On Michelle Obama’s inauguration absence: No need to be phony or fake, there’s real work to do

Michelle Obama is not going to the Trump inauguration because she is not a phony — great for her. I hope we take this as a lesson on the proper way to resist.

“Former President Barack Obama is confirmed to attend the 60th Inaugural Ceremonies,” the Office of Barack and Michelle Obama said in a recent statement. “Former first lady Michelle Obama will not attend the upcoming inauguration.”

I can't lie. I have never been more joyous after reading a statement from an elected official, because why go to that?

The trend of being a once-elected president and skipping the inauguration began with former President Donald and First Lady Melania Trump back when Biden beat them in 2020. As spectators and people who love this country, we called Trump out for his childish actions, using language like traitor and sore loser; however, I guarantee we will not be doing that to Mrs. Obama, because: “Who's going to be there?”

Why I'm feeling patriotic in the age of Trump

“Who's going to be there?” is a simple but extremely valuable lesson I learned from my late grandmother Thelma back in the ’80s. She had just got back in the house from a long day of fishing. Scrawny me, about nine years old, was charged with the task of grabbing the bucket of catfish she snatched up out of the car and bringing it into the kitchen where they would be scaled, gutted and eventually eaten. My Grandma’s great friend, Miss Betty, walked in as I completed my task.

“Glad I caught you, we takin some crabs over sister Paula house,” Miss Betty said, “You should come by around six or seven.”

“Who's going to be there?” my grandma replied.

Learning your way through the phony stage of life is something that most of us have to do — especially if your origin story begins in poverty.

And I don't remember Miss Betty’s answer, or even if Grandma gave a follow-up to that answer — I actually don't even remember if Grandma traveled to Paula’s house or not — but what I do remember is the look on Grandma's face when she uttered those 5 words: "Who's going to be there?" The two women shared a laugh. And even though I didn't fully get it, I kind of got it. As I grew older, “who's going to be there?” became part of my language, especially after I surpassed the teenage and young adult need to be phony. I imagine former first lady Michelle Obama has fully ended her phony stage after the first Trump inauguration she attended.

Learning your way through the phony stage of life is something that most of us have to do — especially if your origin story begins in poverty. Being a huge phony doesn't necessarily make you a bad person or a hypocrite; it means you’re just playing the game with hopes of making it to the next level. For example, if some kids who annoy you are throwing a party, and those same annoying kids are also the ones who have connections — like all the good information about summer jobs and internships — then you'll probably go to that party and act like you are having a good time so that you can potentially benefit from those resources.

Or maybe you are in a romantic relationship with a person you can't stand and you want to leave this person but you can't because you are only 15 years old and you know nothing about love. This one crappy relationship makes up a huge part of your dating history, which is all attached to this one person, and leaving that person scares you because you don't know if you'll ever connect with anyone ever again. So maybe you stay longer than you should because you are a phony.

As a phony, I went to baby showers, church, political fundraisers, cookouts, concerts featuring artists I hate and countless dates. Most of us had to be phony at some point in our lives, mainly because of all the fear that comes with uncertainty. We don't know what we can grow into, or what we are possibly able to achieve if we don't spend time in places and rooms that we don't want to be in. However, this should be a period of your life, not your entire life.

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

The phoniness that Michelle Obama had to subscribe to obviously isn't connected to a need for success in any way. Next to Oprah and Beyoncé, she's probably the most famous Black woman on the globe. The phoniness displayed by Mrs. Obama is directly attached to her husband being the first Black president, the coolest president, the most likable president — perhaps the only Black person in American history who was savvy enough to get white racists to vote for him. I’m sure Mrs. Obama — a woman who took her love for this country very seriously — knew the 2016 presidential inauguration would be the beginning of a four-year disgusting joke made up of inexperience, racism and goofy theatrics. She was too good to attend that inauguration, but she is also a great woman who decided to stand with her husband. Thankfully Mrs. Obama has evolved past that. I believe we should take this as a lesson.

Mrs. Obama is an icon, and I'm pretty sure she has better things to do than attend the inauguration of a man who has a long history of being openly racist, openly sexist, and seriously unpatriotic.

I didn't instantly catch on to the idea of “Who's going to be there?” But when I figured it out, I claimed that phrase as my own. “Who's going to be there?” had grown to become the question I was trained to ask before any event, function or dinner party. As I grew older and continued to live by the phrase, who I offended with my absence seemed to matter less and less. Just because I miss your event doesn't mean I don't care about you or whatever your cause is. The fact is that I care about me. I am responsible for protecting myself and I should not have to go anywhere that could potentially annoy me, make me uncomfortable, or worse, force me to be phony. Mrs. Obama is choosing not to be phony.

Again, Mrs. Obama is an icon, and I'm pretty sure she has better things to do than attend the inauguration of a man who has a long history of being openly racist, openly sexist and seriously unpatriotic. If the president-elect takes America as a joke, why must she show up and play too? Why is her husband going? Why are other presidents who know the danger, the history of toxic rhetoric, and the horrors the president-elect is capable of, supporting this event? In many ways, supporting this inauguration is like supporting terror. You cannot be progressive and support terror, it doesn't work like that.

Michelle Obama is extremely brave for taking that stance and I think we should follow suit. Instead of chasing connections, clicks, and serial networking, we should focus on the people and places that serve us. We should follow love and only venture into places where we are able to create love. The people who voted for Donald Trump and his administration don't seem open to the idea of a universal love for all, which is unpatriotic and forces me to ask the same question again — why go?

There's too much love in the world to waste time in places of hate.

Michelle Obama 2028?

about this topic

How the Trump admin’s attacks on abortion could devastate health care access globally

When President Donald Trump first took office in 2017, one of the very first executive orders he signed sent shock waves through the international reproductive health space. By reinstating the Global Gag Rule, if global non-governmental organizations received funding from the United States, they were banned from providing or offering information about abortions. Later in his presidency, the Trump administration expanded the rule to apply to all U.S. global health assistance — the amount of money affected by the policy increased from $600 million to about $12 billion.

The ripple effects were greatly felt internationally. Health clinics in Ethiopia for teenagers, once supported by U.S. funding, shut down. An effort to include HIV testing in family planning in Kenya fell apart. In 2021, the Biden administration rescinded the rule, like the Clinton and Obama administrations did previously. But as the world gears up for a second Trump presidency, reproductive rights advocates around the world are preparing for even more severe impacts. Not only do they expect the Global Gag Rule to be reinstated, which has largely been the case under Republican presidents since 1984, but they also expect more expansions to occur.

“The imposition of the U.S. policy is really driven by an anti-abortion ideology that is designed to both disrupt and coerce other countries' health systems and civil societies into restricting the health and rights of people around the world,” Beth Sully, a principal research scientist at Guttmacher Institute, said at a press conference. “We not only expect to see the incoming administration quickly reinstate the policy, but we're also expecting a potential expansion.”

People are fleeing abortion bans states: report

Indeed, Project 2025 proposes a few expansions to the Global Gag Rule. A couple of notable ones mentioned include applying it to all foreign assistance, not just global health funding, and strengthening how it's enforced. Another suggestion is to block U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which would affect international efforts to improve access to family planning.

“It also proposes imposing the policy on U.S. organizations, which, if implemented, we would expect to see challenges in the courts as a limitation of their freedom of speech,” Sully said. “In addition, Project 2025 also suggests removing the exemption that has been in place for humanitarian aid thus far, applying the restrictive policy to humanitarian aid.”

"We not only expect to see the incoming administration quickly reinstate the policy, but we're also expecting a potential expansion."

This would have “devastating consequences,” Sully said, as this funding is often being used in places where women experience high levels of gender-based and sexual violence. Previous research has shown that when the U.S. limits abortion care through the Global Gag Rule, it limits people's access to other essential health services around the world. Some studies have found that it can affect public health initiatives in other countries, such as HIV and AIDS programs. “The GGR’s development and implementation was consistently associated with poor impacts on health systems’ function and outcomes,” researchers concluded in 2019.

As detailed by Guttmacher Institue, the first Trump administration’s Global Gag Rule expansions had “devastating” impacts. It decreased access to abortion and contraceptive care globally. It also created a “chilling” effect among clinicians who were scared to share family-planning resources due to a fear of it affecting funding— even in countries with progressive policies on abortion.

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

Dr. Carole Sekimpi, senior Africa director of MSI Reproductive Choices, said at the press conference that they are expecting one in three women of the 690 women of reproductive age living in countries that receive U.S. funding to be unable to access reproductive health and rights as a result of the next Trump administration’s anticipated Global Gag Rule.

“We understand that the Gag Rule will not only affect abortion access, but it will strip women of contraception, and other methods of health care too,” Sekimpi said. “Like cervical cancer and HIV screening, which are usually provided in tandem with abortion and other forms of reproductive health care.”

Dr. Jean-Claude Mulunda, Ipas Democratic Republic of Congo director, said the influence of the Global Gag Rule is deeply felt on the ground in the DRC, weakening the entire health system.

“Support from the U.S. government is supposed to improve the resilience of the health system and prepare the system to provide to the community support that they need, especially the services that are most needed in a humanitarian setting,” Mulunda said. “Unfortunately, all the clinics and hospitals that are supported by the U.S. government funds are not allowed to provide information, they’re not allowed to provide abortion care.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

This especially harms young women who are victims of rape, incest and child marriage, he said.

How soon this could happen after Inauguration Day remains unclear. There are reports that Trump plans to sign 100 executive orders on his first day in office. While there are other priorities for the incoming president, like immigration, reproductive rights advocates are anticipating the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule as there are a number of anti-abortion events being organized in Washington D.C. in January.

“I think we anticipate at least the Gag Rule being signed before those events later in the week, so I think it will be early,” Sully said. “There is the executive order, and then there's the guidance that is issued and how that is being implemented.”

Meanwhile, the anticipation is already being felt on the ground today.

“I just heard from our office in Nepal, that they have already lost a partner on a project because of their anticipation,” Dr. Anu Kumar, president and CEO of Ipas, said. “I think in Trump 2, the fear factor is much higher.”

about abortion

How Trump could change the private investment market

When you think of startups like Uber or Airbnb that turned into large companies, wouldn't it have been nice to invest in them during their early days? But unless you had access to the private market, that wasn't an option.

Ordinary investors — known as retail investors — are generally not permitted to invest in private companies that issue stock, or in venture capital/private equity funds that invest in these companies. The restriction is largely meant to protect retail investors from private market risks like low liquidity and the chances of a startup folding. Instead, wealthier individuals who qualify as accredited investors are able to invest in the private market, as regulators generally deem that they are in a better position financially or informationally to handle these risks.

The rules could change under the Trump administration, particularly if Trump's nominee to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, Paul Atkins, is confirmed. But before you get excited about finding the next Ubers of the world, it's important to recognize the risks that could come from any changes in the current setup.

Private market returns sometimes — but certainly not always — exceed public market performance. With greater risk can come greater reward. Plus, companies are staying private for longer and the number of private equity-backed companies is growing, which potentially furthers the wealth gap, given that high-income individuals have access to investments that the general public does not.

Revenge investing: How to fight Trumpism with your money

Broadening access

The exact ways the SEC could expand access to the private market remains to be seen, but looking at past changes and statements could provide some clues.

In the previous Trump administration, the SEC "definitely had more of a lenient stance and was more pro-capital formation and allowing greater access to the market, including private markets," said Amy Lynch, founder and president of FrontLine Compliance.

Under SEC chair Jay Clayton, for example, the SEC made some changes to the definition of an accredited investor to enable qualification based on professional experience, rather than just net worth or income. The next SEC could go even further, Lynch said.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

"They could once again change the definition of an accredited investor to allow even more individuals to qualify," Lynch said.

For example, the SEC could change the definition of an accredited investor to allow those who have professionally managed accounts to invest in private offerings, similar to what was initially proposed in 2019 but didn't make it into the final rule changes in 2020, she said.

The SEC could also could give companies more leeway in terms of how and to whom they can offer securities for sale, she said.

Risk vs. reward

By broadening access to the private market, more people could benefit from diversification and the potential for private company growth. Even though both involve stocks, the public and private markets have different risk/reward profiles and aren't perfectly correlated.

"Increased diversification is a way of also streamlining risks. And by allowing your assets to have different timelines and liquidities, etc., then you can spread the risk out," Lynch said.

Yet private market investing can also substantially increase risk. Liquidity can be a big concern, as private funds often have lock-up periods, and even when sales are possible, they generally take much longer than public market transactions. The average investor might not have the flexibility to wait to get their money out.

"The argument by the regulator is that the chances of hitting big are slim"

Plus, there's the overall risk that private investments might not pan out. The same can be said for the public market, but the odds of a large, established public company quickly collapsing, for example, are typically lower than that of a startup folding.

So, while keeping retail investors largely shut out of the private market may seem unfair, "I think the argument by the regulator is that the chances of hitting big are slim. And there are many more losers than there are winners," Lynch said.

"The venture capitalists and the investors that invest with them are of the caliber and of the financial means to absorb losses when they occur. And they understand there's going to be a lot of losers," she added. "The typical retail investor cannot have that many losers."

Another issue is cost.

"You can invest in the entire public stock market for basically free," said Alexander Platt, associate professor of law at The University of Kansas. With private funds, however, "you're going to pay 2% or more to a series of intermediaries to get access to these other investments, which may or may not beat the public market."

That said, costs and complexity could ease somewhat. Under SEC chair Gary Gensler during the Biden administration, the agency tried to issue a rule that would increase private fund transparency and competition, but it ultimately was struck down.

But if an Atkins-led SEC expands private market access, that could end up achieving Gensler's goal of shining more light on what can be an opaque private market, such as if funds have to provide more uniform disclosure and face more competition for retail dollars.

