Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Jordan tries to back out of vote after GOP opponents face “death threats” and “intimidation”: report

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, may back out of a planned third vote on his speaker bid as opposition from holdout Republicans grows deeper amid a controversial intimidation campaign by his allies.

“Nearly everyone involved in the discussions with Team Jordan says the Ohio Republican doesn't want to go to the floor for a third vote” following a humiliating defeat that saw him lose votes on the second ballot on Wednesday, Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman reported on Thursday, noting that Jordan’s representatives have denied the claim.

Republican sources told CNN’s Manu Raju that Jordan is “bleeding votes and is poised to lose even more Republicans if he goes through with a third ballot today.”

“One GOP member who opposes Jordan says there are about 30 R no votes,” he tweeted. “It’s unclear if Jordan goes through with the noon vote.”

Opposition to Jordan’s bid stiffened in recent days after Republican holdouts complained of heavy-handed tactics by his supporters to pressure them into backing his bid.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, said Wednesday that she received credible death threats by phone after switching her vote from Jordan to Appropriations Chairwoman Kay Granger, R-Texas.

“Since my vote in support of Chairwoman Granger, I have received credible death threats and a barrage of threatening calls. The proper authorities have been notified and my office is cooperating fully,” the congresswoman said in a statement.

“One thing I cannot stomach, or support is a bully,” she added. “Someone who threatens another with bodily harm or tries to suppress differing opinions undermines opportunity for unity and regard for freedom of speech.”

Jordan condemned the threats after the statement.

“No American should accost another for their beliefs,” he tweeted. “We condemn all threats against our colleagues and it is imperative that we come together. Stop. It’s abhorrent.”

Other holdout Republicans have also spoken up over the threats.

Granger herself tweeted that “intimidation and threats will not change my position.”

“I was a helicopter pilot in the United States Navy … threats and intimidation tactics will not change my principles and values,” echoed Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va.

Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., told The Washington Post that his staff had been “cussed out, they’ve been threatened. It’s been nonstop. Most of them are out-of-state calls.”

“It’s a matter of how you treat people. And frankly, based on what I’ve been through and what my staff has been through, it’s obvious what the strategy is: attack, attack, attack,” he said, adding that Jordan’s “tactics” had badly backfired.

We need your help to stay independent

Rep. John Rutherford, R-Fla., told the Post that Jordan is “absolutely responsible for it.”

“And look, it doesn’t work. … Nobody likes to have their arm twisted,” he added.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., previously said that his wife received multiple anonymous texts and emails demanding he vote for Jordan.

“I believe he’s done. He needs to withdraw from this,” Bacon told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Wednesday. “He’s going to lose more votes tomorrow, I know it.”


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


Bacon is among a growing number of Republicans pushing to delay the speaker election and temporarily empower acting House Speaker Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., to work on a budget deal and aid for Ukraine and Israel.

House GOP leaders feel they can “no longer hold back members” who want to empower McHenry for about 80 days as they grow “desperate” to get back to work, PunchBowl News reported on Thursday. The resolution “would likely pass overwhelmingly” with a majority of Republican votes and possibly Democratic ones as well, according to the report.

Passing the resolution could serve as an off-ramp for Jordan too, the outlet reported, since it would allow him to effectively end his campaign for speaker without formally dropping out. He could then run again after McHenry’s term is up in January.

Still, such a move would almost certainly trigger a conservative freakout, the report added.

One of those conservatives, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, fumed over the plan on Wednesday, arguing that it “represents an unforgivable step to coalition government & likely decimation in 2024.”

Joe Biden visits an actual war zone; House GOP tries to pull its pants up

It is said that the first casualty of war is the truth.

Truth? Who knows. Facts? Definitely.

The House of Representatives has been at war with itself since the Republicans took it over nine months ago. More importantly, the Republican Party cannot seem to pick a speaker, even though it holds a majority of seats in the House. For two weeks Congress has remained idle, threatening continued aid to our allies as well as another impending government shutdown, now less than a month away..

That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that many of the Trump loyalists in the GOP don’t care if they bring it all down and rule over the rubble. They blame Democrats for their own failures. After a first vote in the House on Tuesday fell short of electing Jim Jordan as speaker (a failure repeated in a second vote Wednesday), GOP members once again blamed Democrats, among others, for this failure to launch. 

Speaking to their political impotence, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered a sage observation: “They’re taking lessons in mathematics and learning how to count,” she told me as she left the House floor.

That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that there are still people who truly believe, or at least are paid to believe, that whatever Trump and his minions say is gospel. In this American political war, the facts are malleable and entirely dependent on what Trump and his cronies want to be true. 

After the failed vote on Tuesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, spoke to reporters about the Republicans’ in-house war: “We need to give our assistance to our democratic allies in Israel and Ukraine and it’s just ridiculous that the GOP has plunged us into this chaos,” he said. I walked with Raskin toward the Rayburn Office Building to continue the conversation. Along the way, he was accosted by a man who called himself a “MAGA Man” or a “MAGA American.”

Quoting from the teachings of his dark lord, Donald Trump, the man accused Raskin of being “on the wrong side of history,” and then told Raskin that the congressman’s recent cancer diagnosis was a punishment from God and that Raskin should repent.

Walking with Rep. Jamie Raskin toward his office, I saw him accosted by a "MAGA American" who told him that Raskin's recent cancer diagnosis was a punishment from God and he needed to repent.

That the man said it is a fact. The reality, of course, is quite different. It’s also a fact that when I posted both the Pelosi comment and the Raskin confrontation on social media I was told — even though there was video of both events — that neither of those things had happened. The ability to deny facts or repudiate them, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, is a key component of war propaganda, used to make sure the facts remain unclear. The “fog of war” is often just a smokescreen.

The facts are always casualties of war when MAGA Republicans are involved. Their peculiar mindset allows them to claim they are Christians while attacking a man battling cancer. Their peculiar “family-friendly” environment includes accused pedophiles, criminals, members of Congress acting out soft-porn scenes in theaters, crazed lunatics wielding guns and random morons whose brain functions barely exceed those of a rabid dog. All of it is acceptable, including lies and random threats, as long as they all continue to worship at Donald Trump’s feet.

That brings us to the Middle East and Joe Biden. 

The world is a tinderbox. Whatever maniacal shrieks are projected into the stratosphere by House Republicans waging their internal war, those shouldn’t overshadow the rising death toll in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Biden canceled a trip to Colorado last week, prompting several White House reporters, talking over coffee in the Brady Briefing Room’s tiny break room, to wonder out loud, “When will the other shoe drop?”

There was considerable speculation about what the canceled trip actually meant. In a possible case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, we learned a day later that Biden, for the second time during his presidency, was heading into a war zone. He’d already made a trip to Poland and Ukraine, and now he was going to Israel and Jordan. It was almost funny watching reporters conveniently forget their recent history as they pondered Biden’s “unprecedented trip to a war zone.”

Meanwhile, Donald Trump was facing a gag order, trying to raise money and decrying the “weaponization” of the Justice Department (a daily mantra for him) while ignoring the fact that he’d threatened and tried to intimidate numerous witnesses, prosecutors and judges — and in fact had himself appointed some of the judges and DOJ officials he now believes are persecuting him. No matter. Those facts have long been ignored in Trump’s war of revenge against a country that voted him out of office and a world that openly mocks him and laughs at him. Dealing with those inconvenient facts made it a lot less likely that the Donald would talk about anything but himself.

Trump’s plate is apparently full and he hasn’t said much about the Middle East lately, at least not since he disparaged Israel and seemed to praise terrorists. He’s hoping everyone has forgotten about that. He made a few stray comments about Israel from a New York courtroom — Biden made his from Israel.

We need your help to stay independent

Biden spoke about reality. Trump spoke out of his nether regions, as is generally the case

There are few things more dramatic than a war in Israel. Even before Biden left on a trip that was quickly planned and executed (to the amazement of some and the envy of others), the head of the Palestinian Authority canceled their meeting in Jordan after the explosion in a Gaza hospital that claimed hundreds of lives.

Hamas immediately blamed Israel and Israel blamed Hamas (or, more accurately, Islamic Jihad, an allied militant group). Biden said in Israel that after looking at the facts, it appeared the explosion had been caused “by the other team.” On that  same stage Wednesday morning, Biden mourned “the loss of Palestinian lives” while continuing to back a two-state solution in the region. He said, “Freedom will win” and “justice must be done,” clearly signaling support for Israel, while urging that nation “not to be consumed by rage.” 

That was one heck of a geopolitical dance by the president, both nuanced and informative. Almost as an afterthought, he mentioned that Israel was going to allow “monitored” humanitarian aid to reach Gaza, but threatened to cut it off if Hamas hijacks that aid.

That still wasn’t enough for people like Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who told me on Wednesday afternoon that innocent civilians in Gaza shouldn’t receive aid. “You’re not helping them. You’re helping Hamas,” he said. 

Biden said in the same speech that the leaders of Hamas don’t represent the Palestinian people — which is a fact — the implication being that long-term substantial aid isn’t realistic in Gaza because Hamas probably will hijack it. At the moment, there is little incentive for Hamas to behave honorably. Biden also said that Hamas has set up critical command and communications operations in Gaza neighborhoods, effectively holding Palestinian civilians hostage.

According to Rick Scott, those innocent civilians are on their own.

The situation is so convoluted that many Republicans are content to ignore nearly all the nuance and just blast away at Biden for being ineffective and weak. That was certainly the Trump response.

But it’s hard to call this president weak when he’s traveled to two war zones during his administration. That takes a great deal of strategic planning and a certain amount of political and personal courage — qualities Donald Trump conspicuously lacks.


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


Lost in this fog of war is the other shoe that may drop. The U.S. has confirmed sending  long-range weapons to Ukraine that can be used to attack targets inside Russia, contradicting Biden’s previous claims that the U.S. would only supply Ukraine with defensive weapons and had no desire to see the conflict expand beyond its borders. “Washington’s decision to send long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine was a grave mistake that will have serious consequences,” Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. said Wednesday, according to Reuters

Ukraine has apparently used these weapons already.

Normally, all this would be grist for the Republican mill in Congress. Biden said the attack on the hospital didn’t come from Israel. We sent missiles to Ukraine, potentially widening the conflict. On a more ordinary day, those stories would dominate the national as well as international news.

But facts are not needed in the Republican-controlled Congress. Arguments against the Democrats and the rest of the world are moot as Republicans continue to dissolve into a puddle of sweat, indecision, menace and chaos.

There is no doubt that Joe Biden offers an example of American leadership that the rest of the world can admire and applaud. But if he really wants to show his courage, he should show up and address a joint session of Congress.

Joe Biden has shown the world an example of American leadership. If he really wants to show courage, maybe he should show up on Capitol Hill and address a joint session of Congress.

That would take a lot of bravery. Speaking the truth in Congress is so long overdue that it might not be recognized, and would likely be treated as more empty rhetoric. But if Biden can go to Ukraine and Israel during a time of actual war, then he can handle the saber-rattling and phlegm-thickened wails from Republicans in Congress as they shred the facts to fit their faltering narrative — and try to tear America down so they can rule over the rubble.

For Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, that’s exactly the problem. “They act like entertainers,” he said, speaking about the Republicans on his way into a classified meeting on Israel late on Wednesday. “It’s time they do their job. Let’s just get it done. That’s a fact.”

Facts have never been more important.

Here’s a fact that Republicans in Congress need to recognize: Jim Jordan is one of the worst choices for speaker ever to be nominated. His own friends call him a legislative terrorist and a bully. His own party said he was instrumental in the Jan. 6 insurrection. And as one of his “friends” said Wednesday, the only thing better than seeing Jordan fail to get the House speaker gig once is “seeing him fail twice.” 

Jordan may decide to risk a third ballot this week, or the House could stand in recess as Republicans and Democrats try to work out a way to give Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick Henry at least enough temporary power to get the House back on the job.

Jordan and his supporters decry the possibility of such a “coalition government,” once again literally arguing against democracy.

As Bill Murray put so memorably in “Stripes,” “That’s a fact, Jack.”

A solar storm from 14,300 years ago previews how Earth may one day plunge into darkness

When the Sun suddenly erupts, it creates what's known as solar flares and coronal mass ejections — and they can cause a lot of mischief when the resultant electromagnetic radiation reaches Earth. One particularly intense geomagnetic storm in 1859, the so-called Carrington Event, knocked out telegraph lines and tricked many people into thinking it was morning at 1 a.m. Yet that event pales in comparison to another solar storm that occurred 14,300 years ago, according to a recent study in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

According to their research, the largest solar storm ever detected struck Earth 14,300 years ago, leaving evidence of its occurrence on the trees. Flash forward fourteen millennia and change, and scientists can use those ancient tree rings to partially reconstruct what happened during that solar event. The team of researchers were assembled from the Collège de France, CEREGE, IMBE, Aix-Marseille University and the University of Leeds. Their mission: Study the ancient trees in the banks of the Drouzet River, near Gap, in the Southern French Alps.

