Parties and Protests Mark Culmination of LGBTQ+ Pride Month in NYC, San Francisco, and Beyond

NEW YORK — The monthlong celebration of LGBTQ+ Pride reaches its exuberant grand finale on Sunday, bringing rainbow-laden revelers to the streets for marquee parades in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and elsewhere across the globe.

The wide-ranging festivities will function as both jubilant parties and political protests, as participants recognize the community’s gains while also calling attention to recent anti-LGBTQ+ laws, such as bans on transgender health care, passed by Republican-led states.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

This year, tensions over the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza are also seeping into the celebrations, exposing divisions within a community that is often aligned on political issues.

Already this month, pro-Palestinian activists have disrupted pride parades held in Boston, Denver, and Philadelphia. Several groups participating in marches Sunday said they would seek to center the victims of the war in Gaza, spurring pushback from supporters of Israel.

“It is certainly a more active presence this year in terms of protest at Pride events,” said Sandra Pérez, the executive director of NYC Pride. “But we were born out of a protest.”

The first pride march was held in New York City in 1970 to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall Inn uprising, a riot that began with a police raid on a Manhattan gay bar.

In addition to the NYC Pride March, the nation’s largest, the city will also play host Sunday to the Queer Liberation March, an activism-centered event launched five years ago amid concerns that the more mainstream parade had become too corporate.

Another one of the world’s largest Pride celebrations will also kick off Sunday in San Francisco. Additional parades are scheduled in Chicago, Minneapolis, and Seattle.

On top of concerns about protests, federal agencies have warned that foreign terrorist organizations and their supporters could target the parades and adjacent venues. A heavy security presence is expected at all of the events.

source https://time.com/6994026/parties-protests-culmination-of-lgbtq-pride-month/

The Internet Unites in Celebrating Michael J. Fox’s Glastonbury Performance with Coldplay

Coldplay’s set in Glastonbury on Saturday night didn’t disappoint, that’s for certain. The record-breaking performance—as the first act to headline the festival for a fifth time—was filled with incredible songs, fan interactions, and cameos by other great talents. The British band brought out U.K. soul singer Laura Mvula, Palestinian-Chilean singer Elyanna, Little Simz, who had performed on the same stage just hours before, and Spanish-American singer-songwriter Victoria Canal.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The standout surprise showing, though, came from legendary actor Michael J. Fox, who showed off his guitar skills and played with the band for their songs “Humankind” and “Fix You.”

Coldplay’s lead singer Chris Martin addressed Fox’s surprise performance: “The main reason why we’re in a band is because of watching Back to the Future.”

He then thanked Fox, 63, and called him their “hero forever and one of the most amazing people on Earth.”

Interestingly, this is not Fox’s first collaboration with the legendary rock band. In 2016, Coldplay brought out Fox at MetLife Stadium, and they performed “Johnny B. Goode” in its entirety.

The 100,000-strong crowd in Somerset were rapturous in their approval and excitement in seeing the actor, who is famous for his “Johnny B Goode” guitar solo in Back to the Future, play on stage. Fox has been open about his diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, which led him to officially retire from acting in 2020.

Earlier this year, Fox accepted the second annual TIME100 Impact Award—which recognizes a global trailblazer who is pushing boundaries in their industry. In his acceptance speech, Fox spoke candidly about his experience with Parkinson’s, which he was diagnosed with in 1991, at age 29. In 2000, Fox founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation to fund research in curing the disease.

“I was climbing a golden staircase, minding my own business and suddenly I was blocked by something neither I nor anyone else could see,” he said at TIME’s event in New York City on April 25. “Time passed and no change… I was doing a lot of hiding. One thing that wasn’t going to work though, was wishing it away.”

Ryan Reynolds, who is a friend of Fox and is on the board of Fox’s foundation, penned the legendary actor’s tribute on the TIME100 list of 2024, where he explained that Fox had helped his late father, who had Parkinson’s, “along with millions of others, feel less alone” by being so open about his experience with the disease.

The reaction to Fox’s Glastonbury performance has been emotional not just from fans who witnessed the moment first-hand, but from online viewers, excited to see the actor back in the limelight.

Since my Dad was diagnosed with Parkinson’s almost a decade ago, I haven’t had the courage to listen to “Fix You”, one of my all-time favorites songs. But then this happened at #Glastonbury. @coldplay + @MichaelJFoxOrg on stage. Music is so incredible. ♥️ pic.twitter.com/licJPWWxUB

— Matt Sebek (@MattSebek) June 30, 2024

Michael J. Fox: “Your kids are gonna love it”

The kids: *40 years later at Glastonburypic.twitter.com/tdH4zuZUBz

— Back to the Future (@BTTFmusical) June 30, 2024

Michael J Fox playing the Fix You riff and I’m just sobbing like a baby

— It’s War (@judeinlondon) June 29, 2024

One social media user pointed out “however cynical and hard bitten you are,” the only thing to feel in that performance was joy.

However cynical and hard bitten you are, impossible not to feel something joyful when Coldplay plays with Michael J Fox at Glastonbury pic.twitter.com/GeLpgCnIRT

— Stig Abell (@StigAbell) June 30, 2024

That kick from Michael J Fox when the beat drops. 🥹 Pure release. ❤️#Glastonbury pic.twitter.com/3UTMzUB1kM

— Eddie Burfi (@EddieBurfi) June 30, 2024

I'm genuinely confident that literally everyone on the planet universally loves Michael J. Fox, he's an incredible human being and a childhood hero to so many, what a lovely touch from Coldplay. 👏❤️🎸

— Al Foran (@ImpressionistAL) June 29, 2024

Coldplay ft. Michael J Fox is the collaboration I didn’t know I needed

Fix You came out the month I started residency and became a sort of unofficial anthem for my earliest efforts at healing

It holds up like an anti-Yoda sentiment : trying IS caring

pic.twitter.com/aod6TElcKU

— Mark Lewis (@marklewismd) June 30, 2024

Have to say that little ditty Chris Martin composed and performed for Michael Eavis was a lovely touch, and then getting Michael J Fox out was amazing. Coldplay aren't my band at all but good luck to them, this is what headlining big shows is about.

— Sean (@shornKOOMINS) June 29, 2024

Elsewhere, fans were reminded of the legendary moment in Back to the Future where, after Fox’s character Marty plays “Johnny B. Goode” to little reaction, he says “Your kids are going to love it.” And as more young people got to enjoy Fox’s talent during the Glastonbury set, his words have come full circle.

Michael J Fox getting his moment at Glastonbury with Coldplay.

What a legend ♥️♥️ pic.twitter.com/bNXEko7CsA

— DEɅN JOHNSON (@deanjohnsonuk) June 29, 2024

Some saw the act of Coldplay bringing out Fox as a show of unity with people who have disabilities, praising it as a moment of solidarity.