With sports gambling increasingly legal and the proliferation of crypto investing, plenty of people are making risky bets

"I think it could be understood as trying to solve the same problem, which is we have this enormous private equity market, an enormous part of the economy that's outside of not just disclosure, but kind of regular competition and market forces that public companies have to deal with. And maybe everybody would benefit if those folks were incentivized to come a little bit closer to the light," Platt said.

Plus, even if private market investing is riskier than public market investing, there are plenty of other ways for retail investors to take big risks today.

While 10 years ago it might have sounded more reasonable to say ordinary people need to be protected from speculative investments, "today, it's just a little harder to worry about that," said Platt.

With sports gambling increasingly legal and the proliferation of crypto investing, plenty of people are making risky bets, he said. Even the rise of commission-free public stock and options trading — while a win for consumers on cost — increases the potential for speculative trading, he noted.

"People are engaged now in this huge volume of highly speculative, risky activity with very questionable social benefits," Platt said.

While those are legal, investing in something like a climate tech startup or biotech venture capital funds, which could help society, might not be allowed under current securities law, he noted.

"That seems asymmetrical," said Platt. "And I think it does make sense to revisit that."

about personal finance

“The guns in Gaza have gone silent”: Biden lauds ceasefire, defends pro-Israel stance

On the last full day of his presidency, Joe Biden lauded the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and defended his continued support of Israel throughout the war in Gaza.

"After so much pain, destruction and loss of life, today the guns in Gaza have gone silent," Biden shared on Sunday.

The outgoing president went on to claim that the path he walked, supplying billions of dollars in military aid for Israel even as the picture of the devastation in Gaza grew grimmer, was solely responsible for a ceasefire deal getting done.

"I've worked in foreign policy for decades and this is one of the toughest negotiations I've been a part of," he said. "But we've reached this point today because of the pressure Israel built on Hamas, backed by the United States."

Who gets credit for the Gaza ceasefire?

Many Democratic Party supporters attempted to pressure Biden to relent in his support of Israel as the war dragged on. Campus protests of U.S. support for Israel became a fixture of the nightly news and the campaign trail. Biden held true to his ally in the Middle East even as American public opinion turned against the war.

With the start of a six-week ceasefire and the Republican Party taking over Congress and the White House, Biden still feels his strategy was correct.

"Abandoning the course that I was on would not have led us to the ceasefire we're seeing today," he said.

Biden hoped that the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump would continue to aid Israel and Hamas through the tricky negotiations built into the ceasefire. Biden pointed to the way that Trump and Biden's envoys were able to work together in recent negotiations as a model.

“It now falls to the next administration to help implement this deal,” Biden said. “I was pleased to have our teams speak as one voice in the final days. It was both necessary and effective and unprecedented. But success is going to require persistence. And continuing support for our friends in the region, and the belief in diplomacy backed by deterrence.”

Watch the entire speech below:

about the War in Gaza

“Strong stand for the First Amendment”: TikTok announces US return after Trump promise to stay ban

TikTok is dead, long live TikTok.

The social media app announced it would be returning to the United States mere hours after going dark to comply with a ban passed by legislators last year. The move came after President-elect Donald Trump promised to issue an executive order that would roll back the effective date of the ban, which required the app's Chinese parent company ByteDance to sell their U.S. offshoot or cease operations in the country.

"TikTok is in the process of restoring service. We thank President Trump for providing the necessary clarity and assurance to our service providers that they will face no penalties providing TikTok to over 170 million Americans and allowing over 7 million small businesses to thrive," the company wrote on X. "It’s a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship. We will work with President Trump on a long-term solution that keeps TikTok in the United States."

Why Trump's new love of TikTok is dangerous

Trump made his promise to TikTok on his own social media platform, Truth Social. In his post, Trump envisioned a future where TikTok's stateside operations are at least partially owned by the U.S. itself.

"I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture. By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up," he wrote. "Without U.S. approval, there is no TikTok. With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars – maybe trillions."

about TikTok

Could the TikTok ban restructure the entire music industry?

Whether you turn to TikTok to doom-scroll, unwind after a long day, or laugh at silly trends and memes, its irresistible pull is undeniable — much like a viral song on the app that’s stuck in your head and impossible to escape.

TikTok’s influence has permeated nearly every industry, but its impact on how people discover and consume music is especially profound. In an era defined by internet-driven listening and interaction, TikTok has propelled the music industry to new heights.

This is bound to change now that the Supreme Court has announced its decision to uphold a federal law leading to a TikTok ban unless its Chinese-based parent company ByteDance sells to a U.S. company. The ban — which made the app unusable in the U.S. as of Saturday, Jan.18 — will surely impact industries like tech, entertainment and media, leaving more opportunity for billionaire overlords like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg to tighten their grasp on the American people's technology usage.

"Record labels have to follow TikTok because of TikTok's enormous power."

There are several alternative apps like RedNote, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts that people have flocked to in anticipation of the ban, but TikTok leads the charge in terms of how musicians communicate with their fans, how old songs regain new life, and how new independent artists can reach viral status seemingly overnight.

The content creator-focused video app's first iteration was a lip-syncing platform called Musical.ly but the growing app didn't hit the stratosphere until ByteDance merged with TikTok in 2018. Now TikTok has garnered over 170 million users in the U.S. Some of the largest record labels nationwide like Universal Music Group have taken advantage of that audience pool, using the app to promote artists and their music while the labels take home the lucrative pot of gold.

So now that TikTok has gone dark, what will happen to the everyday, hard-working musician? Will cash cow music labels also pivot to a new model after heavily relying on TikTok's rapidly moving algorithm to discover artists and promote their superstars like Taylor Swift?

As the clock ticks for TikTok, users can migrate to numerous alternatives

Salon interviewed Ediz Ozelkan, a media studies guest lecturer at the University of Colorado Boulder, who offered insight on how the TikTok ban could potentially change the music industry. Ozelkan studies technology's larger effects on music and has written works highlighting the growing inequalities within the industry as the government and record labels have tried to control TikTok.

It's unclear what will happen next, now that TikTok's availability in the U.S. is in the hands of the government, but Ozelkan told Salon that losing it won't necessarily be dire for smaller, unknown artists. He explained: "It doesn't matter how many platforms they're on, how great their music is. Unless they have a spark — whether that be from their music being shared by a popular podcast, a popular Instagram account, or a popular TikTok account — without that catalyst, there are few opportunities for this virality."

But Ozelkan also stated, "Anytime there's a change in the status quo — that is harmful."

Read Salon's interview with Ozelkan down below to learn more about the TikTok ban's larger effects on the music industry:

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

The clock ran down for TikTok, it seems. Why has the Supreme Court and or Congress favored this ban?

It comes down to a cybersecurity issue more than anything. I understand that TikTok takes a lot of personal information from us users, and many Congresspeople might view that as a national security threat. I don't fully agree with that because if there was a national security threat, I'm sure that would have already been a compromise that we've made already. If nothing's happened yet, I don't think it will move forward. But nonetheless, the state has a national security issue, and it's exactly why I don't think that there will be a favorable ruling for TikTok.

How has the music world evolved in the last several years with the streaming boom and apps like TikTok?

There's been a whole lot of changes there and the internet is really this fundamental technological change that has given out the perception that artists can now have opportunities they did not have in the past. You look to someone like Justin Bieber who got famous on YouTube. Look at someone like Lil Nas X who got famous basically on TikTok and then got a record deal with Columbia Records. Then you can look at fledgling artists like Oliver Anthony two years ago, who got famous with "Rich Men North of Richmond." Some of these are examples of the possible successes that an artist can make online so that both encourages artists to enter the music industry and then also encourages fans to say, "Hey, if I want to discover new music, this is where I need to be on these platforms that aid music discover."

In what ways has this affected the larger industry like corporate labels?

There's a lot of different changes happening. I can look to total music industry revenue numbers that were roughly about $17 billion in 2023, almost $15 billion of which came from digital sources. So we've seen an enormous overhaul in the music industry's revenue sources, whereby the internet is its primary means of expansion, in contrast. Look at the early 2000s, the internet was the primary means behind its contraction. So you have a complete reversal here of how the internet affected the music industry.

It just took the industry some time to fully monetize on the potential of the internet, and it has succeeded. The music industry has been on an upswing since 2015 — it's more than doubled its revenue since that point.

Last year, Universal Music Group took its artists’ music like Taylor Swift, Olivia Rodrigo and Drake off of TikTok after their contract with the app expired. Was this a move that protected artists’ interests or labels' revenue?

The idea was that it was supposed to protect artists, I believe that it was the labels who were trying to protect themselves more than anything. The major record labels — we have three major record labels in the U.S. — they are used to having the power in the artist, fan and label nexus. They were not ready to let platforms have their own space in that nexus. So they were trying to use their economic muscle to coerce TikTok into creating a similar economic situation where radios would basically follow record labels rather than the opposite. So now record labels have to follow TikTok because of TikTok's enormous power.

Universal Music Group did however fold, renegotiating a new contract that was said to increase royalty revenue and protections against A.I. What does this move show about TikTok’s hold on labels as big as Universal?

It looks like there is room for compromise. As you said, Universal did lead to an agreement that was at least good enough for them, but it still demonstrates that TikTok has the upper hand. Even if Universal pulled its music from TikTok, TikTok didn't shut down its operations [and] didn't have a retaliatory effort. It knew that it had the standing where Universal would eventually come crawling back. That's emblematic of the shifting priorities in the music industry landscape, where the artists have always been at the bottom of the totem pole and now there's just a power struggle between the record labels and platforms.

Are artists even reaping the benefits from deals like this?

Well, that's the question because we see someone like Taylor Swift pulling $2 billion in a tour completely unprecedented. Not to say she doesn't deserve it, but that does not reflect the economic reality for most musical artists. So the data I dive into is primarily on wages and employment and most of that seems to suggest that the internet era did not really provide the opportunities that it was supposed to. The internet was supposed to be this frontier where artists could create new connections with their fans, where fans could discover artists pretty much anywhere, and any unknown artists could get famous, as long as their product was good enough. I don't think the data tells that story.

TikTok has democratized fame and success, but how much of that short-lived virality is aiding in a musician's career and income long term?

The real big story here is the difference between the Taylor Swifts of the world and everyone else. So it's to say that TikTok has had a beneficial impact on these extremely large artists but not necessarily those at the bottom. There are people who will continue to sort of not be recognized despite the promises of TikTok. Whereas there are a few people who break through — look at Sabrina Carpenter or Chappell Roan — these people have broken through with the aid of TikTok. But not only so by and large. There are less music professionals employed in 2023 versus 1999.

"The real big story here is the difference between the Taylor Swifts of the world and everyone else."

Meanwhile, you see wages at the bottom continuously being outpaced by wages at the top. We have wages from music composers. They grew from 1999 to 2015 so that would suggest that there was a sort of democratizing effort as wages grew.

However, when the music industry returned to growth from 2015 to 2023 the new technological landscape meant that those in the top 10% of earners among music composers saw wages grow far more quickly. This is to say that as the music industry returned to growth. It's primarily benefited those at the top.

What do those inequalities look like between the big-earning artists backed by powerful labels versus the struggling independent artists?

This is the problem, really, when it comes to data. The data I'm looking at will probably not include someone like Taylor Swift, Drake or Olivia Rodrigo, but it will capture the bulk of music production in the country — and I can say that among music performers, the top 10% of income earners generate more than seven times the amount of the bottom 10% of income earners, so that gap will only be sort of exponentially growing as you get to these superstars as well.

What could a TikTok ban do to this growing gap that you've highlighted? TikTok helps these top earners, but does it give a platform to independent artists?

I would argue yes. Any new platform or existing platform will give a space for amateur artists to have their voices heard. The problem is that the algorithmic logic by which a platform like TikTok operates does not necessarily equate to success for those at the bottom.

"The algorithmic logic by which a platform like TikTok operates does not necessarily equate to success for those at the bottom."

The whole thing is that something that is already popular becomes more and more popular. It's a snowball effect that unless you have that first bit of snow, you won't be able to compound the effect. Therefore, for unknown artists, It doesn't matter how many platforms they're on, how great their music is. Unless they have a spark — whether that be from their music being shared by a popular podcast, a popular Instagram account, or a popular TikTok account — without that catalyst, there are few opportunities for this virality that would create the superstar of a Taylor Swift.

Does a TikTok ban really have as much influence as we think it might?

Honestly, I don't think it will, because people will flock to new platforms. Artists are already spread among a dozen plus different platforms. All it means is that they have one less, or a TikTok competitor comes into the mix. In that way, artists are not solely existing on TikTok, whether you're amateur or professional. So the evisceration of TikTok will not necessarily destroy an artist's ability to reach audiences.

It will only really impact those artists who frankly, just know TikTok better than other platforms. They might be more engaged there through the video, the audio-visual element, compared with maybe just a textual element or a picture sort of format in something like Instagram. If they are better behind a camera, maybe that will hurt them initially. But as I said, all the other platforms have audio-visual elements at this point, you can just go on to Reels. You can go post a video onto X or Threads. It's going to have a similar impact, as long as the algorithm helps.

Major artists last year like Grammy nominees Sabrina Carpenter, Chappell Roan and Charli XCX, have largely benefited from the TikTok effect: Can labels recreate these levels of fame without TikTok? Or is TikTok the driving factor?

I think TikTok was the driving factor. Now that framework has been established, it's like there's a first-mover advantage here for TikTok. But it's not like the first computer never got another competitor. We have dozens of brands that we can choose today, and it's going to be exactly the same for a music and video-sharing platform. So if TikTok was that catalyst 567 years ago, right now, there will be other platforms for artists to thrive. I think that especially in the cases of these existing large names, they're just going to bring their communities with them to whatever platform they may choose.