“Finding such a collection of preserved trees was truly exceptional."

Specifically, the scientists compared a radiocarbon spike in those ancient tree rings with measurements of beryllium, an element found in Greenland ice cores that likewise provide records of ancient solar activity. After analyzing the resulting data, the scientists arrived at the hypothesis that a massive solar storm blanketed Earth's atmosphere with wave after wave of energetic particles. The end result was the radiocarbon spikes observed in the tree rings. This type of overall massive solar storm is known as a Miyake Event, and this is the ninth one known to have occurred to Earth within a 15,000 year period.

"Extreme solar storms could have huge impacts on Earth," Tim Heaton, Professor of Applied Statistics in the School of Mathematics at the University of Leeds and co-author of the paper, said in a statement. "Such super storms could permanently damage the transformers in our electricity grids, resulting in huge and widespread blackouts lasting months."

In that same statement Cécile Miramont, associate professor of Paleoenvironments and Paleoclimates at IMBE, Aix-en-Provence University, described how the scientists were only able to learn about this literally Earth-changing Miyake Event because of remarkable good luck.

“Finding such a collection of preserved trees was truly exceptional," Miramont explained. "By comparing the widths of the individual tree rings in the multiple tree trunks, we then carefully pieced together the separate trees to create a longer timeline using a method called dendrochronology. This allowed us to discover invaluable information on past environmental changes and measure radiocarbon over an uncharted period of solar activity.”


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


This type of overall massive solar storm is known as a Miyake Event, and this is the ninth one known to have occurred to Earth within a 15,000 year period.

Not everyone is convinced by the researchers' hypothesis. Speaking to The Washington Post, researcher Florian Adolphi argued that the scientists needed to seek out concentrations of a different isotope, the chlorine-36 isotope, which may also explains the radiocarbon spike in a single year detected in the tree rings.

“Similarly, it remains to be tested, whether the event was really the strongest of the so far observed events,” Adolphi, a senior scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany, told the Post. Despite his criticisms,, Adolphi also said the study was “well done."

We need your help to stay independent

Solar storms in the present have real world implications, with one outburst of space weather surprising SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who lost 40 of his satellites to a geomagnetic storm after launching during active solar weather. Musk's company lost roughly $50 million on the failed venture, and astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics told CNBC that "to lose most of the batch is unheard of. This is huge compared to anything that's happened before."

Musk's solar storm surprise is nothing compared to the surprise experienced by those who might live through earthquakes due to solar events. That at least is the theory promulgated by a controversial 2020 paper which linked solar activity to earthquakes by theorizing that clusters of protons from the sun may correlate to large earthquakes on Earth. Yet in the words at the time of John Emilio Vidale, a seismologist at the University of Southern California, "I'm not an enthusiast. There are a lot of red flags in that paper. I'm frankly surprised it made it through review."

Jim Jordan’s curious rise: A tale of how Christian nationalism consumed the GOP

To most ordinary people, the sneering visage of Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, brings many words to mind: "Jackass." "Bully." "Sexual abuse apologist." "Clownshow."

But when it comes to those who have backed his run for Speaker of the House, the MAGA mind seizes upon their alleged Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

"If Jim Jordan can't get through, Jesus can't," Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont. told Fox News on Tuesday. Zinke loves comparing the former assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State to the Prince of Peace. He used the same line with Newsmax

Similarly, Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., told reporters last week, "You could put Jesus Christ up for speaker of the House and he still wouldn’t get 217." Inevitably, this mentality led prayer chatter to fuse with the unintentionally campy cheerleading from Jordan supporters. 


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


Jesus is an odd figure to invoke when talking about Jim Jordan, who looks at all times like he's ready to give someone a wedgie. But it makes a dark sense within the topsy-turvy world of MAGA politics, and not just because of the hope they can revive Jordan's speakership from the dead. As former Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois keeps patiently explaining to the press, Jordan is a full-blown "Christian nationalist' who imagines "he is truly fighting the dark forces."

Jordan lost on the second ballot on Wednesday, but tellingly, the vast majority of Republicans backed him, even though there were significant signs going in that this is a lost cause. Jordan continues to think, with not insubstantial reasons, he can strongarm the holdouts into backing him.

Jesus is an odd figure to invoke when talking about Jim Jordan, who looks at all times like he's ready to give someone a wedgie.

The holdouts are getting most attention, but the real story here is how most Republicans have come to support Jordan, a proud bully who does not care about legislation, only tearing down Democrats through any means necessary. Jordan's rise to this be even a plausible Speaker isn't just another piece of proof that the GOP has been taken over by Christian nationalists. It also tells us quite a bit about what Christian nationalism is — and how, despite the name, it has little to do with sincere belief in God or in the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

Because so many conservatives chatter incessantly about prayer, the Bible, and Jesus, there's a tendency in the Beltway press to treat religion as the foundation that all other right wing beliefs are built on. But that reading is backwards. In reality, faith is the window dressing draped around an ideology of hate, meant to pretty up an ugly worldview. 

Polling data bears this out. In February, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) put out a survey showing that white evangelicals in the U.S. are defined more by the "white" part than any coherent faith tradition. More than two-thirds of white evangelicals signed off on the concept of Christian nationalism, which is a belief, as PRRI president Robert Jones explained, "that America is destined to be a promised land for European Christians." "Christian," then, is less about a set of religious beliefs and more an ethnic, tribalistic marker. 

This is why the vast majority of white evangelicals reject a very basic teaching of Jesus: "I was the stranger and you welcomed me." More than 90% of white evangelicals, for instance, want to make it much harder for people to immigrate to the U.S. Most Christian nationalists also believe immigrants are "invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background" and want restrictions on immigration meant to exclude people of a different race or ethnic background than themselves. Unsurprisingly, Christian nationalists tend to be very sexist, with 7 out of 10 agreeing that a woman should "submit" to her husband. 

Race and gender matter a lot to Christian nationalists. What doesn't matter so much, however, is God. About 40% of self-proclaimed "evangelicals" go to church once a year or less. 

Considering how Americans tend to exagerrate how often they go to church, odds are high that the percentage of evangelicals who never darken a church door is even higher than that. 

We need your help to stay independent


Donald Trump, of course, understood this perfectly. His efforts to feign Christian belief are laughable, and there are endless stories of how he makes fun of people who actually believe that Jesus stuff. None of this matters to his fiercely loyal evangelical base, because it is not and was never about religion for them. Trump is their hero because he agrees that white conservatives are the only "real" Americans and that everyone else should be a second class citizen or be kicked out entirely. 

Jordan is also the perfect avatar for this kind of "Christianity." He wishes not only to ban abortion, but has fought to prevent women from getting birth control. He opposes same-sex marriage and securing the voting rights of Americans regardless of race. And, of course, he's an election denier who not only backs the Big Lie, but, according to former Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, was an instrumental player in Trump's attempted coup. 

When Jordan took grief for voting against a bill that would protect voting rights, especially of Black Americans, he sniped, "Only Americans should vote in American elections." He defended this claim by pretending to be worried about non-citizens voting in elections. But of course, nothing about the legislation he objected to would allow non-citizens to vote. Instead, his comment should be understood in the same light as Trump's Big Lie: As a way to signal a belief that non-white people are not legitimate citizens, without coming right out and saying it. 

In this, Jordan reflects the majority view of the GOP base, as Aaron Blake of the Washington Post wrote in an analysis. "[P]olls show nearly 7 in 10 Republicans subscribe to the view that President Biden’s win wasn’t legitimate," Blake writes. It would be a mistake to read such data too literally. Most of these people don't actually believe that the election was stolen through some vast conspiracy and, in fact, most can't even articulate what they think the evidence supposedly is.

The Big Lie is a front for the real belief, which is that most Joe Biden voters shoudn't have had the right to vote to begin with, that their skin color or religious identity or sexual orientation or political leanings disqualify them from being "real" Americans. That's why the Big Lie is impervious to factual correction. Proof the election wasn't stolen doesn't matter, because what they're mad about is that people they hate legally voted.

Jordan, like Trump, is popular on the right because, not despite, of his inability to even playact the part of the loving Christian. He's a loudmouthed bully who believes victory can only be gained through crushing the opposition. He cannot cooperate with Democrats, because that would mean conceding that they have a right to exist. Jordan's candidacy isn't dead yet, even though he's both unqualified and likely has been involved in efforts to overthrow democray. That shows that his a viewpoint that has taken over the Republican party. Whatever noises some may make about tolerance and moderation to swing voters, the GOP has fully morphed into a Christian nationalist party that rejects the right of most of us to even call ourselves "Americans."

“Behind the Seams”: 6 major revelations about Dolly Parton’s famed “town tramp” sense of style

In addition to being a music icon, Dolly Parton is a fashion icon.

The Leading Lady of Country, who is known for her acclaimed collection of country and Christmas ballads, is also revered for her famed look of big hair, long manicured nails, bold makeup and flashy rhinestones. Fashion has long been a staple feature of Parton’s career — so much so that it’s also the main focus of the singer-songwriter’s latest book, “Behind the Seams: My Life in Rhinestones.”

Released on Oct. 17, Parton’s literary work “documents her life and career in clothes and costume,” as explained by The Guardian. Parton invites her fans to take a step inside her vast closet through a series of 450 photos of her most famous looks, including the rhinestone-studded gowns she wore in Hollywood films like “9 to 5” and “Rhinestone” or the country-style getups she wore on “The Porter Wagoner Show” in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

“Behind the Seams: My Life in Rhinestones” is a joint effort with Parton’s niece, Rebecca Seaver, and music journalist Holly George-Warren. In addition to fashion photographs, the book includes profiles and remembrances from Parton’s favorite designers, makeup artists and stylists.

“From early on I loved the big hair and makeup, the long nails, the high heels, the flashy clothes,” she wrote. “But believe it or not, I had to fight for that look.”

From Parton’s go-to makeup hack to the provocative inspiration behind her signature look, here are 6 revelations about Parton’s legendary style:

01
Parton always patterned her look after the “town tramp”
Dolly PartonDolly Parton attends the 61st Annual GRAMMY Awards at Staples Center on February 10, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic/Getty Images)

The “town tramp,” Parton explained, is a woman who wore high heels and tight skirts — a look that was deemed “trashy” and “cheap” by many.

 

“She was flamboyant. She had bright red lipstick, long red fingernails. She had high-heeled shoes, little floating plastic goldfish in the heels of them, short skirts, low-cut tops, and I just thought she was beautiful,” Parton told The Guardian. “When people would say, ‘She ain’t nothing but trash,’ I would always say, ‘Well, that’s what I’m gonna be when I grow up.’”

 

Parton previously spoke about her “town tramp” look on the "WorkLife with Adam Grant" podcast. In it, she recalled how many of her vocal critics urged her to change her look, namely her voluminous hair and gaudy attire. Parton, however, decided to ignore the so-called advice she received and instead, stay true to herself:

 

“The way I look and the way I looked then was a country girl's idea of glam, just like I wrote in my 'Backwoods Barbie' song," Parton explained. "People wanted me to change, they thought I looked cheap. But I patterned my look after the town tramp.

 

"It was really like a look I was after," she continued. "I wasn't a natural beauty. So, I just like to look the way I look. I'm so outgoing inside in my personality, that I need the way I look to match all of that."

02
Parton’s grandfather and father both hated the way she dressed
Dolly PartonDolly Parton 1978 (Chris Walter/WireImage/Getty Images)

Her grandfather, a preacher, would even physically punish Parton over her unconventional sense of style:

 

“I was willing to pay for it,” she said. “I’m very sensitive, I didn’t like being disciplined — it hurt my feelings so bad to be scolded or whipped or whatever. But sometimes there’s just that part of you that’s willing, if you want something bad enough, to go for it.”

 

Years later, Parton wrote the song “The Sacrifice,” which appeared on her 2011 album “Better Day.” That experience of wanting to express her individuality no matter the cost was summed up in these lyrics: ‘I was gonna be rich no matter how much it cost / And I was going to win no matter how much I lost / Down through the years I’ve kept my eye on the prize / And you ask if it’s worth the sacrifice.’

03
Record label executives wanted Parton to “tone done” her look
Dolly PartonDolly Parton at the 58th Academy of Country Music Awards from Ford Center at The Star on May 11, 2023 in Frisco, Texas. (Christopher Polk/Penske Media via Getty Images)

Many criticized her style while others poked fun at it. Nevertheless, Parton persisted and chose to stay true to herself. 