Watching @coldplay playing ‘Fix You’ with Michael J Fox was iconic
The lyrics are a poignant reminder of a journey with #Parkinsons. A call to governments to invest in more research so the scientific community to fix us. Thanks for the shout out at the end, I’m being good #cancer pic.twitter.com/taVtf8tqg5

— Jonny Acheson (@jonny_acheson) June 30, 2024

Coldplay bringing out not one but two disabled people in their set is everything. (One being Michael J Fox!! + Victoria Canal)

That’s how you show unity for disabled musicians and disabled fans alike. A vast section of society that’s largely forgotten about on a world stage.

— Faith 🪐🎵 🪩♿️ (@official_faithm) June 29, 2024

source https://time.com/6993980/michael-j-fox-coldplay-glastonbury-performance-internet-reactions/

It’s Time for Biden to Step Aside and Give Democrats Their Independence This July 4

Do the historic thing, President Joe Biden. Give the Democratic Party our independence. 

It would be the most executive order the world has ever seen. It is utterly within your power to give America its first woman President. Grant history that gift. Grant your legacy that gift. It would complete a career defining, democracy celebrating suite of sound service.   

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

You were the first man to follow a Black man into the Oval Office, the first Vice President to serve under a President of color. You were the first President to serve with a Black Vice President, and the first President to serve with a female Vice President. What better way to complete this progressive apotheosis than to hand the reins over to that same, wildly capable, utterly prepared professional partner of yours? Let Kamala Harris become the first female President of the United States. Let it be on your terms, with your blessing. Don’t let this devolve. Seize the magnitude and the potential of this moment. It would be the most noble, transformative gesture many of us could imagine. Open the field back up, like you seemed to indicate you would when you first ran. Let Vice President Harris see us to the convention in August, and then let the delegates look with fresh eyes at the pool, and decide who will see us through to November.  

If you drag us through the next five months, most of us will hang in with you, but we will be weary, disappointed, and chagrined by what can only start to feel like a certain degree of hubris on the part of your campaign. And if the outcome is not what we hope, the good-hearted, value-driven bipartisan spirit of your last 40 years will be reduced to the single truth that you lead us into an uncharted abyss of four more years with a man who is, by all scrupulous accounts, an enemy to the constitution and to democracy itself. 

We trusted you. We are putting our hope in your hands once more. You are already a history maker and a man of loyalty, competence, and fortitude. Surprise us all with one last act of profound service, optimism, and imagination. Do the thing the other side is counting on you not to. See past ego into the world of elemental legacy. What I’m calling for now is a historic act of humility, self-sacrifice, and good faith. Don’t risk going down fighting when there are ready and able standard bearers who are still fresh for the race, and could lead the side to a more decisive victory. At least then, no matter the outcome, we will know you did everything you could, and more importantly, we will know you are still a man able to be moved by the will of your people, and a man good to his first word.

source https://time.com/6993970/why-biden-must-step-aside-for-democrats/

U.S. and Europe Warn Lebanon’s Hezbollah to Ease Strikes on Israel and Back Off Conflict

WASHINGTON — U.S., European and Arab mediators are pressing to keep stepped-up cross-border attacks between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militants from spiraling into a wider Middle East war that the world has feared for months.

Hopes are lagging for a cease-fire in Israel’s conflict with Hamas in Gaza that would calm attacks by Hezbollah and other Iranian-allied militias. With the stalled talks in mind, American and European officials are delivering warnings to Hezbollah — which is far stronger than Hamas but seen as overconfident — about taking on the military might of Israel, current and former diplomats say.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

They are warning that the group should not count on the United States or anyone else being able to hold off Israeli leaders if they decide to execute battle-ready plans for an offensive into Lebanon. And Hezbollah should not count on its fighters’ ability to handle whatever would come next.

On both sides of the Lebanese border, escalating strikes between Israel and Hezbollah, one of the region’s best-armed fighting forces, appeared at least to level off this past week. While daily strikes still pound the border area, the slight shift offered hope of easing immediate fears, which had prompted the U.S. to send an amphibious assault ship with a Marine expeditionary force to join other warships in the area in hopes of deterring a wider conflict.

It’s not clear whether Israel or Hezbollah has decided to ratchet down attacks to avoid triggering an Israeli invasion into Lebanon, said Gerald Feierstein, a former senior U.S. diplomat in the Middle East. Despite this past week’s plateauing of hostilities, “it certainly seems the Israelis are still … arranging themselves in the expectation that there will be some kind of conflict … an entirely different magnitude of conflict,” he said.

The message being delivered to Hezbollah is “don’t think that you’re as capable as you think you are,” he said.

Beginning the day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel triggered the war in Gaza, Hezbollah has launched rockets into northern Israel and vowed to continue until a cease-fire takes hold. Israel has hit back, with the violence forcing tens of thousands of civilians from the border in both countries. Attacks intensified this month after Israel killed a top Hezbollah commander and Hezbollah responded with some of its biggest missile barrages.

U.N. humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths used the word “apocalyptic” to describe a war that could result. Both Israel and Hezbollah, the dominant force in politically fractured Lebanon, have the power to cause heavy casualties.

“Such a war would be a catastrophe for Lebanon,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said as he met recently with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant at the Pentagon. “Another war between Israel and Hezbollah could easily become a regional war, with terrible consequences for the Middle East.”

Gallant, in response, said, “We are working closely together to achieve an agreement, but we must also discuss readiness on every possible scenario.”

Analysts expect other Iran-allied militias in the region would respond far more forcefully than they have for Hamas, and some experts warn of ideologically motivated militants streaming into the region to join in. Europeans fear destabilizing refugee flows.

While Iran, which is preoccupied with a political transition at home, shows no sign of wanting a war now, it sees Hezbollah as its strategically vital partner in the region — much more so than Hamas — and could be drawn in. Iran’s U.N. mission said in a posting Saturday on X that an “obliterating” war would ensue if Israel launches a full-scale attack in Lebanon.

“Obviously if it does look like things are going seriously south for the Israelis, the U.S. will intervene,” Feierstein said. “I don’t think that they would see any alternative to that.”

While the U.S. helped Israel knock down a barrage of Iranian missiles and drones in April, the U.S. likely would not do as well assisting Israel’s defense against any broader Hezbollah attacks, said Gen. CQ Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is harder to fend off the shorter-range rockets that Hezbollah fires routinely across the border, he said.

The Israeli army is stretched after a nearly 9-month war in Gaza, and Hezbollah holds an estimated arsenal of some 150,000 rockets and missiles capable of striking anywhere in Israel. Israeli leaders, meanwhile, have pledged to unleash Gaza-like scenes of devastation on Lebanon if a full-blown war erupts.

White House senior adviser Amos Hochstein, President Joe Biden’s point person on Israel-Hezbollah tensions, has not been successful so far in getting the two sides to dial back the attacks.

The French, who have ties as Lebanon’s former colonial power, and other Europeans also are mediating, along with the Qataris and Egyptians.

White House officials have blamed Hezbollah for escalating tensions and said it backs Israel’s right to defend itself. The Biden administration also has told the Israelis that opening a second front is not in their interest. That was a point hammered home to Gallant during his latest talks in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Austin, CIA Director William Burns, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, Hochstein and others.