You might look at J. Cole's recent turn to a platform to create a super fan experience among his fans. He quite literally said, "Okay, this is a startup platform with, for the most part, no name artists." He just said, "Hey, this is a platform that allows me to make money." It allows J Cole to make money. It allows super fans to create this curated and individualized experience for them. Since the super fan is the sort of new focus of the music industry, I think that platforms like other platforms that will help to create these curated experiences for a dedicated fan base that are going to create a similar amplifying effect that TikTok had.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

I am curious to see what will happen with new talent. Have labels invested too much in this app being a self-driving vehicle that works on its own?

I think that's been true of the music industry for decades. The music industry has always relied on technology. Outside of the industry, [it] needed radio and the recording technologies, the audio, the early audio recording technologies, the CD. It needed cassettes, it needed the internet and television to create a space for music to thrive. In that way, the music industry has always focused on creating music and letting other people create the media through which that music is designed. So I don't see, for example, Universal creating its own app anytime soon. Maybe they take that job. I think they are an old-school company that is going to rely on the innovations of others.

Could major labels and independent artists shift to a whole new model because they've been heavily reliant on TikTok?

That's very possible. The problem isn't finding a profitable model, because there is a growing revenue share among the top firms in the music industry, and that hasn't reversed with the internet quite yet. Granted, that data is far more sparse than the data I was studying before, but unless an enormous reversal happens in that way, I don't see how independent [artists] are going to fundamentally alter their business models — at least in terms of how they're going to produce music and how they're going to try to get it out.

I do think that the turn towards the super fan in creating curated experiences and exclusive drops is something that independents are going to continue to rely on. But what happens next is anyone's guess. It's going to be contingent on what technology is available, what replaces TikTok, and ultimately, what fans expect out of their musical experience. I mean, I'm someone who is not a super fan, to be frank, I'm part of, for example, the top 1% of listeners for 311 on my Spotify Wrapped. Oh, I'm this great, super fan. I don't remember the last time I've spent money on [them]. I actually love the band, but if people are like me and have gotten used to a convenience factor in music and a very inexpensive access to music, it's going to be very difficult to convert those kinds of fans into a revenue-generating asset. This is exactly why the music industry has focused so much on these super fans in the last few years.

Ultimately, the TikTok ban could shift the music industry but how will this harm or benefit the small, independent artists?

It's going to be harmful in some ways, beneficial in others. You have new artists or even established artists who have finally gotten the hang of TikTok or have slowly grown their audiences from five to 10 to 100 to maybe 1000 and now all that hard work — if it doesn't translate quickly into another platform — will be gone. Especially if TikTok shuts down. I'm not sure TikTok has mentioned that users will be able to download their own data, but I'm not sure what that will entail.

For example, will it be the data of your followers — like perhaps, maybe just an email address or a phone number, so that they could link their followers on Tiktok to Instagram and X or YouTube, wherever they may end up if they don't have that option — which I imagine is going to be the case. I don't think TikTok is going to be giving out more data than it needs to. It means that all the hard work that went into TikTok will have been wasted. Unless that translates into another opportunity elsewhere.

On the other hand, though, for those who have not been good at TikTok and focused on other areas of cultivating fandoms, this might be a benefit to them. It may be a return to Instagram, or it might be a shift to a new place. And that could be where innovators among artists can thrive.

about this topic

“Too big to fit outside”: “Saturday Night Live” roasts Trump’s decision to move inauguration indoors

Though they'd probably appreciate it if you forgot that Kate McKinnon piano bit, "Saturday Night Live" writers clearly remember what life was like under the first Donald Trump administration.

In the cold open of the year's first "SNL" episode, the sketch show satirized the relentless pace of breaking news under the incoming motormouth-in-chief. The show assembled a panel of faux-MSNBC hosts who couldn't get a word in edgewise over constant breaking news alerts that Trump offered a trade of Connecticut for Italy or declared a "war on sharks."

The exasperated players, taking on the roles of Rachel Maddow, Joy-Ann Reid and Chris Hayes, among others, eventually turned the broadcast over to James Austin Johnson's Trump so that he could speak directly to viewers.

The local impact of Donald Trump: "They reshaped government in the MAGA image — and it caused chaos"

It was there that the sketch got its biggest laughs, with Trump digressing about saving TikTok and giving his reasoning for moving his upcoming inauguration indoors.

"Too many people to fit outside," Austin as Trump said. "We're very excited to be inaugurated on Martin Luther King Day, I like sharing the day."

Austin's Trump also poked fun at Mark Zuckerberg's MAGAish turn, noting that the tech billionaire will be in attendance at his inauguration and praising his recent makeover.

"I like him now," he said. "He looks better. Much cooler in terms of perm and with regard to chain."

Watch the entire segment below:

about "Saturday Night Live"

The real estate business is also a service business

When many Americans talk about real estate, most often they discuss it in terms of money and business. It is after all one of America’s largest sectors, employing millions in various capacities from construction, hardware, construction materials, sales, marketing and various other functions.

We all speak of real estate in terms of the real world assets that change ownership, or provide rental income for landlords and property owners. We speak of costs that people and companies incur when building, buying, renting or leasing these properties.

LA fires to worsen housing crisis

A house may be a structure built of wood, stone or concrete that protects us from the elements. It may have three, four or more bedrooms, several bathrooms, a living room, a dining room and other features. We may describe it in terms of location, of square meter size, of roof type or various other characteristics.

Inside that physical structure, however, are people who use that house to store their memories and give love (or hate) within their family. It may keep mementoes of successes, souvenirs that mark important events, treasured valuable items and things that may seem mundane and trivial to some but give meaning to others.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Clearly, these Los Angeles fires have literally “hit home” for many people and families. There are many people who might try to put on a brave face but are hurting inside. All their efforts over the past few decades are now reduced to ashes and rubble. They are not even sure if their insurance will cover the costs of rebuilding, let alone if they actually have coverage, which many do not have.

While a few of us might be able to purchase our homes with cash, the vast majority of us rely on mortgages which we pay over the years while we work. We insure it, because for many millions of Americans their houses are where most of their net worth is stored. They may not be that liquid, but their wealth is mostly in their homes because part of their soul and being is in that house when it becomes a home.

As the Los Angeles County wildfires and countless other disasters have demonstrated, when someone loses a home they lose a huge part of themselves

Sure, real estate is a huge business that generates money. But as the Los Angeles County wildfires and countless other disasters have demonstrated, when someone loses a home they lose a huge part of themselves. That home could be their anchor, their rock of mental stability.

Now all they have in material terms has been reduced to rubble and ashes. To top it off, they might actually still have mortgage payments they still need to make. Ideally, their insurance should cover the closing of this mortgage, but unfortunately a lot of policies have been pulled.

This is why real estate can and should also be viewed as a service business. When we make making money secondary as a logical outcome of providing a good service to our clients, renters, buyers, construction tenants and others, we make those Americans who have lost their anchor, their homes, whole again.

So when we see our fellow people in the real estate industry do unethical things like price gouging to take advantage of a sudden influx of demand versus lowered supply of rental units, that is just plain wrong.

It is time for us in the real estate industry to view this not just as a way to make money for ourselves and our families, but as our way of helping our fellow man.

I am sure many of you feel this way, and that I am simply articulating it. Let us strengthen this feeling and give those who have lost much in life the best service we can give. It not only makes us richer physically, but mentally and spiritually as well.

about real estate

You’re using olive oil the wrong way. Here’s what you need to know

I sat beside a row of small cups, their green bowls disguising the colors of the earthy olive oil within. Cristina Stribacu, founder of LIA Extra Virgin Olive Oil in Messenia, Greece, was leading me through an olive oil tasting that was about to reveal just how much I didn’t know about the staple that sits on my countertop, an open spout making for easy pours (the first of many mistakes I would soon correct.)

Greece is the world’s leading producer of extra virgin olive oil, or EVOO. A bowl of golden goodness extracted from robust, green olives is ubiquitous at every table, three meals a day. To be designated EVOO, the oil must be entirely natural — no chemicals or artificial additives — and pass a stringent sensorial analysis.

Why "Smitten Kitchen" endures: Deb Perelman on cooking for real life

That analysis is based on aroma and flavor, determined the same way Stribacu taught me — a third-party panel of tasters warms the cup in the palms, breathes in the aroma, then sips while inhaling through the teeth, a technique that draws out the flavors within the oil.

It’s reminiscent of a wine tasting, save one variable — color. Olive oil can range from vibrant green to golden yellow, and the hue has nothing to do with quality. Variations in shade simply reflect the amount of chlorophyl present when the olives are harvested.

Stribacu says that while color does not directly affect taste, “certain color profiles may be associated with particular flavor characteristics. For example, greener oils can have more robust, grassy, or peppery notes, whereas golden oils might taste more like flowers, exotic fruits, and herbs.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

How to properly store olive oil

While the color of fresh olive oil does not connote quality, the color change as it sits on a shelf does.

When olive oil is exposed to fluctuations in temperature, light and air, which oxidizes the oil to its detriment, its quality diminishes. Left too long in that environment, it will eventually turn rancid. If your oil appears to have darkened and has developed a bad smell (some compare it to wet cardboard), it’s time to toss it. It won’t make you sick, but it won’t taste good either.

Stribacu adds that keeping oil fresh is important to preserving its health benefits. “EVOO is packed with heart-healthy monounsaturated fats that can help lower bad cholesterol levels,” she says. “It also contains polyphenols and antioxidants that provide anti-inflammatory benefits. Proper storage is crucial to getting the most out of your olive oil.”

She suggests keeping your oil in a cool, dark place, ideally between 57 and 64°F. Always use dark glass bottles or tins to block out light. Sorry, but it’s time to say goodbye to the clear glass bottle on your countertop. Always keep the container tightly sealed to minimize contact with air – if your dispenser bottle has an open spout, your oil will degrade faster. And while it seems strategic to keep your EVOO close to your stove, you’ll want to avoid placing it anywhere near a heat source, including a countertop that is exposed to sunlight.

Olive oil is best used within 12 to 18 months of production. When you purchase your bottles, check harvest dates or best-by dates to ensure you’re getting the freshest oil possible. While olive oil can remain good for up to six months, try to use an open bottle within one to three months for maximum freshness and flavor.

Unique ways to use olive oil for cooking and finishing

Let’s debunk a myth right now. You do not need different EVOOs for cooking and finishing. Quality EVOO you may be inclined to reserve for a salad is also suitable for cooking. It has a smoke point between 375 and 410°F, which is more than sufficient for most cooking methods, including sautéing, roasting and grilling. As Stribacu says, “Don’t fall for the marketing that insists you buy different bottles for different purposes.”

"Take good care of this Greek staple, and it will take good care of you."

Small batch EVOOs made from olives that come from a single location picked at the same time tend to be more robust than mass-produced bottles, which typically blend oils of varying quality. A good EVOO has complex flavors that can elevate any dish. Think simple stir-fries, roasted vegetables, fried eggs, or the traditional Greek dishes under the Ladera (meaning “in oil”) umbrella, like a delectable combination of vegetables, rice and herbs. “Unlike some refined oils, which may lose their flavor when heated, the EVOO flavor profile is enhanced in heat, and dishes develop a more rounded taste,” says Stribacu.

As a finisher, olive oil really shines. Greek salad just wouldn’t be the same without its fresh tomatoes, bell peppers and cucumbers complemented by a pungent, olive-forward EVOO. Drizzle that same oil over fish right off the grill – the heat from the fish extracts an entirely different and oh-so-delicious flavor palate.

And here’s something not many cooks know: Cold also brings out dimensions of EVOO that intensify aromas and tastes. One of Stribacu’s favorites? Vanilla or dark chocolate ice cream dotted with olive oil.

As they say in Messenia, a perfect dinner calls for three things: good friends, old wine, and always fresh EVOO. Take good care of this Greek staple, and it will take good care of you.

about this topic

“The presidency is no place for petty people”: Chappelle reaches out to Trump in “SNL” monologue

Dave Chappelle kicked off the first Saturday Night Live of the year with a winding 17-minute monologue that touched on the Los Angeles wildfires, Diddy's arrest and the upcoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

The veteran comic linked together stories, starting and ending with a call for empathy for the people who lost their homes in the Los Angeles fires, but not before he got a few shots in at the city's expense.

Noting the confluence of extremely dry weather and incredibly strong winds, Chappelle asked the audience to consider the fact that this might be divine judgement.

“If you’re a rational thinking person, you have to consider the possibility that God hates these people," Chappelle cracked, before comparing the movie industry's center to Sodom.

Turning to Trump, the longtime resident of Ohio discussed the president-elect's campaign rhetoric around Haitian immigrants in Springfield. He said the perception that legal immigrants to the city were "eating cats" is inaccurate and gave his read on the situation.

"They saved a lot of companies. They did jobs that the whites weren't doing," Chappelle said. "[White people] were busy doing other things: heroin, sleeping on the streets, you know what it is."

Chappelle said he drove over to Springfield and regularly ate at Haitian restaurants to show his support for the community.

"To be honest with you, I don’t know what that meat was," he joked. "But whatever it was, it fell right off the bone."

Chappelle turned away from Trump briefly to touch on the case against music mogul Diddy. He said he never attended any of the celeb's infamous "freak off" parties, but only because he was never invited.

"I’m ugly," he offered, by way of explanation. That's a tough way to find that out…everyone in Hollywood had an orgy behind your back."

Chappelle drew a line between Diddy and the wildfires, saying he was thankful that Diddy's home was raided well before the conflagration.

"Thank god they caught him before those fires," he said. "There would have been a goddamn mushroom cloud over his house, 1000 bottles of baby oil."