 

“That was what my mama always used to say: to thine own self be true. I put a lot of stock in that,” she told The Guardian. “Everything I do, whether it’s my personality, how I conduct myself and business, or whatever, if I do it my way, according to what I understand and believe, there’s a strength in that. You can think, ‘I can stand by this, I can live by this.’”

 

And although Parton did care what people thought, she said she “never cared so much that it keeps me from being me.” 

 

Parton also explained how her extravagant looks actually “came from a very serious place.” Growing up in Tennessee, Parton saw women who built their lives around bearing children and growing their families. Her own mother and aunts knew how to be good mothers, she said. But that was not her calling in life:

 

“My mom and my aunts — I grew up with women knowing how to be good mothers, but that was just not what I felt God had in mind for me. Because somebody’s got to entertain those people, to write songs about them,” Parton said. “I can write a song as if I had a house full of kids, I can write a song as if I’ve got a cheating husband, even though I never did. But I know what it’s like; I’ve seen it, been around it. There’s nothing in this world that’s foreign to me, that I don’t get or understand.”

04
Parton’s signature style was inspired by provocative lingerie catalogs
Dolly PartonDolly Parton performs on the Pyramid stage during day three of the Glastonbury Festival at Worthy Farm in Pilton on June 29, 2014 in Glastonbury, England. (Jim Dyson/Getty Images)

In particular, Parton was inspired by the Fredericks of Hollywood catalogs, she told People in a recent interview.

 

“I was kind of influenced by those early days, with women that I would see, like the loose women in our town, or just people that I’d see in magazines and the Frederick’s of Hollywood catalog,” Parton said. “I mean, that spoke to me.”

 

The looks within those catalogs, Parton continued, “seemed to be my style and seemed to fit my personality, so I just went for it.

 

“I was never one to care as much about what other people thought of me as I felt about what I thought of me, because I felt if I was comfortable in whatever I was wearing, then people would be comfortable around me.”

 

Parton added, “Even though I'm sure people might have been uncomfortable thinking they would be uncomfortable looking like I did, if I seemed comfortable in it, they were willing to accept it. So I just kind of grew in the business kind of like that, being a little bit over the top about most things."

05
Parton goes to sleep with a full face of makeup
Dolly PartonDolly Parton (Bob King/Redferns/Getty Images)

She revealed that she’s been doing it for decades now:

 

“When I arrived in LA in the '80s,” Parton wrote, per Insider, “I started sleeping with my makeup on, partly because of the earthquakes. I thought, ‘I'm not heading out on the streets without makeup in case there are cameras out there! I'm going to be ready to go!’”

 

Another reason why she refrains from taking off her makeup before bed is for her longtime husband Carl Dean: “I don't want to go to bed looking like a hag with Carl,” she said.

 

"It doesn't matter when you clean your face," Parton clarified, "as long as you clean it once a day. After I wake up, I do all the little rituals, and then I start over again and go out every day and look good all day long."

06
Jumpsuits became Parton's “go-to look” on stage to stop fans from getting a “peep show”
Dolly PartonDolly Parton performs onstage during the 37th Annual Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony at Microsoft Theater on November 05, 2022 in Los Angeles, California. (Amy Sussman/WireImage/Getty Images)

Parton said that compared to skirts and dresses, jumpsuits became her go-to concert attire amid the 70s:

 

“A new popular style in the '70s were form-fitting jumpsuits and pantsuits with big bell-bottom pant legs — in fact, this is one of my favorite styles of all time. I have them in a rainbow of colors,” she wrote.

 

Parton continued, “Practically speaking, wearing jumpsuits on stage prevented folks in the front row from getting the kind of ‘peep show’ that wearing a miniskirt could sometimes accidentally offer.”

 

She added that jumpsuits are “pretty” and “workable.”

 

“I like looking elegant onstage, and I love it when you can see the silhouette of my legs when I wear sheer bell bottoms — that's pretty, but it's workable.

 

“Since I had a real small waist and was short, I thought the jumpsuit style showed off my body better. And with a jumpsuit, you don't have to wear a belt," Parton wrote. "Those jumpsuits became my go-to look in that decade — and my big ol' bell bottoms were ringing louder than most."

“Biden has preserved the leverage”: Aaron David Miller on how to wield “influence with the Israelis”

It is true that this new war is another chapter in a many decades-long crisis in the Middle East, however, the events of Oct. 7 — and Israel’s response to them — are very different. On that horrible day, Hamas killed more than 1,400 people, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians. This is the largest number of Jewish people killed in one twenty-four-hour period since the Holocaust. In response to Hamas’ terror attacks and hostage-taking on Oct. 7, the Israeli military has launched airstrikes and engaged in other kinetic actions in Gaza. Israel said it dropped 6,000 bombs on the Gaza Strip during the first six days of war with Hamas, that is more bombs than the US-led coalition dropped in any month during the fight against ISIS. Israel has also mobilized 300,000 reserve soldiers in preparation for a ground invasion.

In response to this crisis, President Joe Biden will be visiting Israel on Wednesday with the goal of signaling America’s support, showing concern about protecting the human rights of the people who live in Gaza, and also trying to ensure that the war does not spread into a larger regional conflict that could potentially involve the United States, Iran, and perhaps even Russia.

And never to be overlooked: a prolonged war between Israel and Hamas (especially if it includes the (re)occupation of Gaza) will come at great human cost to both sides. Israel’s blockade of Gaza has already resulted in shortages of fresh water, food, fuel, medical supplies, and other essentials. Hospitals have also been destroyed by Israel’s air attacks. The Palestinian Health Ministry is reporting that at least 3,000 people in Gaza have already been killed by Israel’s air attacks.

In an attempt to better understand what may come next in the Israel – Hamas war, President Biden’s (and America’s) unique relationship with Israel, and why comparing the terrorist attacks of Oct. 7 to those of Sept. 11 may not be that useful, I recently spoke with Aaron David Miller. He is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on U.S. foreign policy. Between 1978 and 2003, Miller served at the State Department as an historian, analyst, negotiator, and advisor to Republican and Democratic secretaries of state, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israel peace process, most recently as the senior advisor for Arab-Israeli negotiations. He is a recipient of the State Department’s Distinguished, Superior, and Meritorious Honor Awards.

Miller is also a global affairs analyst for CNN and is a frequent commentator on NPR, BBC, and Sirius XM radio.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

As a human being and an expert on international relations and the Middle East, how are you managing your emotions of the terror attacks by Hamas on Israel and what is now a war?

I have spent more than 20 years as a Middle East analyst, negotiator, and advisor in a half dozen administrations. In response to a crisis like this, I would have been incredibly active. I've been through my fair share of crises on the Arab Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian side. But over the last 20-some years since leaving government, I vowed to create an analytical lane in our public conversation, a "look in the mirror lane," where I confront what we did right and what we did wrong. In doing that I tried to detach myself, to the degree I could, from selling American policy. I am also a member of the American Jewish community; I spent a lot of time in Israel. I felt myself falling almost immediately into the role of analyst, not advocate. I thought to myself how odd, I mean, look at the suffering. More Jews were killed within that 24-hour period in any day since the end of the Holocaust.

"I'm very cautious and risk-averse in pronouncing and making final judgments because the arc of history bends in very strange and unpredictable ways that we cannot foresee."

With the Israeli blockade, and the punishing airstrikes in Gaza, what is going to become the future for 3.2 million Palestinians? Half of whom are under the age of 15, literally, with nowhere else to go. I must examine this crisis in terms of the Israeli dimension, the Palestinian dimension, and look for some sort of place where I can continue to separate my role as a human being with all of the emotions tugging me in various directions, from my role as an analyst. If I wasn't able to do all these interviews, I believe that I would be in a much worse place given my commitment to doing everything possible to achieve an equitable and durable peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

We need your help to stay independent

The other thing that comes to mind is how I was in Jerusalem on Oct. 6, 1973. There are reminiscences of the sirens wailing, it was a complete blackout. In one of my CNN interviews, I told the host that there was no CNN, there was no social media, there was no internet, there was a complete blackout. It was traumatic: 2,800 Israelis died. But within six years —1979 — the Israelis would sign a treaty of peace with Egypt. So, 20 years later, I'm sitting on the White House lawn, watching Arafat, Rabin, and Clinton sign the Oslo Accords, convinced in what became a galactic misjudgment, that the Israeli-Palestinian issue would now become irreversible. 1973 went from trauma to hope; 1993 from hope to trauma. I'm very cautious and risk-averse in pronouncing and making final judgments because the arc of history bends in very strange and unpredictable ways that we cannot foresee.

What type of work is being done by the narrative frame that these attacks are the equivalent of 9/11 for Israel? When I hear that language, I am deeply concerned because of the strategic miscalculations that the United States made after those attacks and the massive human tragedy those decisions caused.

First of all, it depends on who's saying it.

9/11 was an idiosyncratic American response. What happened here bears some resemblance. Intelligence failure. The savagery and the brutality were taken from the ISIS playbook — which I suspect was inspired by ISIS and Al Qaeda videos. But I think that's where the analogy really ends. 9/11 and what followed was America's effort to guarantee its security based on the premise that the U.S. would now be vulnerable to terror attacks. That was the new story. We do not have a proximity problem with al Qaeda or ISIS.

"I really don't like that 9/11 comparison."

The Israeli context here is very different. Neither Palestinians nor Israelis, the adversaries, Hamas and the government of Israel, the Israeli public, however you want to sort describe this conflict, neither side has anywhere else to go. That poses a different set of challenges for the Israeli government. This is not Algeria under the French where the French could sail away. This is not the North Americans or French in Vietnam or the Russians in Afghanistan. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a place to go and they're not going anywhere. The proximity problem necessitates an entirely different set of responses. If you follow the logic chain of 9/11 in Israel, it will mean a perpetual conflict, literally kilometers away from their border — and that's not sustainable. That hasn't been the story of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the last 40 years. Yes, there has been violence, two Intifadas. But it's been highlighted by periods of accommodation and tension and actual agreements in the Arab-Israeli arena. This has been marked by many kinds of twists and turns. I really don't like that 9/11 comparison.

And then of course, the fear and desire for retribution took the United States into the two longest wars in American history where the standard for winning was not could we win, but when and how can we extricate ourselves from Afghanistan in Iraq? It cost the United States, the Afghan people, and the Iraqi people enormous sacrifice. For what? I hope that's not the logic chain that people are creating for this particular and horrific round of events in Israel and Gaza and the region …. because there will be other rounds.

What were the types of conversations that were taking place in Israel at the highest levels as these attacks took place and in the immediate aftermath?

There is a national unity government in Israel, which is frankly the only piece of good news over the last week or so. Of note, the national unity government has brought in former Defense Minister Benny Gantz. These are hardened veterans. They're rational thinkers. They're not going to be pushed into anything by the extremists in Netanyahu's government. They're also not going to be pushed into anything with respect to the Prime Minister's peculiar political problem that he has. This will be as logical and rational a set of decisions made because the Israeli Defense Forces has for decades avoided what is about to happen in Gaza. They avoided it for several reasons. This operation will be Fallujah on steroids and there is “the day after” problem.

There is also a type of symbiosis here, which I wrote about in Foreign Affairs in 2014. For the Netanyahu government, three states were the ideal solution. Hamas is staying in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority controls 40% of the West Bank. The state of Israel. That is a good status quo for Netanyahu. Because if you had a unified Palestinian national movement, one gun, one authority, and one negotiating position. they might have had some leverage in serious negotiations with Israel. That's not what Netanyahu wants; He doesn't want to become the midwife of the Palestinian state; he wants to become the midwife of an Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement.

"We will have influence with the Israelis at some point as this conflict evolves — and probably just to de-escalate it. But not now."

What makes this attack by Hamas so different is the intelligence and operational failure and how this is the largest terror attack in the history of the state of Israel. Hamas engaged in vicious, barbaric, savage, ISIS-style indiscriminate killings, and took hostages. The Israelis are not going to repeat the US and the invasion of Iraq with insufficient forces and a willful misunderstanding of the terrain. If the Israelis fail, they will withdraw. They're not going to permanently reoccupy Gaza. It is not clear what the day after entails.

