he was arrested in a recent track on Kanye West’s new album “Donda,” streaming on music services without any issue. Just last year, Megan Thee Stallion accused Tory Lanez of shooting her in the foot and successfully obtained a restraining order against Lanez — only for him to release a new album shortly after, continue to feature on popular tracks with some of the biggest names in the industry, and appear on stage at music festivals like Rolling Loud, violating Megan’s restraining order against him in the process.

More famously, the late singer Michael Jackson faced numerous allegations of child sexual abuse in the 1990s that had all but faded from public consciousness for years before HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” documentary released in 2019. The documentary led to significant backlash against Jackson and his surviving legacy and work, nearly 10 years after his death.

Before nearly all of these artists, Don McLean, who sang “American Pie” in 1971, was accused of intense emotional abuse by his wife last year, and his daughter just this year. From a similar era as McLean, Phil Spector produced numerous albums and records for multiple artists including the Beatles before being convicted of murdering a woman in 2003. Should the music produced by men accused of abuse also be reconsidered? Where should music companies and individuals begin to draw the line?

What’s happened to the art of accused men before

For insight into how music streamers and brands might respond to R. Kelly’s conviction, as well as other artists accused of misconduct, there are numerous past examples to revisit — many involving Kelly himself. His music hasn’t gone anywhere for those who actively seek it out for personal consumption. But there’s an important difference between streaming platforms allowing users to privately listen to his music, and the active promotion of this music on radio stations, in DJ sets, in TV episodes and movies, or featuring on official, Spotify-curated playlists.

The New York Times reported that in recent years, Kelly’s music has been “all but erased from the radio and other commercial placements, his high-profile concerts and record deals a thing of the past.” Still, the Times found that Kelly’s music remains a fixture in videos and social content among influencers on platforms like Tik Tok, ranking as one of the top 500 music artists by Chartmetric. Despite the widely shared #MuteRKelly social campaign created by Kenyette Tisha Barnes and other activists in 2017, Kelly’s music has still had about 780 million audio streams in the U.S. since “Surviving R. Kelly” aired on Lifetime in 2019, and he continues to draw 5.2 million monthly listeners on Spotify, the Times reported.

Spotify has specifically addressed the misconduct allegations against Kelly before, although its response left many confused. In 2018, Spotify announced that it would take action against the singer’s popular catalog of music, and instituted an awkward playlist-ban policy, which would remove music containing “hate speech” and music from artists who, like Kelly, had committed “hateful conduct” from its playlists.

However, some regarded Spotify’s policy as toothless, because Kelly’s music continued to stream on the platform. Others expressed confusion about the inconsistency of the ban, noting that many artists accused of “hateful conduct” — which the platform had only nebulously defined — weren’t subject to the playlist-ban policy. In particular, critics named XXXTentacion, who was subsequently added to Spotify’s playlist-ban list, but many other accused artists remain.

The playlist-ban policy also received criticism from those who pointed out that Kelly and other artists had only been accused of sexual misconduct and hadn’t been found guilty — as if all sexual abusers are reported to law enforcement and convicted. Overall, these myriad criticisms of Spotify’s attempts at accountability for abusers and alleged abusers were enough to make the platform back down — not overturning its policy, but no longer really publicizing it. 

It’s also worth noting that it’s not just streaming platforms that are affected by revelations about abusive artists. For example, Kelly’s song “I Think I Can Fly” initially featured in an episode of “The Goldbergs” spinoff show, “Schooled,” but the song was pulled before the episode aired in 2019 in the wake of escalated controversy around Kelly. 

Following the release of “Leaving Neverland,” several brands, global radio stations, TV shows like “The Simpsons,” and even city governments like Brussels took action in boycotting Jackson’s legacy. Many canceled scheduled celebrations of the singer to mark the 10th anniversary of his death. Louis Vuitton pulled Jackson-inspired products planned for its 2019 collections, and gymnast Katelyn Ohashi removed Jackson’s music and dance moves inspired by the artist from her floor routine at the 2019 PAC-12 Championships.