Turning to Trump once more, Chappelle urged the president-elect to follow the example of the late President Jimmy Carter.

"The presidency is no place for petty people," he said. "Whether people voted for you or not, they’re all counting on you."

Watch Chappelle's monologue below:

about Saturday Night Live

“Work with us”: TikTok goes dark with a message for incoming President Trump

TikTok went offline for all U.S. users on Saturday night, hours before a ban signed into law by President Joe Biden was due to take effect.

If any of the approximately 170 million American users opened the app after it went dark, they were greeted with a hopeful message about the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

"Sorry, TikTok isn’t available right now. A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use TikTok for now," the message read. "We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!"

Trump has vacillated between calling for the app to be banned and pitching himself as the protector of the short-form video platform. When TikTok parent company ByteDance unsuccessfully challenged the law before the Supreme Court, Trump asked the court to grant a stay of the ban so that his administration could consider whether or not to implement it.

Why Trump's new love of TikTok is dangerous

On Saturday, the president-elect said on his Truth Social platform that "everyone must respect" the Court's decision to allow the ban to move forward, adding that he needed "time to review the situation." While speaking to NBC's Kristen Welker that same day, he floated the idea of a 90-day reprieve.

Early on Sunday morning, Trump posted a much simpler, all-caps message.

"SAVE TIKTOK," he shared to Truth Social.

Beyond the message it shared on Saturday night, TikTok's leadership seems optimistic that Trump will allow them to continue operations in the U.S. CEO Shou Zi Chew shared a video to the platform on Friday, thanking Trump for "his commitment to work with us."

about TikTok

Turn the channel on the inauguration with these counterprogramming suggestions

Only you know if you require this reassurance, but just know that you are under no obligation to watch the second inauguration of You-Know-Who. You’ve undoubtedly heard insistences from well-meaning crusaders like The Lincoln Project’s Ryan Williams, who rang the shame bell for all to hear last Monday.

“I am seeing so many posts on social media about boycotting the inauguration. Don't you dare,” Williams posted on Bluesky. “Don't you dare turn your eyes away from history, even the awful, scary parts. If you don't watch it with your own eyes, you rely on others to tell you what you saw. We must all bear witness to what's coming.”

Uh-huh. Counterpoint: Do we, though? We’re about to be flooded in four years of covfefe, if not more. Withstanding the onslaught will require us to protect our energy whenever we can. So instead of donating your attention to a man who thrives off ratings, use those hours to fortify yourself with knowledge or rest.

Monday is also Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, don’t forget. Why waste your time with a ribbon cutting when the timeless “Eyes on the Prize,” 2018’s “King in the Wilderness” and 2020’s “The Soul of America” are waiting for you on Max?

If you subscribe to Paramount+, you can watch “Selma” for no additional cost. Also highly recommended are “I Am Not Your Negro” on Hulu; “Rustin” or “Amend: The Fight for America” on Netflix; and a trove of options from Henry Louis Gates, Jr. via PBS.org or one of its apps. “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War” is stunning and might wake people up to the truth that America’s been here before. It’s available via the PBS Documentaries app on Prime Video.

Of course, it’s also perfectly fine to soothe yourself through Monday, achievable via endless options. Here are a few that Salon staffers suggest and may turn to after we’ve burned those awful, scary parts of history into our eyes and brains. We’d say think of us while you’re immersing yourself in these movies or TV shows, but that defeats the point. We’ll see you on the other side. — Melanie McFarland

12 shows for your end-of-year TV binge-watch

“Rick and Morty,” Streaming on Max

There are infinite ways to deal with a life-changing horror. Ask Rick Sanchez, the universe’s greatest genius, who has spent lifetimes – many of them, in endless universes – finding ways to avoid the torturous emotional fallout from his wife’s murder. Conversely, when he isn’t doing that or endangering his grandson Morty by dragging him on his crazy joyrides across space and time, he confronts his vendetta head-on with maximum aggression and chaotic results. “Rick and Morty” is the type of show with hidden depths (and backstage squeamishness, courtesy of its co-creator’s misconduct) but it also validates the nihilist’s view without entirely giving in to the darkness. Yes, there’s an evil version of Morty who ends up being democratically elected to lead the homeworld of all Ricks and Mortys and immediately destroys it the moment he takes power, and maybe that is too close to what’s about to happen. But at each dark turn our drooling, drunk genius finds an escape hatch, for better or worse, and something is soothing about that mercenary outlook.

Why it’s good to binge now: It’s hard to think of a more entertaining way to check out of our waking nightmare without entirely divorcing yourself from the reality of what will soon prove to be, to paraphrase another show by co-creator Dan Harmon, our Darkest Timeline. – Melanie McFarland.

"Tales of the City," Streaming on Tubi and Netflix

“Secluded one-bedroom apartment on Russian Hill. Apply 28 Barbary Lane. You’ll know if it’s right for you.” A simple newspaper listing from a simpler time in a gloriously complex place – 1970s San Francisco, where revelry and free love reigned. Midwest-proper Mary Ann Singleton (Laura Linney) lands here and her life changes forever, thanks to the all-welcoming and fiercely protective Anna Madrigal (the late Olympia Dukakis), less of a landlady than a collector of good souls who land on her doorstep.

Thirty-one years later, it’s still plain to see why people loved the first season of “Tales.” Along with its glimpses of early career Linney and Parker Posey and being one of the first widely-watched dramas to feature a fully-rounded transgender protagonist treated with care and empathy, it’s a comforting fable that counsels finding refuge and solace in the spaces and people nearby. Netflix succeeded in recapturing some of the original’s magic in 2019, making a back-to-back marathon of both seasons one of the best ways to be reminded of what freedom once meant to America – and still can.

Why it’s good to binge now: The TV adaptation of Armistead Maupin’s delicious novels sparked conservative outrage when episodes made their PBS debut in 1994. But critics countered the right’s demands to pull it with high praise, and viewers gave PBS its best ratings ever for a dramatic scripted series. Barbary Lane’s endurance is proof that love can still win if you’re willing to show up and fight for it. — Melanie McFarland

“Twin Peaks,” Streaming on Paramount +.

Beneath the smiling sheen of the American fairy tale beats a heart of darkness, and nobody knew that better than the recently departed David Lynch. No doubt his faithful have been busily remembering him by rewatching his many movies or this, his once-in-a-generation ABC mystery that for a brief time enthralled the nation with the mystery of who killed Laura Palmer.

He also blessed us with the Log Lady.

These barely scratch the surface of what “Twin Peaks” came to mean to TV and popular culture more broadly, and if you need a reminder or have yet to fall under the spell of Kyle MacLachlan’s FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper, now is the time. As he would advise, “Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it. Don't wait for it. Just let it happen.”

Why it’s good to binge now: Diane, if an obsession with nostalgia contributed to getting us to this day, absorbing the way Lynch channeled it to seduce and unsettle us as we enter another disturbing era seems appropriate. Once you’ve binged the eight-episode first season, you can skip right over to Max where 1992’s “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me” is available. If you’re not up to slogging through all 18 episodes of 2017’s “Twin Peaks: The Return” – we don’t blame you – the eighth episode is one of the series’ finest. Grab a blanket, a heavenly slice of pie (or five, no judgment!) and a damn fine pot of coffee, and settle in. – Melanie McFarland

“Trash Theory,” Streaming on YouTube

At my house, we’re addicted to “Trash Theory,” a seemingly endless series of music documentaries on YouTube, based out of the UK. They vary in length from 10 minutes to over an hour. The rise and fall of Brit Pop, the history of Bjork, how Wet Leg shows rock is not dead, etc.

Why it’s good to binge now: It’s fun, informative, and above all else, about people who are interesting and artistic, instead of tasteless, regressive MAGA types.— Amanda Marcotte

"Chicken Nugget," Streaming on Netflix

A woman walks into a machine and gets transformed into a chicken nugget.

Wait, you need more?? OK. As advertised, this surreal and comedic mystery drama involves Min-ah (Kim Yoo-jung) becoming a tasty, boneless poultry product and the two men in her life – her vexed father and his employee who has a crush on her – who are trying to change her back. Candy-colored fantasy dance sequences, ancient secrets, yellow pants and [redacted] sci-fi elements are just a few of the bizarre yet delightful features of this unique story that becomes a meditation on life. Also, it features one of the most unbothered coworkers I've ever seen who is now my hero.

Why it’s good to binge now: With only 10 half-hour installments, this is well worth checking out. Also, absurdist fare that has you questioning "Why?" is a mood we're all embracing right now. – Hanh Nguyen

"The Traitors" U.S., Streaming on Peacock

Come for the messy, backstabbing celebrities, but stay for Alan Cumming's show-stopping plaids. This adaptation of the Dutch reality competition series takes the party game Mafia and places it in a Scottish castle with reality stars who are occasionally inept and always outrageous in their gameplay. If you're new to the franchise, start with the second season (after Season 1's civilians vs. celebs formula was scrapped) that features only the finest Bravolebrities and reality stars who have made a living by extending their 15 minutes. Fascinating factions arise between the dramatized Real Housewives and Gamers (folks from cutthroat competition series like "Big Brother" and "Survivor"), but don't sleep on those dating show alums, who may be the most socially aware of the lot, which is an asset when trying to suss out who's lying.

Why it’s good to binge now: Season 3 is out now, but releasing episodes weekly, so catch up on Season 2 as you wait for the newest installment each week. Bonus: "The Traitors UK" is also available to stream on Peacock.– Hanh Nguyen

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

"The Night Agent," Streaming on Netflix

In our divisive times, we're used to the idea that we may have enemies among us, as highlighted by this political conspiracy thriller created by Shawn Ryan, based on Matthew Quirk's novel. In the first season, FBI agent Peter Sutherland (Gabriel Basso) teams up with tech whiz Rose Larkin (Luciane Buchanan) to discover who murdered her aunt and uncle, which leads to a bigger plot that threatens the nation. He's also dealing with the ignominy of having his own father labeled a traitor. In the second season, Peter is a full-fledged night agent, but after a case is compromised, he needs to uncover who the mole is.

Why it’s good to binge now: The first season is only 10 episodes with Season 2 dropping on Thursday, Jan. 23. – Hanh Nguyen

“The Twilight Saga,” Streaming on Hulu

Rather than press my face against the cold glass of my living room window and consider opening it to lean out and scream so hard that it causes me to pass out and fall like a bag of biscuits into the shrubbery beneath, I’m going to find comfort in the Cullens, the Swans and the shirtless wolf youths of the Quileute tribe. Which of “The Twilight Saga” films works best in times of stress and/or physical and emotional upheaval, you ask? All of them. Press play on the first one, “Twilight,” or the last and inarguably most insane, “Breaking Dawn – Part 2,” and you will surely find something to calm your nerves in a very hoa-hoa-hoa-hoa-hoa way. Be it a divorce, severe menstrual cramps or, similarly, the mental image of Donald Trump dancing to “Y.M.C.A.,” I’m at the point where I don’t even have to watch these films anymore to be comforted by them. I can just pull my “Twilight Saga” Steelbook Set off the shelf and place it on my head like a cold compress.

Why it’s good to binge now: Because one look at Bella and Edward’s half-human, half-vampire daughter, Renesmee, will help you cope with the knowledge that everything is ridiculous, and will be even moreso for the next handful of years, at least. — Kelly McClure

If you haven’t seen it, you should check out David Lynch’s DumbLand, which is just Lynch doing a cartoon full of violence and farting. Earnestly one of my favorite things pic.twitter.com/CnZ4d43YQp

— Mr. Chau (@Srirachachau) January 16, 2025

“DumbLand” Streaming on The Criterion Channel

Described as a series of five-minute line animations featuring an angry, violent Neanderthal and his family and neighbors, David Lynch's contribution to the genre of adult cartoons is one of the more obscure within his long list of credits but, in the wake of his recent passing, now's the perfect time to dive deep. From angry cowboys with murderous intent telling bizarre tales while pooping into a bucket to a big-headed goon waxing poetic about loving to kill deer, these animations don't scream "comfort watch," but as many of the themes within them mirror *gestures left and right* all of this . . . it puts present day into a humorous and, I think, much more palatable perspective.

Why it’s good to binge now: Having a good sense of humor requires intelligence and now's a really good time to fortify that within ourselves. — Kelly McClure

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

“Cars 3,” Streaming on Disney+

The great champions of our world wear their numbers on a jersey, which they put on before a match and then take off at its end. In the world of anthropomorphic cars, Lightning McQueen has his number – the famous 95 – grafted onto his own metallic tissue. For all his life, Lightning has existed to win, and he has won countless times. But now he is old and outdated, while younger, smarmier, more high-tech rivals threaten to leave him choking in bygone glory turned to dust. In an unsettling inverse of the first "Cars" movie, it is Lightning, once so lithe and audacious, who must fight a losing battle not only against those other cars and his own rusting turbines, but also against a creeping realization that he has, at last, outdriven his purpose.

Will he end his career as almost every champion racecar does – losing a contest he once would have won, a hero reduced, rolling along in the taunting shadow of his past? Lightning, deciding he cannot, takes drastic measures to ward off retirement, and recruits as his aide an ebullient training coach named Cruz Ramirez. She is not a champion born, and bears few of a champion’s sins – arrogance, obstinacy, a sense of entitlement. But like Lightning in his denouement, she is consumed with fear, and in a movie about cars in existential crisis, both Cruz and Lightning must skid their way towards a shared epiphany.