“We’re going to continue to help Israel defend itself; that’s not going to change,” White House national security spokesman John Kirby said. “But as for a hypothetical — specifically with respect to the northern border line … — again, we want to see no second front opened, and we want to see if we can’t resolve the tensions out there through diplomatic processes.”

White House officials, however, are not discounting the real possibility that a second front in the Mideast conflict could open.

In conversations with Israeli and Lebanese officials and other regional stakeholders, there is agreement that “a major escalation is not in anybody’s interest,” a senior Biden administration official said.

The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly about White House deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity, bristled at the “purported logic” of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah arguing that Israel would see an end to Hezbollah attacks by reaching a cease-fire agreement with Hamas in Gaza.

But the official also acknowledged that an elusive cease-fire deal in Gaza would go a long way in quieting tensions on the Israel-Lebanon border.

Biden introduced a three-phase deal four weeks ago that would lead to an extended truce and the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, but negotiations between Israel and Hamas appear to have stalled. A senior Biden administration official said Saturday that the U.S. has presented new language to Egypt and Qatar intermediaries aimed at trying to jumpstart the negotiations. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an effort that the White House has yet to publicly unveil.

There’s still hope that talked-of Israeli plans to wind down major combat in the southern city of Rafah and elsewhere in Gaza could lead Hezbollah to temper its firing of rockets into Israel, said Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

But without a cease-fire in Gaza, any temporary calm on the Lebanon-Israeli border “is not enough,” Slim said.

source https://time.com/6993935/us-europe-warn-hezbollah-to-ease-strikes-on-israel/

Here’s How Biden Can Bounce Back From the Disastrous Presidential Debate

Coming off what was widely regarded as a disastrous debate performance, President Joe Biden, 81, faces a growing chorus of calls for him to step aside. Biden typically recoils from any criticism related to his age, but the urgent crisis he faces has become too pressing for him to ignore. However, all is not lost yet for Biden. The path forward is not easy, but there is still time for him to clear the air, with convincing explanations building off his track record of turning failures into demonstrated resilience.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Here are the three possible pathways for how Biden can move forward from his catastrophic debate performance and salvage his standing.

Biden could operate as though it’s business as usual

Unfortunately, this seems to have become the default option for many leading Democratic apparatchiks ranging from Gavin Newsom and John Fetterman to Kamala Harris. It was sad to see credible people taking an incredible position and backing Biden directly after that debate on Thursday. Newsom ludicrously claimed, “I am very proud of the President,” while Fetterman ripped Biden critics as “vultures” and advised them to “chill the f-ck out.”

Many Democrats likely fear incurring the wrath of Biden, who is notoriously prickly about his age. And sure, these Biden supporters can point out that the debate was only one night and that Biden’s three-and-a-half years of accomplishments should matter more—but the American people cannot and will not simply write off such a historically bad debate performance. 

The Trumpian denial of reality among these “business as usual” types leans towards political malpractice. In defaulting to what they view as the safest answers, these Dems are actually doing a massive disservice to their own cause and risk destroying their own credibility. 

Biden could head out on the road and prove his fitness to govern in front of voters across America

Instead of avoiding the issue, or hiding behind layers of overly protective staff in the White House, Biden can tackle it head-on with a proactive, forceful demonstration of his own fitness to govern. While speculation swirls about whether Biden should step down, there is no better way for Biden to silence the critics than to show beyond a shadow of doubt that he remains on top of his game and that the debate catastrophe was a one-time aberration, not the norm. But time is of the essence here.

Painful as it may be, Biden should own up to a poor debate and candidly admit why that was. Putting aside his age, what caused this? Was he having a bad reaction to cold medication? Did an overanxious debate prep team overcoach him? Was he overwhelmed with obscure facts and figures instead of being encouraged to be himself?

Already, Biden appears to be confronting matters head-on. At a rally in North Carolina on Friday, Biden addressed his poor debate performance as well as the issue of his age with more self-awareness than ever before.

“I know I’m not a young man, to state the obvious… I know. Folks, I know I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know,” the President said to a cheering crowd. “I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. I know how to do this job. I know how to get things done. I know that when you get knocked down, you get back up.”

But to restore his credibility in the eyes of the public, Biden has to do not just staged pep rallies with friendly reverential audiences, but engage urgently in genuine unscripted, responsive exchanges with independent media and outside key opinion leaders. 

Biden sat down with TIME for a cover story published in early June, but it’s rare to get such direct access to this particular President. It’s long been a topic of discussion how Biden gives less media interviews than his predecessors. This isolation has never served Biden well; but now, it is especially vital that he reach out to key donors, political allies, and other influencers across civil society to re-establish his standing and to re-engage journalists.

Biden has every opportunity now to fortify his credibility in the eyes of the American public, and there should be no premature rush to judgment—a point made by varied voices ranging from former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to lifelong Republican Mark Cuban. Already, key Democratic Party heavyweights such as former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have come out with statements of support meant to help tide Biden over for the time being—but the ultimate judge will be the American people. And there are signs the people will be far less judgmental than the media commentator class, with Biden surprisingly up 1% after the debate.

Biden could make the change many are calling for 

The Biden many Americans saw during the debate is not the Biden I [Sonnenfeld] have known for five decades. In fact, I spoke briefly with the President last month at a Greenwich fundraiser, and I had no inkling that anything was off in the slightest. Having known Biden for so long, and having admired his great presidency, it pains me to say this but after the debate disaster, the onus is on Biden now to prove his fitness to govern in the eyes of the public. If he fails at this, he should step aside before the choice is made for him by the American people at the ballot box in November, as many prominent voices ranging from the New York Times Editorial Board to AMC Theatres CEO Adam Aron have called for.

Despite the anxious clamoring of top donors, operatives and others, the path to replacing Biden on the ballot is fraught with difficulties. First, and most obviously, there is no evidence Biden is eager to step aside, no matter what anyone else says about him. 

For Biden to even remotely consider stepping down voluntarily, it could very well fall to such senior party leaders as the Clintons, Obama, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Rep. Jim Clyburn, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to try to convince him. And even then, it seems highly unlikely.

Even if Biden did voluntarily step aside, and release his pledged delegates for an open convention; the nomination process in such a rushed contest may prove to be so divisive that the party could be worse off. It’s also worth pointing out there is no clear frontrunner, with Vice President Kamala Harris trailing Trump in polls far worse than Biden.

While rising stars such as Jeffries or Governor of Michigan Gretchen Whitmer look like appealing choices, and could be a unifying dream team, they come with their own drawbacks too, and it would be unprecedented for a novice presidential candidate to build out a fully-fledged campaign infrastructure this late in the game. But these obstacles may prove to be the lesser-of-evils choice if Biden cannot prove once and for all that he is still fit to be President.

Biden should be given every opportunity now to rebound from the debate and show he is fit to govern. Should he fail to do so, only then will it be time for him to step aside.

source https://time.com/6993927/how-biden-can-recover-from-first-presidential-debate/

The Poignant Reason Behind the Newly-Unveiled Portrait of King Charles III

A new portrait of King Charles III has been unveiled in honor of Armed Forces Day on Saturday, June 29, in the U.K. 