Responses and actions taken around artists who are accused of abuse are widely inconsistent, possibly because, among other reasons, many cases lack the now open-and-shut legal nature of R. Kelly’s conviction. Ultimately, many brands and streamers seem conflicted about where to draw the line, or really, what they can and can’t look the other way on without stoking controversy and backlash. Documentaries like “Surviving R. Kelly” and “Leaving Neverland” have made Kelly and Jackson’s histories and allegations impossible to be silent on. But in contrast, few big-name artists or activist movements have taken public stands against Chris Brown for the accusations against him, or Tory Lanez, for allegedly shooting Megan. 6ix9ine has yet to become the subject of a tell-all documentary.

Many brands and streamers are left to work out the calculus of what may lose them more money: platforming or promoting someone accused of abuse, or upsetting these artists’ vengeful fan bases. And on an individual level, many consumers may feel similarly conflicted, with some appalled by the behaviors of artists like Kelly, while still privately enjoying the music they’ve made.

The eternal debate: Artist vs. art

The debate about what to do with the art created by artists accused of abuse has been semi-recurring since 2017, when dozens of entertainment industry titans were very publicly accused of sexual misconduct. 

Contrary to loud and proud right-wing talking points, private corporations ranging from social media platforms to music distributors are well within their legal rights to remove or at least not publicize content that conflicts with their values, if their values include, say, being opposed to sexual violence. But legal considerations aside, the philosophical question of whether artists, who are real human beings and as such often do real, horrible things, can be separated from their art. The answer to that question might vary pending who you ask.

For some people with the privilege of not having experienced sexual harassment or abuse, it might be easier to consume content created by an abuser without feeling triggered or devalued by it. It’s certainly not wrong for individuals to be able to privately compartmentalize abusive artists from their art and enjoy it by themselves. But there will always be consumers who can’t do this and who should be respected, too. The voices and demands of many survivors and advocates, for brands and corporations to find meaningful ways to take a stand against sexual violence and abusers, deserve to be heard. 

That said, deplatforming isn’t always simple in the age of the internet. As Variety’s Jem Aswad points out, even if Spotify removed R. Kelly’s music, or a movie streaming service somehow removed all work produced by Harvey Weinstein, their work would continue to be uploaded and distributed on other parts of the internet, and wouldn’t just disappear. And frankly, none of these men produced these works alone, so those collaborators would become collateral damage if such works were removed.

Amazon’s approach to hate speech or “hateful conduct” seems to be summed up by its inclusion of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” on its marketplace, with all sales of the book apparently going directly to Jewish charities and organizations.

R. Kelly isn’t the first artist to be accused of abuse or horrifying behavior, leaving companies and brands with serious decisions to make. His conviction isn’t the first moment that’s forced them to consider making a public statement or policy regarding the art created by sexual abusers.

But Kelly’s conviction certainly injects credibility and legal validation into the demands of survivors calling for him and other abusers and alleged abusers to be deplatformed, or no longer publicly promoted. How brands respond to the outcome of Kelly’s case could influence how they handle the art of abusive artists going forward — but ultimately, how the public receives and experiences the art of abusers will always vary from person to person.

Think Biden is a “failed” president who can’t get re-elected? Consider Bill Clinton

It is historically ignorant to describe Joe Biden as a failed president, which hasn’t stopped pundits from trying. From MSNBC to New York Magazine, the view has emerged that if Biden’s package of infrastructure and spending bills falls flat, it will be his political death sentence. Centrist Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are depicted as holding the president’s very career in their hands. By refusing to support filibuster repeal, and then throwing up roadblocks to his proposed $3.5 trillion spending package, they are seemingly making it impossible for Biden to get anything done at all.

That is unquestionably a big political problem, because if Biden can’t get big things done before Democrats lose Congress in the 2022 midterm elections — as is extremely likely to happen — he almost certainly won’t be able to do so afterward. If he chooses to run again in 2024, the thinking goes, he’ll be a sitting duck for Donald Trump or any other Republican who opposes him: a “failed president,” like Trump himself.

Except that history suggests it doesn’t work that way. Consider the case of Bill Clinton.

At roughly this time in Clinton’s first term, he was also widely regarded as a failure. Like Biden, he had a handful of positive achievements: signing the Family Medical Leave Act, signing the Brady Act (at the time, a historic gun control measure), appointing Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. (Biden’s chief accomplishments are his vaccine policies, COVID-19 stimulus and numerous judicial appointments.)