Why it’s good to binge now: We thought that watching "Cars 3" on a Friday night would be a stupidly funny, s**ts and giggles kind of experience. I did not expect to overthink anything. Perhaps this is what we need now – to reframe our purpose and what it means to be happy and fulfilled in an age of dread… by watching a Pixar movie that is ultimately lighthearted and ridiculous enough to also offer a good time. – Nicholas Liu

“The Sex Lives of College Girls” streaming on Max

This Mindy Kaling YA show is truly what I call empty-head television — and I mean that in the most loving, affectionate way possible. So turn your brain off and kick back to the “Sex Lives of College Girls” – a fun, scandalous romp featuring 20-something college girls navigating their friendships, co-habitations and romantic and sexual relationships.

The show formerly starred singer Reneé Rapp, who played the preppy mean girl with a heartwarming coming-out arc, but since Rapp’s departure, the half-hour comedy has fully leaned into the show’s absurdity. Kaling’s romantic comedy writing chops reinforce that this show is as unserious as a nonchalant hook-up. The core three characters, sex-positive academic slacker, Bela (Amrit Kaur), athletic, perfectionist Whitney (Alyah Chanelle Scott) and the always tone-deaf, Kimberly, (Pauline Chalamet) gel like butter as they ridiculously weed through their toxic habits and dating antics.

Why it’s good to binge now: Better catch up with seasons one and two because season three of “Sex Lives of College Girls” is currently airing every Thursday night on Max. Instead of watching Carrie Underwood sing “America the Beautiful," watch Bela have sex with her school’s hot mascot, Franklin The Fox. – Nardos Haile

"All Creatures Great and Small," Streaming on Amazon Prime

Comical escapades and heartstring-tugging moments. The gorgeous Yorkshire countryside. Old cars and great sweaters. And sheep! And cows! The Channel 5/PBS Masterpiece adaptation of James Herriott's beloved books — based on his own career as a country veteran in the 1930s and '40s — only gets better over its five (and counting) seasons, as novice vet Jim (Nicholas Ralph) bonds with his gruff boss Siegfried, forms a slow burn romance with spirited farmer Helen, and adjusts to the terrible weight of moving from peacetime to World War II.

Why it’s good to binge now: I'm not saying this show will cure your oligarchy-based depression, but it will take you somewhere exponentially kinder, slower and chock full of canines. — Mary Elizabeth Williams

"Mythic Quest," Streaming on Apple TV+

Created by "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" veterans Rob McElhenney, Charlie Day, Megan Ganz, this Apple TV+ workplace comedy set at an erratically successful video game studio never fails to go in surprising, surreal and sometimes emotionally gut-punching directions. As Ian (that's pronounced "Eye-in"), McElhenney is the pretentious, panicky heart of the show, but the whole ensemble, particularly Charlotte Nicdao as Ian's colleague, friend and foil Poppy, shine. And the premise — the maddening, exhausting tension between the creative and the hollowly lucrative — feels especially apt right now.

Why it’s good to binge now: A show about rich tech guys who don't want to actively ruin everything for everyone? That's reason enough, but “Mythic Quest” is also always inventively funny and slyly sentimental. The Season 1 standalone "A Dark Quiet Death" is one of the most beautifully executed half-hours in recent television history, and the "Quarantine" episode remains a masterpiece of early Covid era inventiveness. Need more incentive? The new season starts January 29, so why not catch up now? — Mary Elizabeth Williams

about this topic

Why Trump’s new love of TikTok is dangerous

Not too long ago, Donald Trump was a big fan of banning TikTok, the Chinese-owned social media app that went offline in the U.S. early Sunday under a controversial ban. On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld the law, passed by bipartisan majorities last April, largely due to concerns that the Chinese government used the platform to spy on Americans. President Joe Biden signed that law, but only four years after Trump, while still president, tried and failed to ban the app through executive order. TikTok allows "the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage," Trump said in the 2020 order.

There's good reason to believe Trump's personal reasons weren't so noble. For one thing, he's racist against Chinese people and apparently believes COVID-19 was somehow their fault, instead of seeing them as the first victims of a mutated virus. However, while U.S. intelligence services are frustratingly tight-lipped about the specific evidence, both common sense and the testimony of more trustworthy politicians who have seen the intel — including Biden — suggest that the accusation of foreign spying is almost certainly true. Nor is this a "free speech" issue. The right to speak out, even online, has not changed. The government's authority here is to determine what foreign companies are allowed to operate within our borders, a nearly ironclad power.

TikTok is good for Trump, and for one simple reason: It is a maelstrom of disinformation so gargantuan that even Elon Musk-controlled Twitter fails to compete.

Trump, meanwhile, has changed his tune about TikTok, but not because he disbelieves the intelligence reports or because he is a free trade absolutist. (Hardly that, as his love of tariffs demonstrates.) No, it's because he's learned in the past four years that TikTok is a shockingly efficient disseminator of disinformation, which is Trump's main stock-in-trade. "I’m now a big star on TikTok," he bragged in September, vowing to protect the site from being banned. He's also buddied up with the chief executive of the American division of TikTok, Shou Chew, inviting him to join the murder's row of tech billionaires attending the inauguration.

"It’s been a great platform for him and his campaign to get his America first message out," Mike Waltz, an incoming national security advisor to Trump, said Thursday. "We will put measures in place to keep TikTok from going dark." Chew then took to TikTok to publicly credit Trump with working to save the platform.

On Sunday, Tik Tok rewarded Trump for his support with blatant propaganda. The app went dark, as expected, but when users tried to open it, they got this message: “We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office."

TikTok replaces its app with MAGA propaganda

[image or embed]

— Judd Legum (@juddlegum.bsky.social) January 19, 2025 at 7:41 AM

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

TikTok is good for Trump, and for one simple reason: It is a maelstrom of disinformation so gargantuan that even Elon Musk-controlled Twitter fails to compete. It's a train wreck of B.S., from people claiming sunscreen and vaccines don't work to bizarre videos claiming demons infect everything to old-fashioned authoritarian lies. The company claims to stand for "free speech," but the Chinese government censors information that doesn't serve its political goals. The algorithm is hidden from public view, but it's easy to see it favors divisive, emotionally manipulative and misleading information. It ratchets up culture war tensions and stokes arguments while undermining people's mental ability to focus on developing solutions. Hundreds of millions of people willingly plug into an app that feeds them the demoralizing propaganda authoritarians have been trying to shove down our throats forever. It's a fascist's dream.

The surveillance aspect of TikTok has received more political and legal attention than its efficiency at hijacking people's thoughts and emotions. People don't like to hear they're being manipulated, especially when the manipulation is working. We all want to feel like we're properly skeptical and careful media consumers. Unfortunately, TikTok algorithms expertly exploit that desire, by pumping videos that promise viewers the "real story" and information "they" don't want you to hear. Conspiracy theorists love someone who thinks they're a skeptic.

But even when people are rational enough to reject the constant drumbeat of disinformation, there are signs the site is undermining people in subtle ways that are bad for their mental health and the larger body politic. For Slate on Thursday, Scaachi Koul wrote about her attachment to TikTok, describing it as an app that "burned hours of my life" and echoing the refrain popular with users, "All I do on this app is cry for strangers." I have to quote for length to give justice to what sounds frankly overwhelming, though she appears to mean it as praise for the site:

Soldiers coming home from service, teenagers being gifted their first car, babies being named after a late uncle. Bleaker, more gut-wrenching videos had this comment, too: videos of orphaned children in Gaza with their arms or legs missing, bodies shaking with a fear they’ll never lose. I read the same comment on TikToks featuring people who lost their homes in the Eaton fire, on that now-viral video of that L.A. resident finding his dog still alive in the rubble of his home. It’s on videos of people sitting alone at their birthday parties because no one came, clips of little kids doing their first somersaults, footage of an elderly woman returning to the house that she used to own, now bombed and decimated.

I liked feeling like I could walk into a stranger’s life and see them on the best day they ever had: a graduation, a birth, an engagement, successfully moving their ex-boyfriend out by throwing all his shit in the yard. Whatever a good day meant to these strangers, I got to witness a little piece of it, usually from the comfort of my own bed, late at night while I ran away from sleep. What was I hoping for in those moments? To borrow others’ feelings to amplify my own.

The tech billionaire war on "woke" is really targeting workers

Koul defends an "algorithm [that] seemed to want to make me sob" for giving her "the brutality and the beauty of being a person in the world." From my more jaundiced view, however, the experience sounds more like an emotional roller coaster designed to sap constructive energy. That's a lot of people whose emotions she's digesting in 15-second bursts. Those emotions are detached from the context that gives our feelings deeper meaning. Having one long conversation with a good friend almost certainly grounds you deeper into your humanity than a mile-a-minute drivebys of disassociated, ping-ponging emotions from strangers. What is all the feeling for, if you're too drained to do anything about it?

I'm not the only skeptic of how the shallow manipulations of TikTok are dissuading people from having more meaningful, if more slow-moving, experiences in the real world. In a long and disturbing Atlantic article about how Americans are spending more time alone than ever before in recorded history, Derek Thompson writes, "A popular trend on TikTok involves 20‑somethings celebrating in creative ways when a friend cancels plans, often because they’re too tired or anxious to leave the house." While he sympathizes with the occasional need to chill at home, he also notes it's unsettling that it's a wildly popular discourse. Apparently, a lot of folks feel seeing people in the real world is too taxing, and it's easier to refract your urge for connection to an app that offers only an inch-deep simulacrum.

This, too, is an authoritarian's dream: people who exhaust all their emotions on an endless hamster wheel of random strangers, while becoming further disconnected from investment in their real-world community. Koul writes, "I can’t think of a better use of all that time" than weeping over people whose names she doesn't know. And not to be a fuddy-duddy, but I can think of many better uses, including using that desire to connect with people to motivate charity work, political organizing, or just throwing a dinner party. These connections give us energy and move us to do more than cry, but to take action.

I don't want to pick on Koul, who is a lovely person and clearly has a lot of empathy. That's why I'm so alarmed by TikTok. This isn't Twitter, which is awash in trolls responding to incentives that encourage antisocial emotions like bullying, and is losing users for it. TikTok manipulates people by exploiting their better selves, and repurposing it to ugly ends. The algorithm feeds people endless videos to turn their emotions up high, exhausting their empathy, so they have less to offer those they can actually help. It appeals to people's desire to think for themselves by redirecting that urge to disinformation. Places like Twitter mobilize the worst people, but TikTok does something even more sinister. It demobilizes, distracts, and depresses those who want to do better. No wonder Trump loves it.

about this topic

Astronomers solve mystery of “little red dots” spotted by James Webb Space Telescope

Ever since NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope was launched, it’s been revealing more about the universe than even most astronomers expected. Some of the data JWST has sent back to Earth has been awe-inspiring, but some of it has been downright confusing or challenging to dominant theories in cosmology.

“The discovery of LRDs is a testament to the power of JWST."

Dr. Dale Kocevski, a professor of astronomy and physics at Colby College, announced on Tuesday that he had solved a mystery which could have broken what scientists thought they knew about the universe. In early 2023, JWST found a series of little red dots (LRDs) in photographs from the ancient universe, less than a billion years after the Big Bang. In theory, the 341 red dots should not exist, because according to cosmological theory, stars and other celestial material should not be able to accumulate in such a short period of time.

Why the James Webb Space Telescope has been a gift to humanity

Yet according to Kocevski, the LRDs are not so inexplicable after all. They are just growing supermassive black holes, he said at a lecture at the 245th annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society, accompanied by a paper due to be published in The Astrophysical Journal.

“When LRD were first identified, people thought they were massive galaxies that existed very early in the history of the universe,” Kocevski said, adding that they were dubbed “universe breaking” because they would have been too massive to be formed so early in the universe’s history. “However, if some of the light from LRDs can be attributed to a growing supermassive black hole (which we think is the case), then this would reduce the implied stellar mass of these galaxies. This essentially solves the too massive, too early problem that LRDs seemed to originally present.”

A team of astronomers sifted through James Webb Space Telescope data from multiple surveys to compile one of the largest samples of “little red dots” (LRDs) to date. (NASA / ESA / CSA / STScI / Dale Kocevski (Colby College))

After further research into the LRDs, Kocevski and his team confirmed that 81 percent of the subset are active galactic nuclei, or AGN, meaning they have central black holes which cause them to glow at the brightness that led to such puzzlement in the first place. Yet while these observations about LRDs answer some questions, they also raise provocative new ones.

"The most exciting thing for me is the redshift distribution. These really red, high-redshift sources basically stop existing at a certain point after the big bang,” Steven Finkelstein, a co-author of the study at the University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. “If they are growing black holes, and we think at least 70 percent of them are, this hints at an era of obscured black hole growth in the early universe.”

Indeed, the LRDs indicate that the formation of our universe needs to account for the abundance of black holes.

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

"Obscured black hole growth in the early universe is much more common than we previously observed."

“The other significance is that obscured black hole growth in the early universe is much more common than we previously observed,” Kocevski said. “There were predictions that this would be the case, but the prevalence of dust-reddened black hole growth in the LRDs, which are very numerous, is observational evidence of this.”

Writing about the LRDs for Big Think, theoretical physicist and science writer Ethan Siegel observed that Kocevski’s research validates the usefulness of JWST as a tool for learning more about the universe. When the mystery of the LRDs first became apparent, professional and citizen scientists alike bandied about alternative theories for the LRDs’ redness, all of which is healthy for the state of scientific discourse. One side argued that the stars in the given galaxies were very old, or “red-and-dead,” since the shortest lived stars burn bright and hot blue, and therefore redefined what we know about the universe. The other claimed that the galaxies were very dusty (which Kocevski says is the case with the LRDs), because the cosmic dust blocks the light that would otherwise emanate from stars and other objects behind the dust.

Now we know that the second theory was likely correct — and also why Kocevski seemed to “solve the puzzle.”