The portrait, a photograph taken by Hugo Burnand in Windsor Castle in November 2023, shows the King in full military regalia, composed of various medals, swords and decorations—a tribute to service members in both his ceremonial position of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services, and his position as Field Marshal, the highest rank in the British Army.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The holiday commemorates the service of men and women in the British Armed Forces, falling on the final Saturday of June. Originally called Veteran’s Day, the special day is often accompanied by local parades celebrating veterans. 

The day is notably separate from Remembrance Sunday, when the country memorializes fallen British soldiers in all conflicts since the Great War, with ceremonies across the country on the Sunday nearest to November 11, the day Germany signed the armistice ending World War I hostilities.

A new portrait of The King has been released to mark #ArmedForcesDay. His Majesty is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services.

The photograph features His Majesty wearing his Field Marshal No1 Full Ceremonial Frock Coat with medals, sword and decorations.

© Hugo Burnand/Royal… pic.twitter.com/XD3cGdHrf3

— The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) June 29, 2024

This year, Queen Camilla released a heartfelt video to commemorate Armed Forces Day hailing the “determination, unrelenting efforts, and selfless loyalty” of service members “to each other and to the United Kingdom.”

She spoke of her father, Major Bruce Shand, who fought in the British Armed Forces in World War II.

In the video, an older portrait of King Charles sits atop the table beside the Queen Consort, as well as a photograph of her parents on their wedding day, and her late father’s medals. She also wore her Royal Lancers brooch, which has meaning both in her role as Colonel-in-Chief of the regiment, and her father’s own role serving with them.

Burnard was also the official photographer for the wedding of King Charles and Queen Camilla in 2005, the wedding of Prince William and Princess Kate Middleton in 2011, and Charles’ coronation in 2023.

This portrait of the King has so far been well received, with royal fans referring to it as “regal” and “magnificent.”

This is in stark contrast to when an official portrait of Charles—the first since his coronation—was unveiled in May. The modern painting portrayed him in the bright red uniform of the Welsh Guards against a background of crimson hues, his hands laid atop a military sword.

The first official painted portrait of King Charles III since his coronation has been unveiled at Buckingham Palace. pic.twitter.com/XLBMg1WxgE

— Historic Vids (@historyinmemes) May 15, 2024

The portrait, painted by Jonathan Yeo, celebrated Charles’ 50 years as a member of the Drapers’ Company. The bright and vibrant red of the painting proved to be controversial among the public.

Some commended Yeo for breaking with tradition and being “evocative,” but the majority of voices online seemed to find the red unsettling, blood-like, and even “nightmarish.”

source https://time.com/6993909/king-charles-new-portrait-meaning-armed-forces-celebration/

What We Lost During Last Night’s Cringeworthy Debate

The first presidential debate of this protracted presidential season was a horror show. Preceded by what seemed like weeks of excited speculation, idiotic predictions, and presumptive pre-debate analysis, when the debate actually happened, it demonstrated the dire choice that the two major political parties have given the electorate: pick the ranting liar and fear-mongering xenophobe, or choose the befuddled, stumbling man whose attempts to explain policy. (“I support Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters”?) It was painful to watch.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

One might rightly wonder what purpose presidential debates serve, particularly this year. We already know both candidates pretty well, and if we don’t, we have four more months to learn that Trump neither cares for the duties of office or the complexities of foreign affairs (and cultures), but does possess a talent for stirring up prejudice, for making people laugh, and for making them fearful. He does not answer questions. Last night, he avoided the question on the war in Gaza. He punted on the opioid crisis and climate change. He makes no appeal to decency, which is Biden’s forte (or was). But decency without backbone is what makes Biden appear, well, doddery. And we can watch that too until November. In fact, this otherwise consequential president seemed most focused when he talked about hitting a golf ball.

Read More: Calls for Biden to Step Aside Are About to Get Deafening

Part of the problem is that we live in a visual age. As a result, though we value them, our presumptive leaders become leaders even if they lack oratorical skills. In fact, it’s not surprising that the first well-known presidential debate, in 1960, occurred when television was a relatively new medium, and it did Richard Nixon no favors. No one remembers what he said, just how he looked. (Actually, the first televised debate, between candidates Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower, took place four years earlier but without them; they used stand-ins, Eleanor Roosevelt and Margaret Chase Smith.) Before that, presidents depended on radio, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” bringing him, and his voice, with its powers of persuasion, into one’s home. Before that, we debated in the public square of newspapers. Word, skillfully written, can change minds. Consider Lincoln and Douglas, a debate for a seat in the Senate, and the rest is history.

So oratory matters. The ability to persuade, through words, mattered. It still does, which is why last night’s debate was so chilling. When William Jennings Bryan was nominated by Democrats as their presidential candidate for the third time in 1908, even though he’d been unsuccessful twice before, it was because of his oratorical gift. His voice, once heard, was never forgotten. He could address a crowd of 20,000 and make the audience feel as though he spoke directly to each and everyone one of them and he understood what they needed. They called him the “Great Commoner.” He even started a newspaper so he could write column after column and deliver what amounted to sermons.

And, like all good orators, he knew how to perform. He did not want his tie too straight. Bryan practiced parts of his famous “Cross of Gold” speech, one of the most famous in American political history, for months and months before he delivered it in 1896 at the Democratic National Convention. He bounded onto the stage, raised his arms, and then spoke in the lyrical, cadenced phrases of Scripture. “We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity,” Bryan declared. “We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more.” It was good stuff.

Read More: These Are the Biggest Moments in the First Presidential Debate

But performance needs substance. And so Bryan would eventually meet his nemesis when he was confronted by an orator even more practiced, clever, and dramatic than he. That was Clarence Darrow, the celebrated lawyer in rumpled clothes whose talent for mesmerizing juries with his impression of humility (some of which was genuine) was unparalleled. Though not a politician, or at least not a professional one, Darrow was a man who could deliver a rational argument with much emotion. It was a winning combination.

Take his defense of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, two teenagers accused of the gruesome and motiveless murder of 14 year-old Bobby Franks. Darrow had Leopold and Loeb plead guilty to avoid a jury trial so he could argue before the judge that their lives should be spared. Claiming Leopold and Loeb were just adolescents, the products of genetics and environment, Darrow said they were essentially without free will. “They killed,” said Darrow, “because hey were made that way.” At the same time, let us not blindly and cruelly call for yet another death, he implored the judge. Let us acknowledge that capital punishment grows out of our primitive need for vengeance, and let’s acknowledge that our killing two defective, two abnormal adolescents would not prevent other impaired boys or malevolent men or vicious women from committing murder.

“I sometimes wonder whether I am dreaming, whether I am not living in centuries long gone by, when savagery roamed wild, and the world was wet with human blood?” he concluded at the trial’s end. It was a consummate performance: a rational argument topped off by an emotional one. Leopold and Loeb received life sentences.