Clinton also had a number of damaging scandals during this period, from unflattering reports about his business and political fundraising activities to accusations about his handling of a federal raid in Waco, Texas. He also made a number of serious policy blunders. By the 1994 midterm elections, he had signed into law the now-infamous Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, fueling an era of mass incarceration directed largely at Black men; agreed to the egregious “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military, which treated LGBT rights like a bargaining chip; failed to pass an ambitious health care plan spearheaded by Hillary Clinton; overseen a military debacle in Somalia; agreed to the “free trade” deal known as NAFTA; and implemented austerity-driven fiscal policies that drove the Democrats unrecognizably to the right.

Clinton was just getting warmed up. Before Election Day 1996, he would also lose control of Congress in the 1994 midterms to Republicans powered by Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” and preside over a government shutdown during a budget battle with those same Republicans, which was largely their doing. America’s economy was generally strong through those years, but Clinton’s approval ratings fluctuated wildly. (Biden, for what it’s worth, has been solidly in the 40s and 50s.) It seemed entirely plausible throughout Clinton’s first term that he would lose to whomever the Republicans nominated, which turned out to be Sen. Bob Dole, a widely admired World War II veteran.

But American voters didn’t (and don’t) have long political memories and weren’t focused on the granular details. When the 1996 election came around, they knew that the economy was doing well and the nation was at peace both domestically and abroad. In accordance with presidential election precedent, Clinton won easily. As with every election, reams of commentary have been written about the 1996 contest, but the explanation for Clinton’s victory is ultimately just that simple.

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

I’m not claiming that Americans don’t care about politics. But the people who follow the details of budget negotiations, legislative deals and foreign policy are usually those who already know what they think. If you care enough about politics to hold a strong view about the Senate filibuster, chances are you’re already sure who you will vote for next time around. In terms of determining election outcomes, you probably fall into the category of the people that one party wants to make sure turns out to vote, but the other party would prefer got the flu that week. It’s very likely you do not fall into the category of people who sometimes vote for one party and sometimes the other. That group, as relatively small as it is, tends to be decisive.

As I have suggested before, Biden was elected in 2020 largely because of Barack Obama — a highly popular president who created a new political alignment during the 2008 election. Biden almost explicitly ran as Obama’s political heir, and he won in part for that reason. He was also running against a president — you know who I mean! — who, unlike Clinton in 1996, was presiding over a crumbling economy and a public health disaster.

Biden’s situation is certainly not an exact parallel with Clinton’s — there was no one like Trump on the horizon, and the incumbent he defeated, George H.W. Bush, had the decency to go away. But the most important features apply. As Trump’s defeat in 2020 makes clear, he didn’t fundamentally transform the rules of American political life, even if it sometimes felt that way. People outside his base don’t pay attention to the Trumpist right wing’s whimsical fixations, any more than they did to the Gingrich talking points of the 1990s. Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party has deepened political divides, and entrenched partisans on both sides. That likely inspires more people to turn out to vote, but it doesn’t change the breakdown of how they vote. And in general, less partisan swing voters tend to cast their ballot based on the perceived conditions in the country.

This is the problem facing anyone who tries to predict the 2024 election from here: There is no way of knowing where we will be in three years. Economies can unexpectedly boom or go bust; international crises can emerge, with leaders rising to them or coming up short; unexpected catastrophes like hurricanes and pandemics can derail the best laid plans. And that’s the short list. If Biden does unexpectedly well or egregiously flops in responding to these externalities, his political fate will improve or decline accordingly. Should nothing in his presidency move the needle all that much, the public will likely default to its standard voting patterns.

If anything, Biden’s biggest political concern should be the Republicans’ assault on voting. If his current approval ratings remain stable, and conditions remain acceptable at home and abroad, he’ll hold a natural advantage by continuing to rely on Obama’s 2008 coalition. Yet now that Trump’s Big Lie is being used to roll back voting rights and empower partisan election officials, it is within the realm of possibility that Biden could have a victory stolen from him in 2024. If any policy failures right now are likely to hurt him politically three years hence, it will be the ones that limited his voters’ ability to keep him in power. This won’t just be the end of Biden’s career, it might mean the end of democracy, confirming the Republicans’ belief that only they have a right to political power.

But if we assume for the moment that people who want to vote will largely be allowed to — admittedly a very big if — the 2024 election will be decided on bedrock political loyalties, not on Donald Trump’s bullshit histrionics. Trump would like to believe he has changed the world, but the same political rules that applied before he rode down that golden escalator still apply today.