“We know that these little red dots have contributions from stars within the galaxy and also from the activity of the central black hole,” Siegel wrote. “Because you can quantify which components of the light you observe (the flat, rest-frame ultraviolet) is caused by the stars in these LRDs compared to the components (the rising, rest-frame optical and infrared) caused by the active black hole, you can make estimates for the stellar mass of each galaxy, the central black hole mass in each galaxy, and then determine both how massive the galaxy is and just how ‘overmassive’ each black hole is.”

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

Kocevski added that because of the new research, "we are witnessing the very early growth of the supermassive black holes that are found at the center of today’s massive galaxies.” Because the black holes appear to be overmassive, meaning they are larger relative to their host galaxies than scientists would anticipate, it indicates “massive holes may have formed first and then galaxies grow around them at later times."

For his part, Kocevski is thrilled that he was able to utilize the JWST to illuminate a great outer space enigma.

“The discovery of LRDs is a testament to the power of JWST in both identifying objects that we couldn’t see previously and providing the data (in this case infrared spectroscopy) needed to understand them,” Kocevski said.

about astronomy:

Lessons from a losing campaign: a Senate hopeful reflects on Democrats’ failures in 2024

Patricia Campos-Medina, a longtime labor organizer and progressive Democrat in New Jersey, lost the Democratic primary for the state's open U.S. Senate seat last June to then-Rep. Andy Kim. In unsuccessfully campaigning, then canvassing for Vice President Kamala Harris' losing bid and now watching as President-elect Donald Trump readies to return to the Oval Office, she said she's learned a few lessons, among them: Democrats' vaunted ground game failed them.

Volunteering for the Harris campaign in the month leading up to the November vote made that much clear, Campos-Medina told Salon. She said that as she knocked on doors in working-class neighborhoods of Reading, Pennsylvania, which boasts a majority Latino population, a slew of residents informed her that she was the first Democratic canvasser to come to their doors. Republicans mobilized for Trump had visited their homes two or three times by then, they told her.

"To me, that was a failure of implementation of a ground plan for the Harris campaign," she said in a phone interview. "People didn't know what President Biden had done for them, and we failed to communicate it at that grassroots level," she added, pointing to the economy as a key issue.

"We can't just give in": Women of color are still processing Harris' loss while preparing for Trump

Hahrie Han, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, agrees. She told Salon that, from the resources and data she's seen, the Democratic Party's biggest mistakes in the 2024 election were neglecting to interface with local organizations that had already established long-term, ongoing relationships with communities and failing to leverage the spring and summer ground game tactic of "cleaning their lists." Those cleanings, Han said, would have allowed the campaign to index its strongest and weakest backers alongside the nature of their support to understand where the campaign stands.

"The fact that the Harris campaign was so surprised by [the decrease in Democratic voters in 2024], to me, is an indication that they hadn't done as much work as they should have, cleaning their lists and doing that work in the summer that would have given them a better sense of where they would and should be in the fall," Han said in a phone interview.

Election data largely suggests that the 2024 contest was defined by who didn't show up: a critical mass of Democratic voters who had previously turned out for President Joe Biden in 2020. Experts have also posited that the election outcome was a result of voters punishing the Democratic Party over the perceived state of the economy, rather than an endorsement of MAGA policies.

Campos-Medina said that discrepancy was particularly relevant for the working-class and Latino voters she spoke to while campaigning and canvassing.

"The number one priority for the Latino community was the economy, was rent affordability, was issues of investment in their businesses, in their jobs," Campos-Medina said, echoing Han's emphasis on year-round voter outreach. "That message of what President Biden was doing didn't trickle down to them."

But Han said the issue is more complex. Instead of failing in messaging, Han argued that the Democratic Party had failed to close the burgeoning gap between those in control of the campaign and the voters they're trying to reach.

"It's much more about do ordinary people feel like the Democratic Party and the Democratic candidates care about them and are aware of and sympathetic to their concerns, and do the people who are controlling the system embrace them as humans," Han said.

That tension was clear to Campos-Medina by the time she returned from volunteering in Pennsylvania. She recalled telling her husband then that Harris' fate had already been sealed in Pennsylvania — and that Democrats were not going to win the battleground.

She had her own experience trying to win a campaign as a woman of color in 2024's political environment.

Campos-Medina lost to then-Rep. Kim in the Senate contest over the seat former Sen. Bob Menendez resigned from in August after being convicted on federal bribery charges, garnering just 16% of the vote in the June primary to his 74%. She was also unsuccessful in an effort to be appointed to fill the seat in the interim before the winning candidate was sworn in.

Challenges she faced on the campaign trail in fundraising and battles with local Democratic committees left Campos-Medina with a second lesson, she said: The Democratic party inadequately supports female candidates of color in elections.

"One of the difficulties for women running for office — and this is what I experienced — is that we are good messengers, we are good organizers, we know how to dig in and build power structures, but yet, the donor class doesn't see women, they don't invest in women early on in races as they should," said Campos-Medina, who is also the president of Latina Civic, a nonpartisan political action committee backing Latina candidates.

While Harris blew campaign fundraising out of the water, raising $100 million in the first 48 hours of her campaign, she had also spent the weeks leading up to her candidacy being underestimated. As pressure mounted on President Joe Biden to exit the race following his blunder in the first presidential debate, Democrats looked for any other potential replacement rather than the obvious choice: Harris, his vice president. Some donors reportedly pushed for an open convention before accepting her as the likely nominee, and pundits questioned whether she was capable of rising to the occasion at all, much less leading the nation.

But Campos-Medina said that witnessing a woman of color suddenly become the face of the Democratic Party inspired her to throw her political energy behind Harris' fledgling campaign. She joined organizing Zoom calls aimed at fundraising and mobilizing voters of different demographics and volunteered to get out the vote.

Seeing Harris' fast-tracked ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket — and the fundraising records she was able to set in the early aughts of her campaign — Campos-Medina said, made her feel hopeful that the Democratic Party could turn the tide in the future. Of most importance, she argued, should be making the right investments into their coalition now — especially in women of color running for office.

"They need to invest more in women and women of color running for office. In the end, they need us in the party," she said, arguing that if Democrats wish to rebuild a winning coalition, they have to include working-class people, women and people of color in "the leadership and the planning of how we run this campaign from the ground."

"They cannot continue not investing in us, and I hope that we get that message coming out of this election," she added.

about the 2024 election

Housing “affordability crunch” projected for 2025

More houses are expected to hit the market this year along with steadier mortgage rates, but persistent economic pressures could put off first-time home hunters.

Overall, the National Association of Realtors has projected a more favorable market for homebuyers in 2025. The group expects inventory to grow and existing home sales to rise 7% to 12% this year. Mortgage rates are projected to stabilize near 6%.

Last year marked a historic low for first-time buyers, who made up less than a quarter of consumers purchasing their first homes. Industry analysts are hopeful for improvement despite ongoing macroeconomic and industry-specific challenges.

Why homeownership is tougher for millennials

"While home prices remain high and mortgage rates are forecasted to stay above 6% throughout 2025, the year is expected to see more inventory hit the market — a silver lining for shoppers who will see more or less choice depending on where they are," Realtor.com chief economist Danielle Hale said in a company statement this month.

But it may not be enough to incentivize enough first-time buyers. Fannie Mae's Economic and Strategic Research group provided a more cautious outlook in its December report.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

“From an affordability perspective, we think 2025 will look a lot like 2024, with mortgage rates above 6%, home price growth easing from recent highs but staying positive, and supply remaining below pre-pandemic levels,” Mark Palim, Fannie Mae senior vice president and chief economist, said in the report. He noted that “on average, we expect mortgage rates to remain elevated and a hindrance to activity.”

Palim also noted “meaningful regional differences in market conditions, and the homebuying experience — as the adage goes — will continue to be a local one.”

While California’s housing market and Los Angeles County in particular is expected to experience severe fallout from the LA fires, other regions like the Sun Belt are expected to have more favorable conditions for homebuyers, according to Fannie Mae economists.

"On average, we expect mortgage rates to remain elevated and a hindrance to activity"

Persistent headwinds and economic uncertainty are likely to impact affordability and keep homeownership out of reach for some of the buyers for longer.

“There's some fundamental imbalance between housing availability, housing affordability, jobs and income, which are the drivers of whether housing is considered affordable,” says Jerry Jiang, a real estate entrepreneur and founder of Unrepped, a property tech startup that provides information and tools for underrepresented buyers.

The overall outlook is not entirely bleak. Fannie Mae economists see an uptick in nominal wage growth this year, which should boost homebuyers’ ability to afford their first home in the longer term.

“While we foresee the current affordability crunch hampering activity through our forecast horizon, we expect nominal wage growth will outpace home price growth for the first time in more than a decade in 2025, slowly but surely providing some much-needed relief to potential homebuyers,” Palim said.

about this topic

Los Angeles wildfires delay resentencing hearing for Menendez brothers

The Menendez brothers have been in jail for more than 30 years and they'll have to wait a few months for their shot at freedom.

Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s office announced on Friday that a resentencing hearing for Erik and Lyle Menendez that was initially scheduled for this month will be pushed back until March. Hochman cited the ongoing Los Angeles wildfires as the reason for the delay.

The pair were sentenced to life behind bars in 1996 for killing their parents, José and Kitty Menendez, in 1989. Allies of the Menendezes say prosecutors and the judge made several crucial errors in the case, including barring evidence detailing possible abuse from the brothers’ father.

"This is terrible": Viewers of Ryan Murphy's Menendez brothers series take issue with incest plot

The case caused a media frenzy in its day and returned to the public eye last September with the release of Netflix’s "Monsters: The Lyle And Erik Menendez Story.” Though the brothers criticized their depiction in the series and showrunner Ryan Murphy, the series inspired advocates like Kim Kardashian to call for a reconsideration of their case.

The brothers, now in their 50s, requested a resentencing to their life sentences last year when evidence of their father’s alleged sexual abuse re-emerged.

Hochman’s predecessor, progressive D.A. George Gascón, recommended resentencing in October. Gascón would have sought a new sentence of 50 years to life, making the brothers parole-eligible immediately. Hochman ripped into the move at the time as a “desperate political ploy,” but met with supporters for the Menendezes in January.

“It was a very productive session where they gave me all their thoughts about what should happen in this case, their experiences that they wanted to share, the ultimate direction that they wanted this case to go,” Hochman told reporters in January, per local station KABC, though he didn’t announce whether his office would oppose a lighter sentence.

about the Menendez brothers

Trump’s “memecoin” crypto venture gained billions in value overnight

Donald Trump is cashing in in his final hours before assuming the presidency.

A cryptocurrency launched by the president-elect on Friday night, named $Trump in a similar matter to nearly all of his other ventures, reached a market cap of north of $6.5 billion overnight based on tokens available for sale. As of Saturday afternoon, the market cap hovered around $4.7 billion with an individual coin valued at nearly $23 as of this writing, per Coingecko.

In a message on X, Trump announced the “meme”-coin brandishing the words “fight, fight, fight,” a reference to the words he said after an assassination attempt last July.

My NEW Official Trump Meme is HERE! It’s time to celebrate everything we stand for: WINNING! Join my very special Trump Community. GET YOUR $TRUMP NOW. Go to https://t.co/GX3ZxT5xyq — Have Fun! pic.twitter.com/flIKYyfBrC

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 18, 2025

Trump has previously made forays into the blockchain world, selling a series of NFTs last year and endorsing World Liberty Financial, a crypto trading company. The coin’s launch coincided with a black-tie pre-inauguration “Crypto Ball” in D.C., headlined by Trump’s incoming "Crypto Czar" David Sacks and attended by a who’s who of crypto industry insiders.

Crypto enthusiasts noted an alarming detail in the release, one which some said was a hallmark of an a-la-Hawk Tuah girl “pump and dump” scheme.

“CIC Digital LLC, an affiliate of The Trump Organization, and Fight Fight Fight LLC collectively own 80% of the Trump Cards, subject to a 3-year unlocking schedule,” a disclosure on the site reads. Another disclosure on the site claims the token is “not political and has nothing to do with any political campaign or any political office or governmental agency.”

Trump to designate cryptocurrency as a national priority: report

Trump's companies' 80% share was worth over $4.5 billion on Saturday, though not all of their holdings are immediately available to sell. One trader joked that “Trump can just pardon himself and anyone associated with” the coin if he were to defraud token buyers.

The billions in shares of the token held by Trump’s companies is yet another potential conflict of interest for the president-elect who has vowed to be the most "pro-crypto" leader in American history. On Thursday, reports emerged that Trump was planning to designate cryptocurrency a “national priority,” potentially shoring up the valuation of his holdings.

about Trump and cryptocurrency

“Nero of American politics”: Maher blames California politicians for LA fires

Bill Maher has fire outside of his front door and in his belly.

The "Real Time" host was seriously angry about deadly wildfires in his hometown of Los Angeles and he laid into local politicians during his Friday monologue, occasionally invoking GOP talking points to explain the devastation.

Alongside heated criticism at liberal California politicians like LA Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom, Maher took aim at diversity, equity and inclusion efforts which he says kept the state inadequately prepared for a spat of historic burns.

“Democrats in this one-party state this week went right to ‘don’t blame politicians, you can’t do anything about the wind,’ which is exactly half true – the wind part,” Maher said. "Global warming absolutely makes it worse, but that’s largely out of our control. What are we going to do? Pass a ballot measure to make sure [the] Chinese stop burning coal?”

The lazy comedy of "Bill Maher: Is Anyone Else Seeing This?" coasts on complaints instead of jokes

The comic went on to attack a lack of local leadership, joking that he pays “13% of my income every year to people I assumed were working on things like this.”

“[LA Mayor] Karen Bass, the Nero of American politics, was fiddling in Ghana while the city burned,” Maher said, dismissing Bass’ passing the blame to 14-year-lows in rainfalls and high winds as a weak excuse.