When Darrow and Bryan confronted each other in the courtroom, both of them, like Biden and Trump, were considered past their prime. Certainly they weren’t vying for the Oval Office, and their confrontation took place in a court of law, not on a television set. But they were jousting over the meaning of America and America’s future with far more passion, compassion, and reasonableness than anything that happened last night on the debate stage. For all his faults, Bryan was an optimistic idealist who thought he could improve the lives of ordinary men and women. He was a progressive who sincerely believed—and fought for—such reforms as the government ownership of utilities, a graduated income tax, currency reform, woman’s suffrage and, for better and worse, Prohibition, which, in his mind, would help purify the nation by abolishing alcoholism, child abuse, and violence against women.

But when he wanted to turn the country into a Christian theocracy, Darrow objected. Their showdown took place in the summer of 1925 over a law recently passed by the Tennessee legislature that barred teaching the theory of evolution in public schools. It later became known, famously, as the Scopes Trial.

Darrow volunteered to defend the young schoolteacher who had purposefully broken the law (to test it), and he mustered, once again, all his oratorical skills. “Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and needs feeding,” Darrow declared. “Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.”

“No subject possesses the minds of men like religious bigotry and hate,” Darrow concluded, “and these fires are being lighted today in America.”

He spoke without notes. He was persuasive and passionate. That’s what I thought about—what we had lost, as I watched last night’s sad, cringeworthy debate.

source https://time.com/6993540/biden-trump-debate-orators-essay/

Sienna Miller Is the Reason to Watch Horizon

Kevin Costner has sunk a mint of his own money into his projected four-part western epic Horizon; the first installment, Horizon: An American Saga — Chapter 1, is now making its rounds in cinemas, as Costner has always intended; he believes wholeheartedly in the big-screen experience. This first Horizon entry is a bit snoozy, albeit handsome-looking. Costner, who also co-wrote the script (with Jon Baird and Mark Kasdan), may not have the best control of this sprawling story peopled with a giant and somewhat confusing roster of characters. But his judgment is sound in at least one area: Sienna Miller plays Frances Kittredge, a pioneer wife who survives an Apache attack on the homestead she’s set up with her husband and two children. And if this first chapter of Horizon too often drags its boot-heels in the dust, it crackles to life every minute Miller is onscreen.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Miller has been working in movies and TV for 25 years now; pretty much everyone knows her name. And still, she’s a secret weapon, an actor you can count on to give a terrific performance nearly every time—and proof, though it’s sad we need it, that women need to work twice as hard as men do to buck Hollywood’s pernicious double standard.

When Miller—who was born in New York but raised in London—was first making her mark in movies, giving lit-from-within supporting performances in pictures like the 2004 Alfie remake (appearing with Jude Law, who would become her boyfriend) and, from that same year, the rufty-tufty crime thriller Layer Cake (with Daniel Craig), she was lauded as the next It Girl, the blonde ingenue most likely to become a huge star. She got her chance in George Hickenlooper’s 2006 Factory Girl, an astute and sympathetic look at the life of socialite Edie Sedgwick, who captivated both Andy Warhol and Bob Dylan, though she was betrayed by the former and, it seems, just too much of a firecracker for the latter. As Sedgwick, Miller is sensational, shifting through subtle gradations of fragility and effervescence; at times, she has the quivering leaf-blade vulnerability of the young Natalie Wood. It’s the kind of performance that could have, should have, won awards. At the least, it could have made her a a major star.

Read More: The 31 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2024

But the movie stumbled. Before its release, there were reports of rewriting and reshoots; it was considered “troubled,” an adjective that’s always considered, often unfairly, synonymous with “bad.” The picture was picked up for distribution by the Weinstein Co., and now-disgraced mogul Harvey Weinstein instigated the changes that were made to the film. (Miller has said that she’d never had to fend him off—it seemed that having Law as a boyfriend, an actor whom Weinstein saw as a valuable property, protected her from his predatory advances.) The movie was largely savaged by critics, and disappeared quickly from theaters.

The bigger problem for Miller was that, particularly in the British tabloids, she had already attracted the kind of attention, including undue scrutiny of her personal life, that had nothing to do with her gifts as a performer. In the years leading up to Factory Girl, she had, as the Guardian put it in 2005, “been traded like pork belly on the celebrity market.” Miller had by that time given acclaimed performances on the West End: when Helen McCrory fell ill during the 2005 run of As You Like It, Miller, who was playing Celia, is said to have slipped seamlessly into the role of Rosalind at the last minute. Also during that run, the news broke that Law had been cheating on Miller with his children’s nanny. It was a scandal that seemed to stick more to her than to the guy who had done the actual cheating. (Law publicly apologized to Miller, but the damage was done.)

Even worse, just a few weeks after Law’s deceit had been exposed, the UK tabloid the Sun obtained information, via illicit means, that Miller was pregnant—she was 23 years old and just 12 weeks into the pregnancy at the time, and had barely discussed it even with family and friends. The Sun‘s manipulations, coupled with whatever personal trauma the cheating scandal had wrought, were devastating for Miller, and she sued the paper. In late 2021, she reached a settlement with the Sun—pursuing it to the end could have bankrupted her. She was paid an undisclosed sum, and one of the settlement’s conditions was that there would be no admission of illegal activity or phone hacking on the Sun‘s part. Miller was, however, allowed to read a statement in court, during which she averred that the paper’s actions “very nearly ruined my life. I have certainly seen how they have ruined the lives of others.”

It’s impossible to imagine a male public figure’s life being rocked in exactly the same way; men don’t become pregnant, and there’s just no comparable violation of privacy. And while Miller has at times brought problems upon herself—for example, making a wisecrack to Rolling Stone about the dullness of the city of Pittsburgh, where she’d spent time filming 2008’s The Mysteries of Pittsburgh—a rejoinder published in the Pittsburgh City Paper came graced with the headline “Who the hell does this Sienna Miller skank think she is?” When it’s time to put a woman in her place, why not use language that identifies her as sleazy, ugly, and/or sexually promiscuous?

Miller has been subjected to levels of scrutiny and judgment that no man would have to endure. But even if she hasn’t, for whatever reason, had exactly the career she deserves, no one has to feel sorry for her. In terms of earning power, she may not be a Nicole Kidman, a Sandra Bullock, a Scarlett Johansson. But she has arguably built something just as valuable, and maybe more so: a resume of performances in smaller films—as well as small performances in big films—that blossom and expand before your eyes. Miller is never a look-at-me actor. She’s something even more rare: an actor you’re always happy to see. And how do you measure the worth of that?

Miller’s list of credits is so long that even those who think of themselves as fans aren’t likely to have seen everything. She makes the most of every on-screen minute. In Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper, she plays Taya, the wife of Bradley Cooper’s real-life Navy S.E.A.L. sharpshooter Chris Kyle, a woman who watches as her husband, having served four tours of duty in Iraq, drifts away from her. If the movie was largely a vehicle for Cooper, Miller, accepting the challenge of playing a woman—a widow—she’d met in real life, is the film’s quietly thrumming center. “I need you to be human again,” she implores her husband, who has returned from battle in body only. Miller’s Taya is plaintive, searching, but also resolute, willing to face the reality that life with a perpetual ghost is no life at all.