If you believe their rhetoric, it's not just a question of destroying Hamas's military capacity, it is a question of destroying their sovereignty and ability to govern Gaza. Hamas is not a membership organization with cards and meetings and social occasions. It's a movement. It was formed in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it has deep roots in that community. It represents an idea. “I'm struggling against Israel!” I asked a Palestinian decades ago, "why do you support Arafat?" He said Arafat is a stone that I throw at the Israelis every day. An American version of this is that Donald Trump is a stone various constituencies throw at the elites or their own anger or whatever. Hamas is a stone that Gazans throw at the Israelis — even though Hamas brings misery down on their heads. What happens now is that they are going to experience the most misery of them all after these attacks on Oct. 7.

What were the types of conversations in the Biden administration like? What are the calculations there?

Washington's calculations are different. The presidential model here for Biden is Bill Clinton. Biden is in love with the concept of Israel, the idea of Israel, which was probably fashioned during the late 60s, early 70s. He's an American president who has more experience with Israeli prime ministers and more experience with Israel than any other president in the history of the country. He feels himself part of the Israeli story. He has no love for Benjamin Netanyahu. But he has a tremendous sensibility toward the protection of Israeli security interests. During Biden's speech about the Hamas attacks on Israel, he talked about "the black hole of loss." That's a specific reference to his own losses in life. So, his persona impels him to the default position which is that the United States is going to support Israel. The politics are heavily in that direction too, because the Republican Party has emerged as the go-to party on Israel, "The Israel, right or wrong party." Biden cannot afford nor does he want to be painted as an adversary of Israel, and he does not want to show weakness.


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


My read on this is that President Biden has clearly communicated that he's prepared to give the Israelis the time, the space, and the support, $2 billion, and probably a supplemental, to do what they think they need to do. But in being so supportive of Israel now, Biden has preserved the leverage that he's going to have to use to have some very tough conversations with Netanyahu about how the war is going. When is the time to stop? What about proportionality? What are you doing about all the civilian casualties and deaths? Will the U.S. be involved intimately in trying to pick up the pieces? It depends on how it ends. But the humanitarian impact as a result of Israeli airstrikes and blockades is turning out to be a catastrophe – more than 2,600 Palestinians killed and 9,000 wounded according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.  Biden is ramping up the pressure on Israel to ameliorate this dimension of the crisis.

How do we balance Israel's security concerns and inherent right to self-defense with protecting the human rights of the people in Gaza and the Occupied territories? It is regular people on both sides who are going to be made to suffer because of the decisions of their leaders.

You're asking for a balance that the United States has never struck. It's never struck a balance because of our country's special relationship with Israel. It's not that we're heartless or cruel. It's that we have this special relationship with the Israelis. My concern is the margin of dehumanization. But I don't think that's the problem for the administration. If Biden said to the Israelis, listen, I feel your pain, but you're not going to do this. What do you mean we're not going to do it? Biden tells the Israelis that we're going to sanction you. Unless you adopt our view of what you should do in response to these Hamas attacks this is going to have a very negative impact on the US-Israeli relationship. That conversation might take place in a galaxy far, far away. But it's not going to take place on planet Earth, that's for sure. There's no justice in this conflict on this side of heaven. There just isn't. Think about 9/11 again. Where you stand is where you sit. Israel has been through three 9/11s proportionally. What did the US do in the wake of 9/11? We're gonna get them! We're gonna kill them! There was bipartisan and public support for that. Let's be honest. There's no point dancing around this. The United States is preternaturally supportive of Israel. We will have influence with the Israelis at some point as this conflict evolves — and probably just to de-escalate it. But not now.

What is your assessment of the concern that the war between Israel and Hamas could expand into a larger regional conflict?

It's possible. But I don't see Iranian or Hezbollah calculations now trending in the direction of wanting to escalate. But it's a war, and it takes twists and turns and people make mistakes. 

More than peer pressure, coercing people through drug use is on the rise. Here’s how we can fight it

Around the U.S., overdose rates have spiked, much of this being propelled by the introduction of illicit fentanyl — which is up to 100 times more potent than morphine — into the nation’s drug supply. Fentanyl quickly has become the bogeyman that "bath salts" were a decade ago and that marijuana was some 80 years ago, with many puzzled at the frequency in which it is used and implicated in deaths.

In the 1950s, sociologist Howard Becker conducted a series of interviews with marijuana users, seeking to unpack the panic around the drug and those who used it. Becker’s work in this space has become an important way of understanding a basic, but still perplexing, question among substance use researchers like us: Why do people use drugs, particularly when the potential negative consequences can be so deep and well-known?

As Becker explained it, drug use was something of an acquired taste that one had to grow into. Specifically, first, one had to learn how to properly use the drug. Second, they had to perceive the drug as being responsible for producing some kind of effect, like relaxation or joy. Third, the person had to then come to enjoy that effect.

While this is a really mechanical way of considering how we “experience” drug use, Becker’s classic model provokes a larger series of existential questions that touch on dense, philosophical topics like free will. It doesn’t fully address them, but it does stimulate a fairly intuitive observation: Any answer to the question of whether we have the free will to do (or not do) drugs depends on who stands in the way — or who’s there to facilitate it.

In recent years, forced drug use has become a growing risk factor for the development and worsening of substance use disorders and social stress. Forced substance use is a transactional dynamic where an individual compels someone into using a substance, such as alcohol or heroin, to induce a particular outcome — like getting sex, money, domestic favors or other acts of subservience from the victim. Domestic violence forums on platforms like Reddit are teeming with tales of these harrowing, unpredictable experiences, with many of the victims just learning that this is a “thing” and one experienced by many others. 

Substance use coercion is less about the act and more about the gratification that comes from domination.

Most of us go through multiple forms of quid pro quo like this at some point in our lives. As kids, our parents probably told us to eat all of our dinner or risk not being able to go outside and play, or maybe a high school teacher temporarily let us off the hook for skipping class if we agreed to do an extra make-up assignment. These are generally innocuous and well-intentioned efforts meant to get us to do something that’s objectively good for us. However, when forced drug use occurs, it’s neither innocuous nor well-intentioned. And it often occurs parallel to what’s referred to as substance use coercion.

Like forced drug use or sexual assault, substance use coercion is less about the act and more about the gratification that comes from domination, which is a tool for manipulation, not a “tough love” approach to imparting life lessons. Substance use coercion is a pattern of tactics used by an abusive partner to weaponize their partner’s substance use — or the stigma or illicit nature of many substances — against them to maintain power and control.

In 2014, pop artist Kesha alleged that her superstar producer, Dr. Luke, had sexually assaulted and bullied her into taking drugs for nearly a decade, a claim which many at the time scoffed at, framing her as an artist who couldn’t handle the rigors of the music industry and was ultimately clout-chasing. It wasn’t until just this past summer that Kesha and Luke’s rape and defamation cases were settled.

Kesha’s alleged experience illustrates a common tactic of substance use coercion: forcing or pressuring a partner to use substances, to use more than they had wanted or to use new and more addictive substances. A substance use counselor in southern Illinois, Diana, who we interviewed for one of our studies, explained the following: “Each and every one of them if you really sit with them, they have a story. And why they started, it’s either a girlfriend that was forced into using by her boyfriend, or it would be basically because of peer pressure and depression. So, I feel sorry for a lot of those people; but it’s very rare when you find someone that wants to use just because they want to use.”


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


Substance use coercion can also be counter-intuitive: In some cases, a person may threaten to disclose their partner’s drug use if that partner stops using the drug, as a means of keeping the victim under their thrall. One survivor we spoke with described how this happened to her: “I had got 10 years clean. So in the midst of that, I was trying to do things right.” This is when he partner’s subversion came. “‘I’ll call [Child Protective Services] and get these kids taken away from you’” she says, mirroring the language of her ex. “Just because I was trying to walk the straight-and-narrow.”

There are also cases of abusers withholding means of accessing drug use treatment and other resources. In his kinetic defamation trial in the U.K. with his ex-wife, actress Amber Heard, actor Johnny Depp, who Heard alleged had psychologically and emotionally abused her, alleged that Heard withheld his withdrawal medications as he detoxed, describing it as the lowest point in his life.

Abusive partners are hip to the thin margin of error that their drug-using partners have.

A 2012 survey conducted by The National Domestic Violence Hotline and The National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health found that 37.5% of a general sample of callers reported that their abusive partner threatened to report their substance use to the authorities to keep them from getting something that they want or need, including custody of children, a job, benefits or a protective order, and virtually anything else of emotional or material value that you can imagine. Abusive partners are hip to the thin margin of error that their drug-using partners have.

Once a survivor has a criminal record due to substance use coercion, it creates seismic barriers to stabilization. This includes barriers to getting a job, finding stable housing, accessing public benefits, and if the child welfare system has been involved, being unified with their children.

These realities become even more complex when we think about the effects of substance use coercion on families, including the ways that substance use is treated by Child Protective Services. At least 1 out of 8 children live with at least one parent who has a substance use disorder. And roughly 40% of child removals from homes, for example by Child Protective Services, are due to a parent in the home having a substance use disorder. America’s child welfare and criminal legal systems are notoriously hard on women who get caught up in drug-related cases, particularly when they’re Black. These survivors not only have to negotiate and navigate their abusive partner’s threats and abuse, but also the weaponization of systems against them and laws that punish their very survival.

At the heart of substance use coercion is a desire for control and power whereby the abusive partner hijacks their partner’s autonomy to enforce dependency. It’s vindictive, humiliating, and also highly effective, representing a vortex of power that draws a person in, leaving them few options. In this respect, substance use coercion is a mutation of the odious "pickup artist" movement, the point at which the target has been fully undermined and psychologically manipulated into submission. These adjoining ideologies are heavily validated by a public that blames survivors for the violence that abusive partners inflict on them and that stigmatizes and supports the criminalization of drug use.

At the heart of substance use coercion is a desire for control and power whereby the abusive partner hijacks their partner’s autonomy.

It's also reinforced by a culture of forced substance use that permeates our world in ways that haven’t been previously understood and appreciated by public health experts. Greek life, for example, is rife with cases of forced drug use — used by fraternity and sorority leaders as a litmus test for the dedication and loyalty of pledges. Similar practices have been seen throughout collegiate sports, too, as the recent Northwestern University football program scandal showed.

This can also be seen in instances of “sextortion,” wherein an abusive person weaponizes sensitive details or intimate images against someone to threaten and control them. Abusive people leverage the threat of disclosure — for example, to the victims’ family members and friends — to shame and control the victim. However, taken together, these cases have historically been written off as the errant acts of immature youth rather than predators, particularly when the perpetrator is white.

During Becker’s time, substance use was something of a cultural oddity, but like today, it was policed and criminalized in wide-ranging ways, and people frequently conceived it as being, first and foremost, a result of peer pressure. The mostly ineffective Reagan-era D.A.R.E. and "Just Say No" campaigns of the 1980s heavily deployed the theory of peer pressure to rally kids away from the seductive power of drugs. To this end, forced substance use is an extension of how we have conventionally thought of peer pressure. But substance use coercion is not restricted to substance use: it has all-encompassing, radiating impacts that invariably affect everyone in the victim’s immediate radius.

From this vantage point, it’s also possible to see substance use coercion as a microcosm of a highly complex history of manipulative geopolitics. In 1839, in response to what it dubiously labeled as unfair trade practices in relation to China’s vast opium cache, the British Empire initiated a four-year war with the Qing dynasty, which had recently banned sales of the drug over concerns about increasing cases of addiction in the ascendant country, an act the British sought to undermine using India-based smugglers. British subversion and battlefield mastery not only effectively ended China’s opium prohibition, but it facilitated the British acquisition of Hong Kong. A second so-called “opium war” between the British and Chinese, again won by the British, followed roughly two decades later as a result of British dissatisfaction with Qing’s concessions, with spoils including greater British influence in the country and region that persists to this day.

We need your help to stay independent

To this day, the effort to disrupt substance use coercion remains stymied by both a conceptual and legalistic roadblock, both of which is amplified by economic interests and moral ambiguities tied to the War on Drugs. To this end, there are numerous policies in place, from “failure to report” policies to those that criminalize pregnant women who use substances, that are especially harmful to people experiencing substance use coercion. 

What can we do to disrupt the practice of substance use coercion? The first step is to advocate for policies that would contribute to the development of systems that decriminalize substance use and end the War on Drugs, while recognizing that this alone won’t fully dampen the stigma that abusers leverage to coerce their victims. However, one of the things that makes substance use coercion so dangerously effective is the constant threat of entanglement with the criminal legal and carceral systems, and divorcing the legal aspect of drug use from the moral aspect will push the public writ large to reconceptualize their views.

Second, access to healthcare, including supports for those who have substance use disorders, is challenging even in the best of situations. Increased funding, training and support for healthcare systems that serve people who use substances is critical.