Bass left for Ghana to attend an inauguration three days before the Palisades blaze broke out and returned to the U.S. hours after evacuation orders began, a CBS News review of her schedule revealed. Maher later accused Bass of cutting fire department funding before the blazes, though local reports noted that the net fire department budgets increased last year after contract negotiations wrapped.

Maher bemoaned the state's “exorbitant” tax rates and wondered what residents received in return.

“California is a place that spends money and gets nothing, which is why you may have noticed when the fires broke out, no one escaped by high-speed rail,” he joked.

The comedian blasted the LAFD chief Kristin Crowley, who he alleges was too focused on her identity to curb the flames.

“The good news is, our fire chief is a lesbian,” Maher said. “Maybe she’s the best person for the job, or maybe they really wanted a lesbian in that job, and she’s just the best lesbian for the job, and with essential services, that’s not good enough.”

Maher noted “wokeness” wasn’t the “main reason” for the fires, but called DEI initiatives within LA an “unforced error” by local politicians.

Watch the full segment here:

about Bill Maher

How do we define Lynchian? Look to some of the most audacious TV — you’ll know it when you see it

Somewhere inside a tabula rasa passed off as an office space, a diligent worker is rewarded with a five-minute "dance experience." It’s been a tough morning on all of us, her supervisor sighs, “and I thought a little frivolity would be just what the doctor ordered.”

He reveals a list and instructs her to choose from a menu of musical genre options, and one accessory. She picks up a maraca and chooses . . . Defiant Jazz.

With the click of a switch, the overhead lights start to flash red and white like a disco as music pumps through hidden speakers. Her boss' stiff façade slips as his spine and joints move in a constant state of undulation. He bobs his head to the rhythm, sometimes flapping his arms. The white ceiling lights are replaced by orange and yellow as the manager's dance grows wilder. Not everyone is grooving with him — one employee suddenly leaps from his chair and bites his superior hard enough to draw blood.

Calling something Lynchian means recognizing what we’re seeing is off-kilter and that it doesn’t entirely compute.

The music stops, the lights return to the usual sickly phosphorescence, and the administrator pulls his demeanor back to formality as everyone recovers from their shock. “The music dance experience is officially canceled,” he says in a low menacing voice.

In the days since David Lynch died at the age of 78, enough tributes have blossomed to fill the Elysian fields. Most celebrate “Twin Peaks,” his lasting contribution to TV, alongside his name’s installment in the lexicon of the moving image with the word Lynchian.

But what does that mean, Lynchian? That "Severance" scene described above demonstrates it. The Severed Floor's usually staid supervisor, Mr. Milchick (Tramell Tillman), behaves in a way viewers haven't seen before. The song selection, "Shakey Jake" by Joe McPhee, spins on a '60s-style turntable one might encounter at an estate sale or a museum. The light show evokes the work of abstract artist Piet Mondrian. Completing the sensation is Dylan G (Zach Cherry) scowling through all this forced glee until he erupts with a roar. A plainer recent example of pure Lynchian quirk is tough to come by.

You could describe this as Kubrickian too — although Stanley Kubrick’s favorite movie, according to Lynch's report, was “Eraserhead.” Everything circles around.

"Twin Peaks": Can a classic succeed at being happening again?

Calling something Lynchian means recognizing what we’re seeing is off-kilter and that it doesn’t entirely compute. It’s a mundane image or situation not entirely tethered to reality. Entire treatises are devoted to explaining it. One of the most enjoyable is “David Lynch – The Elusive Subconscious,” a 20-minute video essay by Lewis Bond that both distills the concept through narration and shows it in practice.

“To be Lynchian is to exude elusiveness, and the enigma of what signifies Lynchian sensibilities lies in producing unfamiliarity in that which was once familiar,” Bond explains, adding that Lynch’s work lives in “an obscure area of the fear spectrum that sits between safety and danger.”

This gets to what’s vital about TV shows that resist time’s tarnish – they're made with an understanding that the medium is fueled by feeling, a reciprocating emotional exchange between creators and viewers.

Before Lynch and his collaborator Mark Frost unleashed “Twin Peaks” on ABC's midseason schedule in 1990, network TV storytelling was simpler, for the most part. Comedies sometimes took serious turns. Dramas revolved around love affairs, murder and justice.

Our favorite shows trigger reliable responses, and major deviations from those expectations can be seen as betrayals. That’s why a few of the most successful ones (like “Law & Order,” which debuted in the same year as “Twin Peaks”) find an acceptable emotional plateau and take up permanent residence there.

Before Lynch and his collaborator Mark Frost unleashed “Twin Peaks” on ABC's midseason schedule in 1990, network TV storytelling was simpler, for the most part.

Taken on their surface, FBI special agent Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan) and Laura Palmer (Sheryl Lee) are also familiar archetypes: a lawman investigating the murder of a local beauty queen.

But Lynch and Frost took that by-the-numbers setup and wagered that audiences might be beguiled by unease, disturbance and the appearance of confusion as long as there was enough beauty to capture the eye, and clarity to keep us on the line.

The Red Room is the apotheosis of this, part of a dream sequence in which Agent Cooper encounters the demon BOB, the One-Armed Man calling himself Mike, Laura and The Man from Another Place (Michael J. Anderson) — a little person in a red suit who makes cryptic statements like, “I’ve got good news. That gum you like is going to come back in style.”

All that is befuddling in itself. But Lynch throws in a strange dance and concise gestures from Laura that communicate a message that isn't immediately apparent. The secret sauce, though, is in the way he cycles Lee and Anderson’s voice tracks through an analog recording process that makes them sound otherworldly. That ending to the second “Twin Peaks” episode launched an age of analysis and Easter Egg hunts that’s with us even now.

Brushing aside all that geeky frippery, though, and what’s plainest about that scene is how unsettling it is. The first sight of the red room wasn't simply weird, it was sinister without depicting overt violence. Many shows have channeled that energy since. Each of Tony Soprano’s dream sequences and the myriad visual non sequiturs on “Lost” – the wreckage of a 19th-century trading ship and that polar bear turning in the middle of a jungle – are extensions of that room.

“Six Feet Under” is dappled with Lynchian homages – easy enough to explain in a show about a family that dwells in the figurative crawlspace between life and death, whose business is guiding families through loss. The first season episode called “The Room," though, was as close to a direct homage as you could get: Nate Fisher (Peter Krause) discovers his father Nathaniel (Richard Jenkins) had a secret life that included a small studio he rented above an Indian restaurant.

As Nate stands inside this place that’s entirely out of character for his dad, he daydreams about what his father might have done there, a string of visions that includes Jenkins doing a herky-jerky dance to Ted Nugent’s “Journey to the Center of the Mind” and ripping bong hits with bikers, ending on a darkly hilarious note with Nathaniel Sr. turning into a sniper.

“Atlanta” built a Lynchian house for its “Teddy Perkins” episode, perching a namesake character buried under prosthetics within its dim innards. The place nearly swallows Darius (LaKeith Stanfield) who visits Perkins, a forgotten R&B legend, to purchase a piano with rainbow keys. He barely escapes with his life.

Lynch’s TV influence doesn’t end with “Twin Peaks.” His 2001 neo-noir film “Mulholland Drive” is considered one of the filmmaker’s best, an exemplar of the practice of coaxing audiences into the theater of inscrutability and getting them comfortable before locking the door and leaving them there.

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

Originally it was a pilot for ABC that the network passed on in part because of the number of questions it left dangling mid-air. Watching the version Lynch re-edited into a theatrical feature, you can see how it could have worked as a series.

It already has. Ryan Murphy’s “Grotesquerie” follows the same structure of presenting one interpretation of the world flavored with just enough surrealism to make us suspicious, then changing the paradigm midstream to reveal that, indeed, what we thought was real isn’t. Murphy even closed the season on an ambiguous note he may decipher in future episodes . . . but maybe he won’t.

“Art’s preoccupation with secrecy can feast on the deepest parts of you. But its mysteries can also energize something profound within,” Bond observes in “The Elusive Subconscious.” “I suppose cinema’s true affliction, as well as its triumph, is that its answers are often destined to remain unknown.”

Artistic greats like Lynch outlast their work and time on Earth, reaching new viewers through the visionaries they inspire. The prestige TV age is the product of creators willing to play with the rules of physics in unexpected ways, thanks to the man who made a broader swath of the small screen seductively Lynchian.

about this topic

In “I’m Still Here,” a remarkably stoic Fernanda Torres keeps the memory alive

Home invasion movies are often so effective because they prey on a very simple fear: Someone could, at any time, enter the peaceful space you dwell in and upend that comfort. In a moment, the serenity of the home instantly becomes perilous and repugnant. In order to live, we tuck this fear away in the back of our minds, convincing ourselves that it could never be us while we deadbolt the door and silently pray that fate doesn’t have us on its list.

Walter Salles’ “I’m Still Here,” however, is not the typical home invasion movie. There are no violent assaults, stolen goods or damaged property. The film doesn’t feature any of the tropes that we’ve desensitized ourselves to. It is simply a tale of how easily our repose can be inverted into repulsion. And that’s what makes it all the more terrifying.

After Rubens Paiva crossed the threshold of his front door, his family never saw him again.

The film takes an intimate look at Brazil six years into the military dictatorship that held the country in its grip until 1985, after a coup removed president João Goulart from power in April 1964. Under military control, political dissidents and those suspected of corruption were questioned, tortured, exiled and killed depending on the perceived severity of their opposition to the military state. Rubens Paiva, a former Brazilian congressman who left politics after he was exiled from Rio for opposing the dictatorship, was among the thousands who were tortured and the hundreds who went missing or were killed. As brutal as Paiva’s forced disappearance was, its start was ordinary, even calm. Hands of the military, dressed in civilian clothes, rang the bell at his family’s home and asked Paiva to come with them for questioning. After Paiva crossed the threshold of his front door, his family never saw him again.

By awarding unexpected films and championing new voices, the Golden Globes got their groove back

“I’m Still Here” hones in on the days before Paiva’s disappearance and the long, tenuous aftermath that threatened to tear his family of six asunder. Paiva’s wife, Eunice, is played with searing resolve by Fernanda Torres, whose performance earned the veteran Brazilian actor a Golden Globe at the Jan. 5 ceremony. As Eunice, Torres subverts the image of a doting homemaker suffering in the absence of her breadwinning patriarch. She doesn’t agonize or tolerate her predicament, she endures. Torres’ fortitude brims from the screen like sweet maternal comfort. Among all of the women in contention for an Oscar this year, Torres’ work stands out as the warmest; a wonderfully complex performance that spotlights the work mothers do, and how often and innately they must bear the weight of the world in silence to keep it from burdening their families.

As the film opens, we meet Eunice in a rare moment of solitude, able to relieve herself from the world’s heft as she floats weightlessly in the ocean across from her home. Mother to four young girls — Vera (Valentina Herszage), Eliana (Luiza Kosovski), Ana Lúcia (Barbara Luz) and Maria (Cora Mora) — and one boy, Marcelo (Guilherme Silveira), Eunice is kept busy by her family’s ever-changing needs. They rarely discuss the dictatorship in their house, but keep up with the news on television. As she glides along the surface of the water, a military helicopter flies overhead, portending a change Eunice can’t yet imagine. Just as she has cast herself adrift, trouble is on its way to do the same to her family.

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

Screenwriters Murilo Hauser and Heitor Lorega allow ample time for audiences to glimpse at the everyday goings on of the Paiva family. We watch as they gather with friends for soufflé and frolic at the beach, we join them for ice cream and admire their adopted stray dog that Rubens (Selton Mello) names Pimpão, after Vera’s playboy boyfriend. It’s an idyllic existence, made all the more picturesque by the comforts that their wealth brings them. Rubens, now a civil engineer, plans to construct a beautiful new home, where they can see the silhouette of Rio’s Christ the Redeemer monument from their yard.

On an ordinary day, Rubens and Eunice play backgammon and reminisce about Vera, who’s spending her Christmas in London with family friends and plans to stay to pursue her education. They feel she’s far safer there. When there’s a knock at their door, their suspicions are proven correct. Four men enter and ask to speak with Rubens, who acquiesces and goes upstairs to put on a shirt and tie, accompanied by one of the visitors. Eunice calmly addresses her children, telling them that the men are from pest control. When Eliana returns from a beach volleyball game as Rubens is changing, she goes to her father and asks to borrow one of his dress shirts. “Do I have a choice?” he replies warmly. This sweet line is laced with a nauseating dread. Rubens is as powerless to the requests of his dear daughter as he is to the man standing across from him who has a gun tucked into his waistband, just out of sight. But Rubens’ good nature belies his distress, and Eliana leaves the room smiling.

Fernanda Torres as Eunice in "I’m Still Here” (Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics/Alile Onawale)

Shortly after, Rubens is escorted from his home, but three other men stay behind, telling Eunice that they will leave when Rubens returns. When that will be, they don’t know. With Rubens away, it’s up to Eunice to make sure that Eliana and the rest of her children continue to smile. Her children’s safety is questionable, but Eunice, like any mother, doesn’t want to let them know until it’s absolutely necessary. Only Eliana, her second oldest daughter and the oldest child in the house, can be made aware of what’s happening. Their day continues normally with dinner and foosball. Ana Lúcia, Maria and Marcelo go to sleep that night none the wiser. Eunice has successfully shielded her family from horrible knowledge, leaving herself to bear the brunt of the panic.