Miller is just as quietly brilliant in James Gray’s Lost City of Z, where she plays the wife a different sort of lost man, an explorer (played by Charlie Hunnam) who’s obsessed with finding a mythical city in the Amazon. Miller’s Nina Fawcett is an early-20th-century woman with a genteel steeliness, a woman who loves her husband with an almost mystical selflessness. The performance keys in to one of Miller’s most elusive qualities. Early in her career, with her charming vintage-boho wardrobe and freewheeling openness in interviews, Miller gave the impression of being a “fun girl,” a rock-star girlfriend even if she wasn’t dating any literal rock stars. It’s ironic, then—or maybe it’s just the reality of how young actresses’ careers are built or knocked down—that as a performer, Miller always seems to be drawing from vast, self-replenishing reserves of mystery. No matter how many interviews you read, she’s essentially unknowable, as if she were saving bits of a secret self, only to be revealed, in myriad ways, in her performances.

She has also been fantastic in movies that few people have bothered to see, like James Toback’s 2017 An Imperfect Murder (originally titled The Private Life of a Modern Woman). Miller plays Vera Lockman, an out-of-work actress who’s trying her hand at being a writer—and who, in addition to dealing with that career shift and assorted family troubles (her grandfather, played by Charles Grodin, is suffering from Alzheimer’s), must also dispose of a dead body. Miller’s performance is marvelous: Vera’s insecurities, her submerged hopes, become real to us—she captures the texture of what it’s like to have to think on your feet, only to feel the ground slipping out beneath you. In the early days of Hollywood’s #MeToo reckoning, Toback faced multiple accusations of inappropriate, manipulative behavior. But no matter how distasteful you may find him and his actions, it’s worth noting that when a male filmmaker goes down, we often inadvertently punish women, too. Once again, Miller’s thunder was stolen, through no fault of her own, by a man’s bad behavior.

Horizon may be a way of rectifying some of those cosmic wrongs. Even if Costner’s first installment has an uncontrolled ranginess, as Frances Kittredge, everything Miller does is compact, potent, affecting, yet at the same time infused with air and light. Her character may be positioned as the innocent white woman who must be protected at all costs from Native Americans—in future Horizon installments, Costner may introduce more nuance in terms of their side of the story, though in Chapter 1, those subtleties have not yet emerged. But that shortcoming has nothing to do with Miller. If she’s not the absolute star of Horizon—that would probably be Costner, who ambles in on horseback in the movie’s last third—she’s far and away the best thing about it.

In an early scene, when Frances is called upon to protect her teenage daughter during the attack, she has to think fast and act even faster; Miller somehow turns Frances’ brainwaves into a presence you can feel. Later in the film, Frances will enter a cautious romance with a U.S. Cavalry officer played by Sam Worthington. He’s slow to make the first move; she has to take charge. Miller has a great speaking voice, like vanilla laced with bourbon. But if it’s seductive, it’s also infinitely trustworthy. Frances, like so many pioneer wives, has suffered and endured great losses; she’s tough. But Miller doesn’t play her as a martyr, or as a figure pieced together from other movie portrayals of similar characters. Instead, Frances is a new invention, sailing in on the breeze from the past to the present. We’ve seen her type before. But we’ve never seen her. And every time she appears, in just about every project, that’s what Miller does: she challenges us to really see, which is a world apart from merely giving us something to look at.

source https://time.com/6993134/horizon-sienna-miller/

Shares of Trump Media & Technology Rise Following First Presidential Debate

Shares of Trump Media, the owner of social networking site Truth Social, jumped 5% at the opening bell Friday after the first U.S. presidential debate, with some investors believing it could become a bigger mouthpiece for the former president if he is re-elected.

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump clashed Thursday evening on topics including abortion, immigration and the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Biden’s performance was largely seen as uneven, particularly early on. He tried repeatedly to confront Trump, who countered Biden’s criticism by leaning into falsehoods about the economy, illegal immigration and his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Citi analysts said Friday there may be increased interest in Trump Media & Technology based on news headlines following the debate.

Shares of Trump Media & Technology have been buffeted during Trump’s run for president and swung wildly a day after Trump’s conviction in his hush money trial.

A New York jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through hush money payments to a porn actor who said the two had sex.

The stock, which trades under the ticker symbol “DJT,” has been extraordinarily volatile since its debut in late March, joining the group of meme stocks that are prone to ricochet from highs to lows as small-pocketed investors attempt to catch an upward momentum swing at the right time.

The stock has tripled this year, in the process frequently making double-digit percentage moves either higher or lower on a single day. It peaked at nearly $80 in intraday trading on March 26. For context, the S&P 500 is up almost 10% year to date.

Trump Media & Technology reported in May that it lost more than $300 million last quarter, according to its first earnings report as a publicly traded company.

source https://time.com/6993531/trump-media-technology-shares-rise-first-presidential-debate/

Pretty People Really Do Have It Better

When you’re young, you come to know quite quickly who’s pretty and who isn’t. If you’re pretty, people will tell you often and upfront. And if prettiness isn’t your overwhelmingly defining feature, people will use other complimentary adjectives to encourage you: smart, clever, fastidious, well-behaved, talented, funny, etc. “Creative” was a big one for me. An adult told me once when I was about 12 that I would understand I was pretty when I was older. I remember at the time feeling a kind of dread about the futility of an unformed future and its uncertain promises.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“Pretty” is wholly subjective, of course. When I was growing up in the ’90s, it was mostly defined as being thin, white, cisgender, and feminine. And while that lens has broadened quite a bit now, those markers are still generally the easiest to benefit from if you hit them.

The social advantages of pretty privilege are many: good-looking people come off as smart, capable, trustworthy, and generally morally virtuous. If you’re hot, your dating app matches will never run empty. People will buy you drinks at bars, randomly do nice things for you, give you gifts, and generally go out of their way for you. Economic advantages abound, too: attractive people are more likely to receive raises, promotions, and be heard in the workplace, and the perception of their productivity and value to a company is outsized. There are several studies that examine the power of pretty privilege and the unbalanced life experiences of those who have it.

Read More: Stop Calling My Daughter Pretty

There’s a psychological term for the cognitive bias we have when making judgments about a person, brand, or place: the “halo effect” shows how our initial positive impressions tend to influence our overall judgments of one another. 

Pretty privilege is a form of self-sustaining energy, in that way—all the positive feedback that attractive people receive instills a kind of self-worth in them that they are indeed deserving of everything they desire, which makes their endeavors that much more persuasive. After all, believing in yourself is necessary for others to believe in you too. 