Third, we can all be more alert to the experiences of people in our lives with substance use disorders, being mindful of those in their lives who may leverage drugs to suppress them, and supporting and linking these individuals to resources like the National Domestic Violence Hotline when coercive incidents arise. Measures to prevent or mitigate most modern public health crises don’t typically arise until we begin to see cases of it in the local news over and over again. This is a rare emergent epidemic that we can still nip in the bud.

Dolly Parton talks greedy politicians, present and past during appearance on “The View”

During a segment of "The View" on Wednesday to promote her new book, "Behind the Seams: My Life in Rhinestones," as well as her new album, "Rockstar," Dolly Parton did something she doesn't do very often — talk politics — while breaking down the inspiration for the track, "World On Fire," which features the lyrics "greedy politicians, present and past, they wouldn't know the truth if it bit 'em in the a**"

Speaking to the hosts about the sleepless night that led her to first sit down and play around with the song a little, during a bolt of creativity she's experienced countless times in her vast career, Parton set the scene, saying, "I thought, well, I don't know what I'm doing up but I'll make me a cup of coffee, and all of a sudden I started singing this song because I had watched the news the night before, as I have many times, thinking what in the world are we doing to each other and to this world?" 

Describing her writing process in further detail, she said, "I just felt led to write the song. I've got one more song I have to add to the 'Rockstar' album and my heart was just heavy with all the stuff, that I'm sure we're all heavy-hearted about these days. And I was just trying to throw a little light and try to make us think a little about what we're doing and seeing, if we might step up and try to make a change."

Watch her live performance of "World On Fire" (from The 58th ACM Awards here:

 

Matthew Vaughn quit “X-Men: The Last Stand” over dirty trick to get Halle Berry to return as Storm

Matthew Vaughn explained why he rejected the offer to direct the 2006 film “X-Men: The Last Stand” after he learned about a studio executive’s plan to trick Halle Berry into reprising her role as Storm.

During the 2023 New York Comic Con, Vaughn revealed that a fake script — which fit Berry’s vision for what she wanted her character to be like — was allegedly created for the actor. That script, however, would be ditched once Berry agreed to the role, Vaughn claimed while recounting the hoopla.

“One of the main reasons I quit ‘X-Men 3,’ and this is a true story. I went into one of the executive’s offices and I saw an ‘X3’ script, and I immediately knew it was a lot fatter. I was like, ‘What the hell is this draft?’” Vaughn said. “He went, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ and I’m like, ‘No, no. I’m the director. I’m worrying about this draft.’ He wouldn’t tell me, so I grabbed it literally — it was like a crazy moment — opened the first page, and it said, ‘Africa. Storm. Kids dying of no water. She creates a thunderstorm and saves all these children.’”

“I thought it was a pretty cool idea,” Vaughn continued. “I said, ‘What is this?’ They said, ‘This is the Halle Berry script, because she hasn’t signed on yet. This is what she wants it to be. And once she signs on, we’ll throw it in the bin.’ I thought, if you’re going to do that to an Oscar-winning actress who plays Storm, I quit.”

Vaughn ultimately dropped out of the production just two weeks before filming began, later signing on to direct and co-write the 2011 film “X-Men: First Class.”

 

Don’t toss your Skittles just yet: California’s latest food ban, explained

California just banned four food additives — and now everyone is talking about what this means for the future of candy.

Referred to as the “Skittles ban” (a bit of a misnomer as the bill won’t actually affect the rainbow candy), this legislation aims to ban brominated vegetable oil, propyl paraben, red dye No. 3 and potassium bromate from food products by 2027. The additives have been linked to risk of cancer and “hyperactivity in children,” according to the new California bill, passed in early September.

Why Is It Called ‘The Skittles Ban’?

An earlier draft of this bill included a fifth additive: titanium dioxide, a food coloring agent that is found in Skittles (it’s what makes that candy coating sooooo smooth). The chemical had been linked to damage in DNA, called genotoxicity.

Additionally, when announcing the passing of the bill, Governor Gavin Newsom used a bag of Skittles that had been “produced in the EU” to demonstrate how food additives are used — or, rather, not used — in other parts of the world. The pairing of the previous version of the bill, coupled with Newsom's puzzling Skittles example led to the internet glomming onto the rainbow candies as a prized, yet incorrect, example.

What Is Actually Banned?

Strawberry Yoohoo, Brach’s candy corn, some Little Debbie and Hostess products (sorry Cosmic Brownies and Mini Muffins) and Peeps are all going to be impacted by the bill. However, the Environmental Working Group — who, along with Consumer Reports, pushed for the bill — says over 10,000 products could potentially be affected.

Why Now And Why These Products?

California has been a leader in “preventative” banning and extra-cautious labeling of food ingredients. For example, Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm and it impacts foods ranging from shellfish to protein powders. So, it’s not completely surprising that another new bill would come out of California — but this one has the potential to impact how candies are manufactured throughout the greater US.

Essentially, the ban stems from the fact that these particular additives have not been tested or evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration for about 40 to 50 years. Even so, the FDA has, over the past decades, already limited the use of a couple of these items: brominated vegetable oil and red dye No. 3.

In the ’70s, the FDA announced a limit on the use of brominated vegetable oil. The decision was based on studies conducted in the late ’60s, in which rats were fed aggressively large quantities of the oil (amounts we wouldn’t be able to consume in many lifetimes over) and which resulted in concerns about “possible effects on the heart.”

In the ’90s, red dye No. 3 was banned for cosmetic use. The additive, also known as erythrosine, was banned by the FDA for cosmetic use in 1990 following the discovery of potential links tying it to thyroid cancer. However, these claims came from unpublished animal research.

If you noticed a lot of hesitant language, that’s on purpose. Science is an ever-changing beast, which makes it notoriously tricky to cover. Studies are done and redone, research is scrutinized over and over and meaningful progress is often made at an incremental pace. At the same time, our environment is rapidly changing around us and so is the technology used to study it. Therefore, it’s worth revisiting whether or not a given product could be a cause for concern decades later, especially because the longer we are exposed to various items, the more data points we have on its impacts—and that information can be useful in determining what’s safe for public consumption.

What Will Actually Happen In 2027?

This ban will result in minor modifications to recipes of the products sold in California. However, this mandate may cause a wider shift across the industry; because producers likely won’t want to pay for two separate production facilities, we may see newly formulated candy products across the country by 2027.

Guillain-Barré syndrome more common after COVID-19 infection, study suggests

From schizophrenia to toe rashes to shrunken brains, there’s a growing laundry list of bizarre ways that a COVID-19 infection impacts the body. A study published today found a new link between a COVID-19 infection and a rare autoimmune illness called Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS).

Last month, indie rock singer Sufjan Stevens shared that he was on the road to recovery after losing his ability to walk from GBS. Affecting between 3,000 and 6,000 people in the U.S. each year, this rare disease occurs when the immune system attacks itself, usually stemming from viral infections, respiratory illness or, in very rare cases, vaccinations. Usually, patients start to feel tingling in their legs before losing their ability to walk, which can lead to long-term paralysis — although symptoms usually clear up in a few weeks if treated in time.

In the study, published in Neurology, researchers found 12% of people diagnosed with GBS during the study period had a COVID-19 infection within the past six weeks, compared to 2% in a matched group of control individuals. (The total number of cases was low, at 76 among 3 million patients.) However, they also found that those with mRNA vaccinations had their risk for developing GBS cut by half. Another study in the journal Brain published last year found no association between COVID-19 and GBS. In an editorial accompanying the new study, Drs. Dennis Bourdette and Elizabeth Silbermann of Oregon Health & Science University suggested the low number of cases detected may explain why an association wasn't picked up before.

"We can tell patients that they are much more likely to develop GBS from COVID-19 infection than from an mRNA COVID-19 vaccination," they wrote.

Joran Van der Sloot admits he killed Natalee Holloway almost two decades after her disappearance

Joran van der Sloot, the man long suspected of killing Alabama teen Natalee Holloway, has pleaded guilty almost two decades after Holloway disappeared in Aruba, according to a court filing. Van der Sloot pleaded guilty to extortion and wire fraud charges during Wednesday's hearing. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison alongside his ongoing 28-year prison sentence in Peru for the 2010 murder of Stephany Flores. 

“Joran van der Sloot is no longer the suspect in my daughter's murder,” Holloway's mother Beth Holloway told reporters outside the federal courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama, per CBS News. "He is the killer."

The 36-year-old Dutchman confessed to killing Holloway while she was on a high school graduation trip, her mother said. 

“He said that after killing her on the beach in Aruba, he put her into the water and that was the last that he ever saw her,” Beth Holloway told reporters. “I'm satisfied knowing that he did it, he did it alone and he disposed of her alone.”

Van der Sloot was charged in 2010 with trying to extort a quarter-million dollars from Beth Holloway in exchange for information about her missing daughter's remains, according to CBS News. He wasn’t extradited to the U.S. until June of this year, when Peruvian officials allowed his temporary release to the U.S. to face the extortion and wire fraud charges. Van der Sloot is slated to return to Peru to finish his 28-year prison sentence, per CNN. He will then return to the U.S. to start his 20 year prison sentence for the extortion and wire fraud charges.

GOP tries to blame Dems after Jordan loses more votes — but Republican warns “it’s gonna get worse”

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, lost his second bid for the role of House speaker on Wednesday, leaving the House without a leader after two weeks of prolonged bickering. "Jordan set a modern record: lowest vote tally for majority's nominee to be speaker," tweeted Washington Post congressional reporter Paul Kane, shortly after the loss was announced. "Just 199 Republicans voted for him on second ballot. No majority nominee has received less than 200 votes in a really long time. (McCarthy's lowest tally was 200, a couple times in Jan.)"

Twenty-two Republicans voted against Jordan on Wednesday, two more than voted against him on Tuesday. “We picked up some today, a couple dropped off,” said Jordan after the vote, undeterred to remain in contention for the seat. “We’ll keep talking to members, keep working on it.” Jordan and his team have faced internal scrutiny from Republicans for embarking on a pressure campaign rife with bullying tactics, a strategy which seemingly worked against him by fomenting deep discontent. "I personally think, if we go to a third vote, it's going to get a lot worse," Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., told Politico. "Around three is probably going to be the final straw." 

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., meanwhile, sought to blame Democrats for the Republican dysfunction. “There is no chance in the world that Democrats can say again that they put people before politics. They made a political decision to try to bring chaos to shut down a branch of government. And that’s wrong,” said McCarthy, who agreed to allow any single Republican member to force a vote to oust him in order to become speaker, which is exactly what happened just nine months later.

Why Jessel Taank, the first Indian housewife, is the breakout star of “Real Housewives of New York”

Jessel Taank has called her fellow "The Real Housewives of New York" cast members "cackling hags" in her dry British cadence, labeled Tribeca as an “up-and-coming” neighborhood, and keeps a hit list of all the people who have wronged her: all of which suggest the perfect makings of a Supreme Housewife in training. 

As the first-ever Indian housewife across the Housewives Bravoverse, the British-American fashion publicist has become the most interesting player in a cast full of people begging to be seen, reinvented and liked by both the series rabid online fanbase and its casual viewers. In a field of potentially more well-known castmates, like former J.Crew fashion mogul Jenna Lyons, influencer Sai de Silva and real estate agent (and Trump donor) Erin Lichy, Jessel's British charms outshine all the New York City elitism and pick-me behavior that runs through the core of RHONY. 

After 13 seasons with the original cast, Bravo, Andy Cohen and long-time fans decided that the original RHONY was no longer cutting it. The show's 14th season returned with an all-new cast and while many braced for a flop of a season, Jessel — who was labeled as "forgettable" by the other cast members — rose from underdog to fan-favorite. She was even given a bit of a villainous edit in the beginning for hating a "Christmas tree"-looking lingerie slip dress given to her by Lyons.

She has now become the most talked-about person on the show with a new Rolling Stone spread and a fanbase who call themselves "Taank Tops." Not only is the former head PR for Michael Kors a rising star because of her personality, but her innate fashion sense and connections. Fans and audiences watched as she threw a party in her Chelsea apartment for some of the most prestigious people in high fashion, like former Paper Magazine editor Mickey Boardman and iconic Vogue editor and columnist Lynn Yaeger. 

Throughout the season, characters like Sai and Erin — essentially this cast's Flotsam and Jetsam —antagonize Jessel and tag-team her, accusing her of lying about her background, her husband Pavit and their sex life, insinuating that Pavit's Vietnam travel plans were simply a smoke screen to conceal his plans to sleep with sex workers (a disgusting and racist assumption). During the multiple different arguments she had with Sai and Erin, she never backed down and only ever doubled down, causing Sai and Erin to grow increasingly drained from pouring all their energy into discussing her.  