In the following sequences, Torres wears Eunice’s stoicism on her face like a mask so seamless that one can’t quite tell where the confidence ends and the fear begins. Her eyes are stern and unyielding, meeting the gaze of those quietly threatening her family. When Eunice and Eliana are both brought into the military base for questioning, Eunice retains her composure. But Torres’ work is keenly layered. Her effortless conviction in how Eunice addresses her husband and kids does not match how she speaks with military officers. In front of them, she is impassive and unflappable. Yet, brilliantly, Torres exudes tenderness all the same. She and her family may be under duress, but her motherly instinct lives inside of her, keeping the flame. Eliana is released after one night. Eunice is held for 12 days.

The affection and maternal care Torres radiates as she embodies this character is a revelation. She doesn’t just pull the viewer into her family, she extends her hand and asks us to join her.

But even when she’s made to be the political prisoner, Eunice refuses subjugation. She knows that, after her release, the military who are watching her house and tapping her phone would love nothing more than to see her spiral and look on with glee while cracks form and her family fissures. But Eunice won’t allow herself or her family to become anyone else’s example. As she goes on to lead the search for her husband’s whereabouts and publicly challenge the military in the press, she leads with her head held high, adamantly refusing to let her family become the picture of national tragedy. When a local tabloid photographs the Paivas, the photographer asks if they can look sadder to illustrate their plight to readers. Eunice looks around at her children, perched on their front steps, and laughs in response. “We’ll smile,” she says.

The affection and maternal care Torres radiates as she embodies this character is a revelation. She doesn’t just pull the viewer into her family, she extends her hand and asks us to join her. Hailing from Rio herself, and born just after the military came into power, Torres grew up witnessing these stories firsthand. She brings a direct knowledge to this role that is absolutely essential in telling the story with the grace and dignity it so deserves.

Torres’ is the kind of innately empathetic performance that we’re not always afforded as viewers. Eunice gave her children, her country and thousands of people affected by forced disappearances the gift of her stalwart determination. And, in its own way, Torres’ work as Eunice feels like a gift. How often do we get to watch a movie and recognize the unmistakable geniality that adorns a mother’s love? Rarely do we witness a performance that’s so unembellished and yet so memorable and moving. There are few big, capital-A “Acting” moments in “I’m Still Here,” but Torres doesn’t need fits of sobbing and screaming or sappy, tearful caresses of a framed photograph. There is a clear, aching power to her unwavering tenacity. To exaggerate Eunice’s histrionics would betray her authority.

Though the film’s title is the same as Marcelo Paiva’s autobiography, on which the movie was based, Salles and Torres give “I’m Still Here” a stunning updated resonance in the film’s two codas. While the denouement does somewhat rattle the story’s gripping momentum up to that point, its final scenes are critical to understanding the full scope of what Eunice did for her family, long after Rubens’ disappearance. We meet the Paivas in 1996, and again in 2014. In the ’90s, Brazil has become a democracy once more, and the Paivas are as loving and close as ever because of what their mother did for them. And in 2014, Salles checks in with Eunice and her children at a family reunion. Eunice, now living with advanced Alzheimer’s, is a smaller shadow of her once-tall self. But as she sits, observing it all, her stoicism is just the same. Like so many mothers, forced to carry on for the sake of their families in the wake of tragedy, her children are her greatest work: living, breathing examples of perseverance. The loving presence of her husband, which she refused to ever part with, has been passed down by Eunice; his warm grin, held as a memory within her. And, in one final family photo, Eunice smiles just the same.

about other stellar performances in Oscar contention

Nixon paved the way for Trump’s “new standard” of inaugural fundraising

Much ink has been spilled over Donald Trump’s record-shattering fundraising for his second inauguration. The president-elect has collected a reported $170 million for the smattering of ceremonies and festivities in Washington, D.C. on Monday, and is expected to raise more than $200 million after fundraising concludes.

Unlike campaign fundraising, there are no legal limits on how much donors can give inaugural committees and there is little transparency around how the money is spent. This, experts say, allows Trump to embrace corporate and individual gifts in a more brazen way that mirrors another president he has been compared to — Richard Nixon.

While nearly half a century separates their tenures, both openly solicited large financial contributions from private industries, wielded their presidential power against American corporations and rewarded loyalty from steadfast supporters.

Big companies that denounced Jan. 6 are now showering millions on Trump's inauguration

"Prior to Nixon, relationships between presidents and their closest advisers and corporations were there, but they were comparatively minimal," said Michael Koncewicz, a political historian and associate director of New York University’s Institute for Public Knowledge.

"A new standard"

Trump's $107 million inauguration in 2017 set a record for the modern era, surpassing Joe Biden's $62 million haul as well as those of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, which ranged from $40 million to $52 million.

It represented "a new standard for big donations from supportive corporations and individuals and those who hope to get benefits from the government," Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian and election forecaster, told Salon.

Nixon raised $4 million, or around $28.3 million in today’s dollars, for his 1973 swearing-in. At the time it was the most expensive on record, according to The New York Times.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

For some, the amount likely seemed over the top. For others, it recalibrated the idea of the tradition and a president’s approach to it — particularly that of Nixon, who valued close relationships with big businesses and their wealthy leaders, Koncewicz said.

Federal regulations that forced him to disclose campaign contributions revealed even more. His reelection campaign, flush with secret corporate money, reported raising $60.2 million, $8 million more than it had previously acknowledged. The $52 million was in itself a record-setting haul for that period, amounting to roughly $368.3 million today.

"The level of corporate fundraising that takes place under Nixon reaches an entirely new level," Koncewicz told Salon. "Pre-1972, you don't see the same kind of cozy public relationships between an administration and different corporations."

A "strident attitude regarding loyalty"

Trump and Nixon are far from the only presidents to rake in money for inaugurations. Twelve years after Nixon's $4 million ceremony, Ronald Reagan set a record with a $20 million swearing-in that featured more elaborate celebrations, according to ethics watchdog Public Citizen.

The numbers more or less ballooned over the next 30 years and exploded in the era of Trump, who put few limits on donations for his first inauguration and none on his second, according to Public Citizen.

After his November reelection, donors who had remained on the sidelines in 2017 didn't hesitate to open their wallets. Tech's biggest companies donated $1 million each, along with businesses that had reconsidered contributions following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Newer political power players such as the crypto industry jumped on board, and Trump also accepted $1 million from billionaires such as OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Apple's Tim Cook.

While some are looking for friendly legislation or deregulation, and some might simply want to stay out of Trump's crosshairs, his penchant for loyalty might provide motivation for others — another trait he shares with Nixon.

"While they're very different figures — Nixon cared a lot more about public norms and presidential power, at least how the public perceives presidential power — they both have this kind of strident attitude regarding loyalty,” Koncewicz told Salon.

“It affects their appointments, affects the people that they choose to surround themselves with, and it also affects how they approach fundraising," he said.

about this topic

Is 2025 the year that we abandon alcohol for good?

Like clockwork, every new year kicks off with Dry January, a campaign introduced by the national charity Alcohol Change UK in which people abstain from alcohol for the entire month of January. Mocktails and non-alcoholic beverages take the place of cocktails as more folks take a vow of sobriety to reset and reassess their relationship with alcohol.

In recent years, the challenge has become a way of life. Abandoning alcohol no longer seems to be a one-month-long endeavor but, rather, a lifestyle that has increasingly been embraced by younger consumers.

A Gallup poll from August 2024 found that 65% of U.S. adults aged 18 to 34 said alcohol consumption negatively affects one’s health. In comparison, 37% of those aged 35 to 54 and 39% of those aged 55 and older expressed similar sentiments. According to data obtained from the July 1-21 Consumption Habits poll, an astounding 45% of Americans say drinking one or two alcoholic beverages per day is bad for one’s health. That statistic is a six-point increase from 2023 and a 17-point increase from 2018.

Navigating the new sober boom, where "a person's sobriety is as unique as their fingerprint"

“Between 2001 and 2018, Americans were much more likely to believe moderate drinking does not affect overall health than to say it has a negative or positive effect,” the poll specified. “Despite a period from the 1990s through the early 2000s when medical research suggested drinking red wine can be beneficial, no more than 25% of U.S. adults have ever seen drinking as good for one’s health.”

In the poll, over 50% of Americans also said the best health advice for those who drink an average amount of alcohol is to reduce their consumption, while 22% said such drinkers should completely cut out alcohol. Only 17% of adults said continuing to drink an average amount is the best advice.

Indeed, fewer people are consuming alcohol and major booze companies have caught on. Major brewers, including Molson Coors and Anheuser-Busch InBev, and spirit companies, like Diageo and Pernod Ricard, have released new non-alcoholic drink options to lure a greater number of consumers who are going sober, CNN’s Jordan Valinsky reported.

“Beer will always be at the heart of what we do, but we know there’s an enormous opportunity with non-alc and that’s why we’ve committed to making it an important part of our business,” Kevin Nitz, vice president of non-alcohol products at Molson Coors Beverage Company said in a 2023 blog post.

The company has since launched zero-sugar energy drinks and non-alcoholic beers like Peroni 0.0. This year, it’s introducing a booze-free Australian canned cocktail alternative called Naked Life to the U.S. The “mocktails” will be available in five different flavors: Mojito, Negroni Spritz, Gin and Tonic, Cosmo and Margarita.

“Consumers want more than just an alternative. They want a sophisticated, great-tasting option that aligns with their lifestyle,” Nitz said in a statement. “Naked Life provides a high-quality non-alc cocktail, delivering an experience of the best alc based versions.”

Anheuser-Busch InBev has also dipped its toes into the non-alcoholic drinks sector with Budweiser Zero, Stella Artois 0.0, O’Doul’s, Corona Cero and Michelob Ultra Zero, which was introduced in September. As for spirits, Diageo purchased Ritual Zero Proof, the world’s top-selling non-alcoholic spirits brand, in September. And Pernod Ricard launched a non-alcoholic version of gin, along with Cinzano Spritz 0% and Ceder’s, a gin-like non-alcoholic beverage with botanical notes of juniper, rooibos and buchu.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon's progressive journalism

The non-alcoholic beverage market is expected to grow considerably in the near future, per statistics. In 2023, the market size was valued at $1,077.35 billion and is slated to grow from $1,169.57 billion in 2024 to $2,040.83 billion by 2032, SkyQuest Technology, a market research firm, reported.

2025 could possibly be the year that more people abandon alcohol for good, especially after Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy called for a cancer risk warning label on alcoholic beverages on January 3. Key data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has shown that consuming alcohol increases the risk of developing at least seven types of cancer. Alcohol-related cancer risk also differs between men and women. Approximately 22% of women would develop cancer due to consuming two drinks per day. For men, that percentage is 13.1%.

Although there’s a thirst for more non-alcoholic beverages, consumers are craving sophisticated and elevated drinks that push the boundaries of a simple juice-and-soda mixed drink. That’s according to Vanessa Royle and Mariah Hilton Wood, co-founders of Tilden, a social, non-alcoholic beverage company.

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

“I think we're going to see bar and restaurant [non-alcoholic] menus get a lot better,” Royle told Salon. “Last year, it felt like everywhere I went had a non-alc menu. Many of them were still soda water, lemonade and Diet Coke. I feel like we're in the midst of this realization that [non-alc drinks] have to be thoughtful. And actually, if you create something thoughtful and charge more for it, people will pay for it because they want that.”

“We often talk about it in terms of occasion — instead of drinkers and non-drinkers,” Hilton Wood added. “This year, I foresee the share of drinking occasions that include alcohol shrinking and being replaced by non-alcoholic beverages."

“We want to drink. And I think in the past, more of those drinks would have just been alcoholic drinks, because that's what was available,” she added. “And people just didn't think that there was another option. But as we become more aware that non-alcohol options are great, I think a lot of those — like, not-quite-drinking-moments — are going to be filled in with the non-alc options.”

about drinking culture:

“It’s a very big situation”: Trump floats 90-day reprieve for TikTok as Sunday shutdown looms

Donald Trump is floating the idea of keeping TikTok alive, at least for another three months.

In an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker on Saturday, Trump called a temporary stay of TikTok's stateside execution "appropriate."

“I think that would be, certainly, an option that we look at. The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done, because it’s appropriate," Trump said. "We have to look at it carefully. It’s a very big situation.”

TikTok has said it will abide by a law requiring it to shut down its U.S. operations on Jan. 19.

The social media app issued a statement on Friday, saying that recent statements from the administration of President Joe Biden haven't provided "the necessary clarity and assurance" for it to avoid going "dark" on Sunday.

"The statements issued today by both the Biden White House and the Department of Justice have failed to provide the necessary clarity and assurance to the service providers that are integral to maintaining TikTok’s availability to over 170 million Americans,” they shared in a statement. “Unless the Biden Administration immediately provides a definitive statement to satisfy the most critical service providers assuring non-enforcement, unfortunately TikTok will be forced to go dark on January 19.”

A law requiring the app's parent company ByteDance to sell TikTok or cease operating in the U.S. passed with bipartisan support last April and was signed into law by Biden. ByteDance challenged the ban at the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. President-elect Donald Trump also asked the court to stay the ban on TikTok so that his administration might decide whether to enforce the law. The court ruled unanimously against ByteDance, saying that national security concerns about the Chinese company were valid.

As the clock ticks for TikTok, users can migrate to numerous alternatives

"There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the justices shared. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”

After the ruling, Biden's White House offered a self-contradicting statement. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that Biden agreed with the law that required ByteDance to sell or shutter. However, they foisted the enforcement of the law onto the administration of President-elect Trump. The confusion from TikTok stems from the fact that the law takes effect while Biden is still in office.

"President Biden’s position on TikTok has been clear for months, including since Congress sent a bill in overwhelming, bipartisan fashion to the President’s desk: TikTok should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership or other ownership that addresses the national security concerns identified by Congress in developing this law," Jean-Pierre wrote. "Given the sheer fact of timing, this Administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next Administration, which takes office on Monday."

about TikTok