This also explains why hot people who commit crimes are less likely to be arrested or convicted (or more likely to receive lenient sentences). See: “hot convict” Jeremy Meeks, whose mugshot went viral on Facebook in 2014 after he was arrested on felony weapons charges during a gang sweep in Stockton, Calif. Meeks became a professional model and actor after having served half of his 27-month sentence. Not many people know what happened to the other purported gang members who were also arrested and incarcerated from that sweep, presumably because their mug shots were not as noteworthy. It’s also how a fake German heiress can spin a Netflix series and reality TV show out of defrauding hundreds of thousands of dollars from the New York City elite, after ample splashy media coverage.

No one has the power to choose the face and body they are born with, but a person can gain pretty privilege by acquiring attractive features through cosmetic manipulation. I’ve never been more assured that pretty privilege is real and powerful than when I’ve intentionally and laboriously leaned into perceived femininity—long, flowing weaves, false lashes, makeup, heels. But there are certain provisions to the ways that pretty privilege works, and generally it calls for a kind of beauty that appears convincingly “natural” in order to imbue positive associations of goodness and moral virtue with beauty. And we all know that “natural” is as subjective of a word as “pretty.”

We don’t really have a collective name for whatever the opposite of natural beauty is, but the word “fake”—implying undesirable traits like untrustworthiness and dishonesty—is liberally applied to those sporting visible makeup or cosmetic enhancement. The most neutral terms we can manage are “low maintenance” and “high maintenance.” And “high maintenance” is pretty much always used in a pejorative sense when describing a person. “Low maintenance” implies the kind of virtue inherent in a lack of vanity (or beauty routine). If you only ever buy beauty and personal care products marketed toward “normal” skin and hair—and no one ever tells you “You’d look so much better if…”—congratulations, you can enjoy a peaceful, low-maintenance life.

Read More: Not Even the Kardashians Can Keep Up With Their Unrealistic Beauty Standards

“Normal” is a made-up term when it comes to beauty products. There is no normal police; it is not a benchmark regulated by any governing scientific, industrial, or medical body. Rather, it instead refers to the larger culture at hand’s idea of what is baseline acceptable. Opting out of beauty’s machinations is something that mostly people with pretty privilege can manage without risking social stigma. You’re considered low maintenance if you don’t fuss over your appearance beyond basic hygiene while still appearing appealing, but you’ve let yourself go if you don’t fuss over your appearance beyond basic hygiene and don’t fulfill a certain level of conventional attractiveness.

Pretty privilege is an uncomfortable topic, both for those who are overlooked or dismissed in favor of preferable looks, and for those whose successes and individual agency are undermined as a by-product of their appearance. And for women, pretty privilege plays a much more outsized role because women remain broadly objectified by society; our looks are often the most prioritized asset we have to bargain with, and looking the part is always requisite to getting the part. I like to think that my ample skill, experience, and charm make me a qualifying candidate for most jobs, but I am willing to bet from experience that optics have always prevailed where doubt may linger.

Beauty and attraction are incredibly subjective, but privilege is often based in institutional and established cultural beliefs, lots of which blend racism and colorism, sexism, fatphobia, ableism, ageism, and other appearance-based discriminations into their perceptions of beauty. Those who experience these prejudices often spend so much of their time performing their value, reassuring others of their capabilities as they navigate their own self-doubt. The virtues projected onto beauty work just as much against those who don’t fulfill beauty’s ideals. It’s not ugliness that is the assumed opposite of beauty—it’s abnormality.

But there’s a plot twist: an absence of pretty privilege doesn’t necessarily condemn you to a life less extraordinary. People are dynamic, attraction is fickle, and charm, intelligence, and wit will get you a lot further than looks can (even if you have to put more effort in them). Our appetite for beauty demands some variety, and if everyone looks the same then prettiness becomes redundant and boring. Humans aren’t completely shallow, despite unflattering evidence that may suggest otherwise. It’s our experiences and privileges that grant us access to resources for individual resistance; how we’re born into the world and how we’re taught to perceive ourselves determines how much we can cash in on those privileges.

And it turns out that the halo effect works both ways—your personality and behaviors play a big part in how hot people think you are. Being cool, kind, and doing “good things” can change how a person’s attractiveness is perceived, namely by increasing it. Talent bias, wealth bias, good deed bias, BDE (big dick energy)—they all contribute to people thinking you’re hotter than the sum of your physical attributes. In one study, subjects were shown images of the same person with different personality descriptors. Images accompanied by verbal descriptions of their generosity and kindness resulted in higher scores of facial attractiveness than when the same images were accompanied by negative traits like selfishness and unfriendliness. Personality perception affects facial attractiveness, as do other contextual elements like prior knowledge of a person and their role in your social community. Generally speaking, good behavior and positive attributes make you more attractive.

Looks do matter—sometimes, a bit too much, it feels like—because they’re a conduit to power. There’s a reason pretty privilege is, in fact, a privilege; it makes life easier by the status it grants. But the thing about beauty is that it often usurps other positive qualities a person might possess. Prettiness is a passive trait, after all. It’s a common assumption that classic hotties must not have had to develop any other redeeming characteristics because beauty is the ultimate redemption. It’s important to remember that hotness and desirability are made up of so much more than the sum of your most desirable physical features. They’re encompassed by a host of nonphysical attributes that contribute to how you’re perceived, including the idiosyncrasies and quirks of your personality.

I have a theory that everyone is hot, it’s just that some people know it and some people are not yet aware of it. Often the difference between the two is confidence—it doesn’t even have to be real; fake it ‘til you make it, as they say. Plus, with so much applied aesthetics in our faces all the time now, beauty fatigue is real. We crave personality, unique quirks, and the kind of charm that comes from a life less polished. I mean, there’s nothing less cool than conforming to society’s standards, and that includes beauty. Sometimes all it takes is enough time to pass for that thing you were insecure about (freckles, gap teeth, too-thick eyebrows, no eyebrows, scars, et cetera) to have its moment in the limelight, and for you realize that your insecurity doesn’t define who you are. If anything, it proves to you that it’s all made up, and you can release yourself from appearance anxiety, bit by bit as time goes on. Owning your individual quirks and what makes you you is always hot behavior. When I think about what attracts me to people, it’s always something about their outlook on life, their warmth and generosity of spirit, how comfortable they are in their own skin, and the solidness of their presence, which is often some enigmatic thing that tells me they know what’s up. Energy always pulls where beauty falls short.

Excerpted from Die Hot With a Vengeance, provided courtesy of Dey Street/HarperCollins Publishers. Copyright © 2024 by Sable Yong.

source https://time.com/6992138/pretty-privilege-essay/

The Supreme Court Rejects a Nationwide Opioid Settlement With OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the Sackler family who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids but also would have provided billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic.

After deliberating more than six months, the justices in a 5-4 vote blocked an agreement hammered out with state and local governments and victims. The Sacklers would have contributed up to $6 billion and given up ownership of the company but retained billions more. The agreement provided that the company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said “nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.”

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“Opioid victims and other future victims of mass torts will suffer greatly in the wake of today’s unfortunate and destabilizing decision,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The high court had put the settlement on hold last summer, in response to objections from the Biden administration.