We need your help to stay independent

The continuous, pestering conversations surrounding Jessel's sex life with her husband were an extremely weird showing for a female-dominated cast. Many of the "Housewives," many of whom have had multiple children themselves, couldn't empathize with Jessel's (and a lot of women's) struggle with fertility issues and how her IVF journey may have affected her sex drive. They also peppered her with questions about her professional life — ultimately coming after her for saying that she started her fashion career from the ground up, questioning the role of privilege that played a role in her success.

And here is where the Oppression Olympics begin and never end.

For a handful of episodes, the women of the cast begin to use their own traumatic experiences and upbringings as a way to invalidate Jessel's own personal story. Jessel even gives a disclaimer that she grew up in a relatively uncomplicated and stable family. She never claimed to have a worse or more traumatic upbringing than Sai, but that's exactly the way Sai took it. Nuanced conversations about wealth, privilege and nepotism are never even really properly explored because it's easier to attack Jessel for saying she had to work hard for her career than to listen to her story and allow her experience to exist as her own because she lived it — Erin and Sai didn't.

By the end of the season, Jessel is run ragged by the parrots, Sai and Erin, who habitually call her a liar and unimportant. It's in the barrage that Jessel became such a sympathetic character. She never pretended to be anyone that she wasn't in a season and cast so filled with people trying and failing to outshine each other's traumas. Outside of the uncalled-for bullying, Jessel's sarcastic delivery, her eccentric fashions and her seemingly connected status in the New York fashion scene have really cemented her as a star in the making. 

 

After perjury allegation, legal analyst warns Allen Weisselberg risks having his probation “revoked”

Former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg's testimony last week came to an abrupt halt mere hours after a Forbes writer accused him of perjury during an earlier appearance on the witness stand as part of former President Donald Trump's civil fraud trial.

Weisselberg in his testimony claimed that he had "never focused" on the valuation of Trump's three-floor penthouse in Trump Tower in Manhattan. Trump's faulty math tagged the property nearly three times greater than its actual square footage.

But Forbes' senior editor Dan Alexander reported that a slew of emails and reporter notes not currently in the New York attorney general Letitia James's possession or circulating the public sphere are at odds with Weisselberg's testimony. "Weisselberg absolutely thought about Trump’s apartment — and played a key role in trying to convince Forbes over the course of several years that it was worth more than it really was," Alexander wrote. "It defies all logic to think he truly believes what he is now saying in court." Alexander also deduced that after Weisselberg reportedly misled investigators, he “lied in sworn testimony” last week about his role in that scheme. 

Following the report's release, New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron held a closed-door meeting with lawyers for both parties, the details of which remain unknown. A source close to James said that her office was probing the Forbes piece.

MSNBC analyst and former litigator Lisa Rubin called the Forbes report "the most important moment" in the second week of James' ongoing civil fraud trial against the ex-president. But the question remains, she adds: Why did Weisselberg's testimony come to a standstill?

"One possibility is that Forbes’s perjury accusations necessitated that James take a second look at what he said earlier in the week," Rubin wrote. "After all, while Weisselberg is not exactly a friendly witness, the attorney general’s office has already relied on Weisselberg to make certain concessions in aid of its case."

"Losing credibility in the ongoing trial would be the least of his problems," she continued. "After Weisselberg and the Trump Organization were charged with multiple felonies for a separate tax fraud scheme last year, Weisselberg pleaded guilty to all 15 felony counts against him in exchange for a promise to testify truthfully at the then-upcoming Trump Organization trial." Weisselberg was ultimately handed a three-month stint at Rikers Island, told to pay $2 million back in taxes, and undergo a five year probation. "And it’s that probation period that could cause him serious problems now," Rubin writes, given that one of the conditions of his probation is that he "not engage in criminal conduct."

But in the New York legal system, perjury is considered a crime, as Rubin reminds her readers. "New York Penal Law 210-15, for example, provides 'a person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when he swears falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b) is material to the action, proceeding, or matter in which it is made.'"

We need your help to stay independent

"Significantly, perjury in the first degree is also a felony punishable by up to seven years," she added. "But perhaps most importantly, the Manhattan district attorney would not have to undertake a new prosecution of Weisselberg for perjury to move to revoke his probation. It would be enough for the DA's office simply to convince Judge Juan Merchan that Weisselberg engaged in new, criminal conduct during that period."

"Of course," she continued, "doing that would necessitate proof that Weisselberg indeed perjured himself — and that can’t be resolved on the basis of what is known publicly. For one, the emails and notes allegedly in Forbes’ possession underlying its allegations against Weisselberg are not public record. And even assuming Weisselberg did not tell the truth on the stand, it’s also unknown whether such false statements would constitute perjury within the meaning of New York criminal law. New York jury model instructions reflect that in order to prove perjury, prosecutors must show that the defendant 'intentionally ma[de] a false statement' only where he did not believe it to be true while giving testimony and had a 'conscious objective or purpose' to make a false statement."


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


"The bottom line is that there are more questions than definitive answers right now," Rubin wrote. "Did Weisselberg lie on the stand, and if so, did his false testimony constitute perjury, as the Forbes report claims? Could his liberty be at stake? And is the Forbes report in fact the reason or one of the reasons his testimony ended so quickly? I don’t know — but like Trump himself, who is back in the courtroom on Tuesday, I’m watching that case."

Judge Engoron rebukes Trump lawyers after prosecutors accuse them of “witness intimidation”

The judge presiding over Donald Trump's civil fraud case scolded the former president's lawyers Wednesday after they were accused of attempting to intimidate a witness during the trial. A day earlier, appraiser Douglas Larson harshly criticized the Trump Organization in his testimony, coming just short of alleging they contrived his advice about a capitalization rate on Trump's 40 Wall Street property to arrive at a $735 million valuation. The Trump Organization had claimed that company controller Jeffrey McConney had spoken to Larson over the phone about the cap rate, but during his Tuesday testimony Larson denied having the conversation.

Emails entered into evidence by the defense on Wednesday, however, showed Larson and McConney had electronically conferred about the cap rate issue two years earlier, according to The Messenger. Trump attorney Lazaro Fields then accused Larson of committing perjury in his previous testimony before Trump lawyer Chris Kise asked the court to advise Larson of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Law360 reporter Stewart Bishop reported.

Kise's request prompted New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron to have Larson escorted out of the room. Prosecutors then accused the defense of pulling a stunt to intimidate the witness. "This is witness intimidation, your honor," prosecutor Colleen Faherty told the judge. "This is a performance," another prosecutor added. "I've never seen anything like this." Kise denied the accusations, asserting that he takes the case "very seriously." Engoron interjected the back-and-forth to get the trial back on track. "Mr. Kise…my role is to get the witness to testify. If he perjured himself yesterday or he perjured himself today, I don't care. I just want him to testify," the judge said. "Get the witness back here as soon as possible."

The rising cost of living is eroding brand loyalty as consumers seek more cost-effective alternative

As Canadians grapple with the rising cost of living, many consumers are reevaluating their daily choices and purchase habits. The cost of groceries is forcing many households to make difficult decisions, like having to choose between food quality and affordability.

Amid these economic pressures, the concept of brand loyalty — the preference consumers have for a particular brand over others — is undergoing a significant shift. Brand loyalty is the result of a mix of factors, including trust, habit and the perceived value of goods.

Brand loyalty significantly benefits retailers by boosting sales. Not only do existing customers spend more money than new customers, but brand loyalty also reduces the amount brands need to spend on advertising. Effective loyalty programs increase customer retention and result in positive word-of-mouth, meaning companies can spend less on marketing.

Losing loyalty, on the other hand, can result in a competitive disadvantage for retailers. It can lead to revenue loss, increased marketing and customer acquisition costs and negative word-of-mouth.

Once a cornerstone for many food retailers, brand loyalty is eroding as consumers prioritize immediate cost savings over long-term brand relationships.

           

Nearly seven million Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. (Global News)

         

Adapting to rising food costs

Inflation is impacting a wide range of income groups: 81% of lower-income, 50% of middle-income and 35%t of high-income earners in Canada are impacted by inflation, spending less on clothing, beauty products and big-ticket items.

Consumers have been adopting various strategies to manage their budgets. Three-quarters of Canadians say they dine out less often because of the rising cost of living and 70% say inflation has shifted the way they cook.

Despite rising grocery prices, eating at home is still more budget-friendly than eating out and allows for better control over the cost of ingredients.

Some Canadians are also modifying their eating habits by altering portion sizes, cutting back on pricier food items and focusing on more affordable staple foods. While these changes help consumers deal with rising costs, they also come at the expense of brand loyalty.

The digital landscape is also playing a key role in this shift. Consumers are increasingly turning to digital platforms to find economical food options. The convenience of online marketplaces and food delivery services exposes them to a wide array of product choices and competitive pricing.

Consumers also use online tools like coupons and price comparison options to seek discounts. Loyalty programs lose their appeal when consumers prioritize immediate savings.

This transparency and the ease of comparing prices online encourage consumers to explore various brands, making it more challenging for traditional food brands to sustain customer loyalty.

 

Changing consumer priorities

As prices rise and budgets tighten, consumers are more inclined to seek out more cost-effective options, which often means abandoning favourite brands in pursuit of better value.

One report found that 42% of consumers now seek sales or shop clearance, 40% adhere to a budget, 28% buy less overall and 25% prefer bulk stores or warehouse retailers.

In pursuit of cheaper alternatives, consumers become more open to trying private-label or store-brand products, discounted brands and generic or unbranded options. These alternatives provide shoppers with a practical way to cope with rising prices, allowing them to manage their expenses while maintaining a satisfactory level of product quality.

Inflation also leads to changes in spending habits in a phenomenon known as consumption smoothing. This often involves delaying the purchase of durable goods, prioritizing the purchase of necessities and opting for store-brand products.

In essence, consumers shift their priorities toward cost management, which in turn reduces their loyalty to specific brands. Food companies need to adapt to these changing consumer needs by recognizing affordability and value take precedence in an inflationary market.

 

What can retailers do?

The shift away from brand loyalty can pose challenges for business owners and retailers who depend on consumer spending. Aside from the most obvious solution to the issue — lowering prices — there are other things retailers can do to win back customers.

First, retailers can use dynamic pricing, allowing them to adjust prices based on factors like supply and demand, inventory and competition. This approach enables them to offer competitive prices and discounts while also minimizing food waste.

Second, retailers can also introduce loyalty programs that go beyond conventional point-based systems. By using personalized data from consumers, retailers can tailor rewards and incentives to match individual shopping habits, experiences and preferences. Retailers can also collaborate with other businesses and incorporate gamification elements to further enhance loyalty.

Lastly, retailers should consider using a value-oriented marketing approach to elevate consumer experiences. Retailers should communicate the value of their products, emphasizing quality, nutritional benefits and unique features to justify their price points.

Simultaneously, investing in exceptional customer experience, both in-store and online, can foster strong emotional connections between retailers and consumers. When consumers feel valued by brands, they are more likely to stay committed to that brand's products. By assuring customers of their commitment to value, retailers can play a crucial role in guiding consumers through these challenging times.

Seung Hwan (Mark) Lee, Professor and Associate Dean of Engagement & Inclusion, Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto Metropolitan University and Omar H. Fares, Lecturer in the Ted Rogers School of Retail Management, Toronto Metropolitan University

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

Christopher Steele: Two Russian sources mysteriously disappeared after Trump declassified evidence

Former British spy Christopher Steele told a London court that former President Donald Trump's decision to declassify his evidence led to the disappearances of two Russian sources, according to court documents made public Tuesday.

Trump's declassification of Steele's 2017 testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation was "one of the most egregious breaches of intelligence rules and protocol by the US government in recent times," Steele said in a witness statement, per Reuters. "Two of the named Russian sources have not been seen or heard of since," he added.

The public release of Steele's witness statement came the day after the former president asked London's High Court to permit his data protection lawsuit against the British private investigations firm Steele co-founded to continue. Trump is suing the Orbis Business Intelligence over the "Steele dossier" in order, according to his own witness statement, to prove its allegations false.

The file, published by Buzzfeed News in January 2017, claimed that Trump's campaign had ties with Russia and alleged that Trump engaged in sexual behavior that provided Russian authorities with material they could use to blackmail him. Many of the claims were never corroborated and attorneys for the former president said in court filings the report was "egregiously inaccurate" while Trump said the dossier consisted of "numerous false, phoney or made-up allegations."

Steele's firm, however, said Trump is bringing the suit merely to air his grievances against the company and the former spy.

As part of Mueller's probe into an alleged conspiracy between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia, Steele had provided evidence in an interview with two FBI agents. The special counsel concluded in 2019 that there was not enough evidence to charge anyone on Trump's campaign related to the alleged conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. Trump, on the last day of his presidency, declassified Steele's evidence and gave a copy of his testimony to a reporter, Steele said in his statement.

We need your help to stay independent

"The publication of this document did serious damage to the U.S. government's Russian operations and their ability to recruit new Russian sources," Steele said in the latest witness statement, adding that he believed Trump was "motivated by a personal vendetta against me and Orbis and a desire for revenge."

He also suggested that the former president discovering Steele's friendship with Trump's daughter, Ivanka, had damaged their relationship, "deepened his animus towards me and is one of the reasons for his vindictive and vexatious conduct towards me and Orbis."


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


Trump said in his witness statement that Ivanka was "completely irrelevant to this claim and any mention of her only serves to distract this court from [Orbis'] and Mr Steele's reckless behavior." 

"Any inference or allegation that Mr Steele makes about my relationship with my daughter is untrue and disgraceful," the former president added.

Trump had previously filed a lawsuit in the U.S against Steele — as well as Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee — claiming he was part of a plot to circulate false information about Trump's relationship with Russia. A federal judge in Florida, however, dismissed that suit last year. The former originally filed the London-based suit last November. 

In “Silver Dollar Road,” Raoul Peck travels to the heart of Black land loss through one family

Before Raoul Peck began making “Silver Dollar Road,” members of the Reels family filmed evidence that they owned the 65 acres of marshland they and their ancestors farmed that ran from the nearby forests to the river. The family fished those waters, supporting themselves by catching shrimp and crab since their forebear Mitchell Reels purchased the property in 1944. When the South was segregated, their beach was a safe recreational haven for Black folks. A scene from one home movie shows Melvin Davis, who briefly ran a club on the land, walking the green woods and fields, proudly declaring he knew every inch of it.

Gertrude Reels, the family’s matriarch, who was 95 years old at the time Peck was filming, remembers that before her father Mitchell died in 1970, he made his final wish very clear. “Whatever you do,” he said, “don’t let the white man have my land.” However, as the extensively reported 2019 ProPublica story that inspired Peck’s film chronicled, Mitchell Reels didn't leave a will, which was common among the earliest Black landowners who were denied access to the legal system.

That subjected their land to heirs’ property law, which dictates that ownership passes to the heirs of the deceased landowner. The U.S. Department of Agriculture cites heirs’ property laws as the leading cause of Black involuntary land loss, “contributing to land loss from 16 million to 4.7 million acres over the last hundred years.”

When one of the Reels' heirs who hadn’t lived on that property for 27 years claimed a prime slice of waterfront for himself in 1978, the family’s problems began — and they’ve been fighting to keep their land ever since.

“Silver Dollar Road” is a continuation of Peck’s mission to chronicle the destructive injustices wrought by colonialism. His HBO series “Exterminate the Brutes” forcefully makes that case, though quieter meditations such as his Academy Award-nominated 2016 documentary “I Am Not Your Negro” are equally effective.

Like Lizzie Presser’s story, Peck connects the core message of those works to the story of the Reels family, through whom Peck illustrates an American version of a tragedy playing out around the world: land occupation through corrupt legal trickery. In plainer terms, “Silver Dollar Road” shows us a family who did everything right only to see their American dream besieged by developers eager to parcel out their birthright to other wealthy people seeking waterfront views.

Silver Dollar RoadSilver Dollar Road (Photography by Wayne Lawrence/Amazon Studios)Homes were lost, a family fishing boat was blown up and the perpetrators were never arrested. The headlining injustice culminates in Melvin Davis and his brother Licurtis Reels being held in a local jail for eight years for refusing to leave their land — all without ever being charged with a crime or given a jury trial — making them two of the longest-serving inmates for civil contempt in U.S. history.

But Peck chooses to tell the Reels' story through the perspectives of Gertrude’s daughter, Mamie Ellison, and her niece, Kim Duhon, the two relatives he describes as “holding the family tight.” Through them, we see not only the struggle but birthdays, graduations and glimpses of a life on a land Mamie calls "magical." Kim says the family's land is "not valuable to us from a monetary standpoint but valuable to us because of the history and the beauty of it."

In a recent interview with Salon, Peck reflected on this "obvious" choice. He also discussed the ways that "Silver Dollar Road" is a conscious, purposeful continuation of his filmmaking direction — and if there's a hopeful ending to this story.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Only in recent years has there been widespread discussion of the fact that Black land ownership has decreased by 90% within the last century. That is where I wanted to start: A lot of coverage has pertained to Black farmers losing their land. Heirs’ property laws are something a lot of people don't necessarily know about. You came to this story through the ProPublica article about the Reels family, but did you know much about these laws before it?

Yes, because it's not only in this country, you know. Minorities, Black people and the Indigenous population — everywhere. Once the concept of property became the dominant concept, it became a capitalist commodity. And who can profit from that? Usually, big landowners, big farm companies, etcetera. Usually, every single law is programmed for them.

By the way, that's a problem in the European Union. There are a lot of great laws, but it's not the small farmers who benefit from them. It's usually the big companies. In the United States, due to its own specific historical background, it has primarily targeted the Indigenous population and Black population, who are always out of the calculation. Until very recently, Black and Indigenous people were not even considered citizens, and all the laws that benefit people to acquire land — to get subsidized, or to get help when something like a natural disaster happens — this community was always excluded.

Silver Dollar RoadSilver Dollar Road (Photography by Wayne Lawrence/Amazon Studios)That also explains why, if you don't have access to the principal source of economic independence and wealth, you cannot give that back to the next generation.

You cannot have a normal life, either. When you make that connection, you can easily explain why we are still in this situation today. The consequence is not just Black farmers losing their land: It's also how you can easily explain why there is a large number of Black men in prison today, why Black families have to live in ghettos, why the school system for them is not the best one, etcetera. It is because that part of the population was never able, in a substantive way, to create economic stability.

And, when they did, they were burned down like in Tulsa. That's an eternal story of this country.

"That's why a president today can say, 'Let's make America great again.' That begs the question: When was it great for us? Give me a date.

That's why this project was incredibly powerful for me because, through the Reels family, you can basically understand the history of the United States. Again, it started with land — land that was stolen from the original population . . . And what did they build on top of that? The American Dream, which was a dream for only part of the population because the rest of the population was not even considered citizens. That's why a president today can say, 'Let's make America great again.' That begs the question: When was it great for us? Give me a date. Give me, like, a year when was it great.

I think of you as an excellent filmmaker in terms of chronicling diaspora. I think the first film I saw of yours was “Sometimes in April.” Many more people are familiar with your James Baldwin documentary, “I Am Not Your Negro.” You're a filmmaker presenting this story at a time when there are many states where this history wouldn't be taught in the best of circumstances, including in the South, where "Silver Dollar Road" is set. Only now, there's an effort to erase it. What it's like for you to kind of witness that?

Because I've been working, I think almost all my life, as a filmmaker on those themes, I made my peace, probably 20 years ago, that the backlash was so massive — and that sometimes even we who are fighting don't understand the extent of that battle. We basically lost a whole generation of combatants. That generation is the whole generation of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and all the others who survived this part of the civil rights movement and then were decimated.

And the unions were decimated. We forgot that backlash of the Reagan years, the Thatcher years in Britain. We never really reconstructed that. Who are our leaders today? Who are the kind of leaders who could resonate with the whole country? They are not there because they were killed.

I see my work as something that I need to preserve in the hope that the next generation — whether it's the next one, or the next one after that — will have at least material to reconstruct.

"Who would think that only a decade ago, congressmen and politicians would openly talk about not wanting white children to be uncomfortable while learning about slavery?"

I don't want to be pessimistic, but I see the evidence. You were talking about the backlash: Who would think that only a decade ago, congressmen and politicians would openly talk about not wanting white children to be uncomfortable while learning about slavery? It doesn't make sense. It's like a return to barbaric times, when we can be sending people to Mars, and at the same time, having that level of ignorance at the highest level of government. That’s an uphill battle, and I'm just sad to see sometimes how people are even fighting or underestimating the level of involvement that is needed.

You can't fight with tweets. I respect much more the people who are on the field, the people who are going door to door and trying to convince people, yes, something needs to change . . . people who are trying to understand their own history, people who are educated, teachers, those are the ones on the front line.

Silver Dollar RoadSilver Dollar Road (Photography by Wayne Lawrence/Amazon Studios)One thing that this film does is bring all of this history and connection into the collusion in local politics between white supremacy, land ownership and capitalism into the context of this family. You just touched on something really important, which is that this is a fight that has been going on for 60 years — and it's still going on. The movie asks, who's going to pick it up? And the way it asks this, in part, is by taking the perspective of the family matriarchs, which you've said before is a very conscious choice. Can you elaborate on why that is? Even the ProPublica article led with Melvin and Licurtis and the time they spent in jail.

First of all, it was an organic choice because when I started spending time with the family, it was obvious that Mamie was the main person. It was clear that she had to tell the story herself. Then, as a counterpart, I needed [someone from] the younger generation, which is Kim, who is already one of the two people really holding the whole case tight and holding the family tight.

Also, it was important to portray the family as a normal family. They are not heroes. They don't have special skills. They are just a normal family . . . And I needed to make sure that people would understand that and see them as human beings, not as victims. I didn't want to put the drama — the trauma — at the center.

"I needed to make sure that people would see [the Reels family] as human beings, not as victims."

It is, of course, the center point because that's the most exacerbated moment of injustice. It's clear and it's visceral, but there is life. There is an existence of those people. Their life is not just that — I could not reduce them to that.

That aspect was really important to me, and also the aspect of giving them alone the whole podium, not to try to sugarcoat or to have the other side — they’re telling their story, too — no. We don't have that time. The other side has been telling their story for centuries.

Were there other elements about the Reels’ story that made them the ideal family to talk about this issue yet also made it apparent they're a symbol of a problem that is much greater and broader than simply one family?

Well, one of the aspects is the kind of resistance that they show, and not only for a few years but since 1970, basically. That's a lot of years — and the fact that whatever happened, they stayed on the property. All of them were born there. They have three cemeteries. You can’t have a stronger case of this appropriation when there is physical evidence that those people were always there.

Also, their understanding is that land is not only what feeds them over generations, but also it's their identity. The rest of the world — it's another world for them. The only place they know is Silver Dollar Road. That's their geographical center.

We need your help to stay independent

Then, of course, the fact I think that's an important factor, as well, is that they have been documenting what was happening to them. The first time Lizzie went, she spent almost a day just going through piles of paperwork that they had accumulated, classified, etcetera. It was like a researcher bumping into a big suitcase of empirical material. That was the best instrument to tell the story because you had everything there, concentrated.

In the end, you end up talking to a grandson, who is part of the next generation, and he’s saying, “I have to take up this fight.” But what he points out, which is something that is crucial for people to understand, you touched on earlier. If they get the land back, this is a way for a small business-owning family to sustain themselves. They're never going to become extremely wealthy. They're not going to offer any competition to Elon Musk, but they'll be able to sustain themselves within that community.

That’s probably the one thing that angered me the most. It’s like you live somewhere, you have a house, you have your garden, you have your forests, you have your water, you have everything you need. You've been there, your parents have been there, your grandparents have been there and you’re just continuing the whole thing. Then, suddenly, a meteor lands on you and changes everything. You never asked for anything, even when your property is destroyed. You can't even go to the government when everybody else is getting FEMA [assistance]. You can't go because you're not qualified.

Despite all this, you survived, and nevertheless, you get that on your head, so you resist. You resist for decades, and they tell you, ‘You know what, you don't want to leave the land? You're gonna go to prison.’ And you say, ‘Well, I will go to prison.’ Then you ask yourself, 'What is government? What is it that makes those people your enemies?'

A lot of times when we see something like this, there's this compulsion to hope for a just resolution. I'm wondering if you think there's a hopeful ending to this story.

I don’t think like that. I'm not working for hope. I'm working because I have no choice — and that's how the family sees it. They have no choice but to fight and fight and fight. Hope cannot be a reason because hope is like waiting for something to fall from the sky. It will never come because this is about a system. The only way to counter a system is to fight it — and to fight its allies, too — to use all the instruments you have at your disposal to fight.


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


And that's the idea of the film, as well. How I made the film is that it's not a story that stops . . . There is no conclusion in life. It's a continuum, you know, in the same way that you can't say the United States started with the pilgrim. Then you erase the whole story of before European imperialists began coming to this country. You jettison the genocide of Indigenous people, you erase slavery and you keep wanting to erase it today. When you cut small little stories with an ending and an end, there is no end in life except when you disappear, but you have children. The fight — if you didn't have it today — your children will have it.

For me, the film is the beginning of something else, and my hope is that it will allow other people to get together. It will allow an individual to start their own research about their own story and push them to understand, where do I come from? And what is my role today? Am I just a consumer, or do I want to design who I am and who the rest of us are?

"Silver Dollar Road" is now playing in select theaters and makes its streaming debut Friday, Oct. 20 on Prime Video.

Prosecutors intend to recharge Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter for “Rust” shooting

New Mexico prosecutors said Tuesday that they are seeking to re-charge actor Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter for the fatal 2021 shooting of "Rust" cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, Reuters reported. The latest update comes five months after special prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis dismissed the same charge against Baldwin without prejudice, saying, “a possible malfunction of the gun significantly affects causation with regard to Baldwin.” Back in August, a forensic report found that Baldwin's Colt .45 revolver would only fire if the trigger was pulled, thus opening up the possibility for Baldwin to be recharged.

Baldwin’s case will be brought before a grand jury in mid-November, Morrissey told Reuters. In a statement to NBC News, Morrissey said, “We believe that based on our lengthy and detailed investigation that it is appropriate for a grand jury in New Mexico to make a decision on whether the case should proceed.”

“It is unfortunate that a terrible tragedy has been turned into this misguided prosecution. We will answer any charges in court,” Baldwin’s lawyers, Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro, said in a statement. Baldwin, along with the film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, were both charged with involuntary manslaughter in January for Hutchins’s death. Baldwin has maintained in interviews that he did not pull the trigger and is not responsible for Hutchins' death.

 

“They’re harassing our spouses”: Top Jordan ally admits he’s losing support as Republicans rage

The House GOP continues to plunge further into chaos as House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan's, R-Ohio, bid for the speakership stands on thin ice after 20 Republicans voted against him on the House floor on Tuesday. After abandoning plans to hold a second vote on Tuesday, the House made plans to hold another voting session early Wednesday afternoon, despite murmurs that Jordan with garner even fewer GOP votes than the previous day. "Just so there’s no surprises: Jordan will likely have FEWER votes today than yesterday — as I expected," tweeted Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa. "This is the fight – which Jim Jordan represents – to end the status quo, and it ain’t easy…Stay strong and keep praying." Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told NBC that "Jordan is headed for defeat." He'll "fight to death likely, and we won't let off," Bacon added. "Their tactics angered us. They're harassing our spouses even. Jordan hit a brick wall."

Jordan over the weekend reportedly implemented bullying tactics and pressure campaigns to foment support from other Republicans, strategies which ostensibly backfired. Notably, Axios reporter Juliegrace Brufke, on Sunday shared an email she was given that showed how a representative from Fox News host Sean Hannity's show asked officials to explain why they weren't in favor of Jordan. And Rep. Bacon's wife received anonymous text messages warning her that her husband's political career would suffer if he did not support Jordan's bid for the House speaker role. “Why is your husband causing chaos by not supporting Jim Jordan? I thought he was a team player," the unidentified messenger wrote. “Your husband will not hold any political office ever again. What a disappoint (sic) and failure he is.”Jordan shows no signs of backing down, either.

CNN reporter Melanie Zanona wrote in a Monday tweet that "Jim Jordan’s team is whipping supporters to vote against the resolution empowering interim speaker Patrick McHenry, sources tell CNN, which could come up as soon as today." A number of centrist Republicans are looking to temporarily empower McHenry as hopes of electing a permanent speaker fade, Politico reported. But some Jordan allies warn that it would be impossible to reach such a deal with only Republican votes. "The only way this is going to be viewed by the American people and most of my colleagues is a plan for a coalition government" with Democrats, Jordan ally Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, told Politico's Olivia Beavers.

Why single-ingredient cookbooks hold a special place in my kitchen

One of my absolute favorite cookbook series of all time is the Short Stack collection of books, which were all the rage in the mid-2010s. I would hurriedly trek around New York City on my lunch breaks, going into small, indie bookshops which stocked the tiny cookbooks, buying as many as I could, collecting them like someone might collect rare baseball cards, increasing my collection more and more as time went on.

On one of my birthdays a few years. back, a few lovely, generous colleagues actually purchased me a stack of them. I loved the books: hand-sewed binding, bright colors, great recipes and individual, singularly-focused, the books were a perfect, pamphlet-sized exploration of these ingredients.

From plums and prosciutto to maple syrup and rhubarb, the books would highlight everything about each ingredient, present recipes for both sweet and savory dishes, as well as appetizers, desserts, sides and drinks. Many of my favorite writers, chefs and recipe developers would contribute — like Alison Roman and Sara Jenkins — essentially writing a love letter to one of their favorite ingredients. I thought the whole concept was lovely. The company even released a full-length cookbook in 2016, which a kind "Secret Santa" purchased for me at a work holiday gathering that year.

At some point, I even reached out to the founder to express my adoration. In the summer of 2017, I also tried to pitch my own edition: Fennel. I never heard back, though and soon after, the company seemed to have essentially gone defunct. There have been no updates to the Instagram account since June of 2018 and I don't believe the website is functioning any longer.


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food's newsletter, The Bite.


While Short Stack may be no more, my deep interest and satisfaction in the reading, collecting and cooking from these books helped me realize something: I love a singularly-focused, ingredient-specific cookbook.

Unfortunately, these cookbooks are pretty rare and far between; although, I did just learn of a stunning, singularly mussel-focused cookbook by Sergio Herman, which I'm immensely excited to explore.

I think one reason I love the notion of a single-ingredient focus — which I've tried to do in some of my own food writing — is that it accentuates the point that there is much to investigate and enjoy about one ingredient. You may love cauliflower, but if you only cook it one way and rarely ever veer away form that variation, then are you really enjoying cauliflower to the fullest?

I have also always loved using a single ingredient in multiple ways in one dish, which is something often seen in many restaurants (or even on TV in shows like "Top Chef.") To keep with the cauliflower motif: why not puree, pickle, roast and deep-fry (or air fry?) different parts of the cauliflower and compose a dish strictly of this one ingredient? Or, conversely, try it in an unusual or novel way: a cauliflower semifreddo, for example?

We need your help to stay independent

Ingredients have so much to give us: Don't shortchange them. Especially with the recent explosion of food insecurity this year and the heightened price of foods in general, it's silly to dispose of feta brine, pickle juice or broccoli stems. These foods are flavorful, edible and useful. Reducing food waste can sometimes take some ingenuity and creativity, but it can also be very simple, too.

Further delving into our favorite ingredients — no matter if they're proteins, cheeses, spices, seasonings, vegetables or herbs — is something that the best cookbooks helps us to do. While all cookbooks are lovely and worthwhile, I maintain a special affinity for those that help us honor and celebrate one particular, sometimes humble ingredient. These ingredients have carried us through so many family dinners, hurried weeknight meals, holiday feasts and restaurant meals — don't they at least deserve a "love letter" in the form of a cookbook, no matter how small? I'd like to think so.

Currently, my Short Stack books are arranged — in order — in one of my bookshelves, where they safely reside, aside from when I pull one out to reference a recipe (I've made the lemonade from Libbie Summers's "Brown Sugar" edition a truly innumerable amount of times) or get a new idea for how to use goat cheese. So, thanks to Short Stack, for helping to help reframe my perception of cookbooks, of cooking and of ingredients. I hope one day I do get to write that fennel iteration. 

A disastrous “Love Is Blind” season asks: Does Gen Z really believe in marriage?

Despite promising to deliver on the fantastical idea of falling in love — sight unseen — through a wall in a pod, it seems like even the people on "Love Is Blind" aren't even getting married anymore. In the season's horrific detour from the run of the mill, only one confusing couple has survived the what felt like the show's version of "The Hunger Games." And let's just say, I don't have the utmost faith in them either.

The couple I'm talking about is Lydia and Milton. Lydia is a 30-year-old outspoken geologist (who was also accused of Instagram stalking her condescending ex-boyfriend, Uche, a fellow contestant) and her partner, Milton is a level-headed 24-year-old engineer. Every other couple this season crumbled against the pressure of the show's formulatic experiment: To find love through a wall in a pod, devoid of ever seeing each other until . . . well, they're engaged.

One couple, Stacy and Izzy, could not make their different financial backgrounds mesh. Ladies, dump the man you love at the altar if he has a bad credit score. Another flop couple, JP and Taylor, didn't even make it into the honeymoon phase because JP thought Taylor looked like a gremlin drenched in Fenty Beauty Pro Filt’r Foundation shade 160. Lydia and Milton have their differences: distinct cultural backgrounds, an occasional language barrier, a seven-year age difference, and not to mention Milton's habit of scattering and leaving wet towels around his place. However, those weren't enough to stifle their growing, yet volatile relationship. 

Much has been made by viewers about Lydia's passionate nature; she spent a lot of the season being pulled across different emotional territory, from fuming to delicate to heartbroken to cunning. Meanhile Milton has remained the levelheaded unconventionally young fiancé, who continuously talked Lydia down.

At various points across the season, Milton showed many signs he was the calm in Lydia's storm, but to me, he didn't necessarily have the emotional vocabulary of the committed husband for whom Lydia was obviously searching. It's why I was shocked when the couple actually married each other in the season finale of the show.

In the recently released reunion episode, the couple is still going strong, a year after their marriage was filmed. They are now 25 and 32. In the long run, Lydia and Milton's relationship may or may not work, but they are all "Love Is Blind" has to show us in this year's catastrophe. And if their obvious lifestyle, maturity and personality incompatibility are a showcase for love winning — I think we're doomed.

As someone who is the same age as Milton was when he and Lydia married, I can confidently say I am nowhere near ready for a real relationship — let alone a marriage. Sure, all couples may squabble about things like who is leaving the wet towels around, or whether they want to live in a bachelor-style bare-walls apartment, but when the camera shows us Milton's seeming inability to fully accept Lydia's larger-than-life personality, it raises questions about their compatibility, as well as their rush to marriage. 

While there are mature 24 year olds out there, Milton was accused by an alleged ex-girlfriend of not actually breaking up with her prior to going on the show. True or not, I could always tell there was a level of immaturity and fear of commitment in the competitive Pokéman player.

We need your help to stay independent

Other contestants even questioned Milton's maturity and commitment to marriage at the beginning of the experiment. Even Milton's parents question why a 30-year-old woman would want to marry a 24-year-old with very little life experience. A gender role reversal would also pose the same question for me, too — and it's not just me. 

Gen Z has a fraught relationship with, well, relationships. 

Milton is an outlier from most people born from 1995 to 2012. According to 2022 US Census Bureau, 34% of people who are 15 years or older have never been married, an 11% increase from the 1950s.

In a poll from the Thriving Center of Psychology,  two out of five Gen Z and Millennials thought that marriage was outdated; per the poll a disproportionate number of women (69%) compared to men (27%) have felt this way. The poll also stated that 85% of people thought that marriage isn't necessary to have a committed relationship. While a majority of Zoomers still want to get married, there's a growing number of people that are rejecting the ideas of traditional relationship markers. Some are also ditching monogamous, heteronormative dating all together.

The state of young people's long term relationships are in flux, just like "Love Is Blind"'s microwave-a-relationship formula. But one thing that we can be sure of is that people are still looking for love, no matter what unconventional form it takes. We don't often meet people in the same way as our parents did 20 or 30 years ago. There's no age limit on when you should or shouldn't be married, but I desperately plead to my fellow Zoomers — don't go on "Love Is Blind" to find it.

 

Lawsuit accusing Trump of disenfranchising Black voters in 2020 reassigned to Judge Tanya Chutkan

A lawsuit claiming that Donald Trump, his campaign and the Republican National Committee attempted to disenfranchise Black voters during the 2020 election has been reassigned to Judge Tanya Chutkan, the same U.S. District Court judge presiding over the former president's federal election interference case in Washington, D.C. The suit, brought by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, accuses the Trump campaign and the RNC of violating the Voting Rights Act in their efforts to overturn his electoral defeat. 

According to Democracy Docket, the civil case was reassigned to Chutkan earlier this month on Oct. 6. "On Nov. 28, 2022, a trial court issued an order that allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint and held that Trump is not absolutely immune," Democracy Docket said in a release following the announcement of the case. "Trump appealed the Nov. 28 order to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Litigation is ongoing." The report of the reassignment marks the latest chapter in Trump's ongoing scuffle with the judge, who imposed a partial gag order on the former president Monday in his federal criminal case. The order bars Trump from "publicly targeting" Chutkan's staff, special counsel Jack Smith's or his staff, and any other court personnel. It also bans him making inflammatory statements about those individual's families and potential witnesses in the case.