It’s unclear what happens next.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling marks a major setback for the families who lost loved ones to overdose and for those still struggling with addiction,” Edward Neiger, a lawyer representing more than 60,000 overdose victims, said in a statement.

“The Purdue plan was a victim-centered plan that would provide billions of dollars to the states to be used exclusively to abate the opioid crisis and $750 million for victims of the crisis, so that they could begin to rebuild their lives. As a result of the senseless three-year crusade by the government against the plan, thousands of people died of overdose, and today’s decision will lead to more needless overdose deaths.”

An opponent of the settlement praised the outcome.

Ed Bisch’s 18-year-old son Eddie, died from an overdose after taking OxyContin in Philadelphia in 2001.

The older Bisch, who lives in New Jersey, has been speaking out against Purdue and Sackler family members ever since and is part of a relatively small but vocal group of victims and family members who opposed the settlement.

“This is a step toward justice. It was outrageous what they were trying to get away with,” he said Thursday. “They have made a mockery of the justice system and then they tried to make a mockery of the bankruptcy system.”

He said he would have accepted the deal if he thought it would have made a dent in the opioid crisis.

He’s now calling on the Department of Justice to seek criminal charges against Sackler family members

Arguments in early December lasted nearly two hours in a packed courtroom as the justices seemed, by turns, unwilling to disrupt a carefully negotiated settlement and reluctant to reward the Sacklers.

The issue for the justices was whether the legal shield that bankruptcy provides can be extended to people such as the Sacklers, who have not declared bankruptcy themselves. Lower courts had issued conflicting decisions over that issue, which also has implications for other major product liability lawsuits settled through the bankruptcy system.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, argued that the bankruptcy law does not permit protecting the Sackler family from being sued. During the Trump administration, the government supported the settlement.

The Biden administration had argued to the court that negotiations could resume, and perhaps lead to a better deal, if the court were to stop the current agreement.

Proponents of the plan said third-party releases are sometimes necessary to forge an agreement, and federal law imposes no prohibition against them.

OxyContin first hit the market in 1996, and Purdue Pharma’s aggressive marketing of it is often cited as a catalyst of the nationwide opioid epidemic, with doctors persuaded to prescribe painkillers with less regard for addiction dangers.

The drug and the Stamford, Connecticut-based company became synonymous with the crisis, even though the majority of pills being prescribed and used were generic drugs. Opioid-related overdose deaths have continued to climb, hitting 80,000 in recent years. Most of those are from fentanyl and other synthetic drugs.

The Purdue Pharma settlement would have ranked among the largest reached by drug companies, wholesalers and pharmacies to resolve epidemic-related lawsuits filed by state, local and Native American tribal governments and others. Those settlements have totaled more than $50 billion.

But the Purdue Pharma settlement would have been only the second so far to include direct payments to victims from a $750 million pool. Payouts would have ranged from about $3,500 to $48,000.

Sackler family members no longer are on the company’s board, and they have not received payouts from it since before Purdue Pharma entered bankruptcy. In the decade before that, though, they were paid more than $10 billion, about half of which family members said went to pay taxes.

The case is Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, 22-859.

source https://time.com/6993011/supreme-court-rejects-nationwide-opioid-settlement-oxycontin/

The Real History Behind Prime Video’s Romantic Fantasy Series My Lady Jane

Often called England’s first queen, Lady Jane Grey only reigned for nine days in 1553 at the age of 16. It was rocky from start to finish: When she took the throne, the country was fiercely divided between Protestants and Catholics.

A new historical fantasy series, My Lady Jane, premiering June 27 on Prime Video, imagines if those divisions were between regular humans—known as verities—and Ethians, humans who can turn into animals and are viewed as the lowest caste in their society. Lady Jane Grey (Emily Bader) frantically spends her short reign trying to promote unity, urging respect for Ethians, especially because her husband Guilford Dudley (Edward Bluemel) is an Ethian who can change into a horse.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

TIME talked to two Lady Jane Grey biographers, Nicola Tallis and Leanda de Lisle, about what to know about the real Lady Jane who inspired the show. 

Who is Lady Jane Grey?

A great niece of Henry VIII, she was born in Bradgate, Leicestershire, England, in 1537.

In the show, she’s depicted as an extremely intellectually curious teenager, always reading up on medicinal uses for herbs for a textbook she wants to write. This is why Guilford wants to marry her—he hopes she can find a cure that will stop him from turning into a horse at unexpected times.

The real Jane did love reading books, but was more passionate about languages and theology than science. She spoke several languages, including Arabic and Hebrew and relished exchanging letters with other educated people. “She was really, really academic,” says Tallis.

Lady Jane Grey’s real love life

My Lady Jane depicts her as fiercely independent, and hell bent on never getting married. In the show, Jane is married off to English nobleman Guilford Dudley against her will. But the show implies they fall in love, depicting Jane and Dudley experiencing an instant attraction when they meet. Biographers say their real marriage was far from a real love story.

“We know Jane didn’t really want to be married to him,” says Tallis, author of Crown of Blood: The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey.

In the show, Jane’s mother Lady Frances Grey (Anna Chancellor) plans the marriage with Dudley’s father, the Duke of Northumberland, to ensure her family will not have to worry about money again. But according to Tallis, “there is a source that says that her mother was also really, really against this marriage to Guilford Dudley. And I think that that’s probably quite true.”

The Duke of Northumberland was pushing the marriage from the get-go. As one of the King’s chief politicians, he persuaded a dying Edward VI to name Jane his heir in this will so that when she rose to the throne, his son would be King. It is true, as the show depicts, that there was a rumor that the Duke of Northumberland (Rob Brydon) poisoned the king to hasten his son’s ascent to the throne.

De Lisle argues that Edward VI was a bit of a “misogynist” in that he wanted a married woman to be queen so that a man would at least be doing some of the work of ruling. As she explains Edward VI’s thinking back then, “Jane has a husband and her husband will basically be a king. That’s Edward’s view. [His] sister Mary is not married.”

What to know about Lady Jane Grey’s reign

The real Edward VI died of some kind of pulmonary infection like tuberculosis on July 6, 1553. In the show, his sister Mary is in on a plot to slowly poison him so she can get to the throne faster, but that plot line is purely fictional.

In real life, Edward VI wanted Jane to be his heir because he wanted a Protestant successor, and his elder half sister Mary had become a staunch Catholic.

Mary was not “Mrs. Popular with the powers that be because she was a Catholic,” de Lisle explains. “England was a Catholic country. Protestantism was largely being imposed by the king and by the elites.”

But during Jane’s reign, it was discovered that his will was not legal because it had not been passed by Parliament. That meant Mary was next in line, legally, so that’s why Jane was overthrown after nine days. Mary assumed the throne on July 19, 1553.

Mary was more popular among the general public than Jane in general because she was a daughter of Henry VIII and raised in the court. “Lots of people are fearful of the idea of a woman bearing power and particularly one who they don’t know,” says Tallis.

When Jane started speaking out against all of Mary’s Catholic reforms, describing taking communion in a Catholic mass as a satanic form of cannibalism. On top of that, her family started organizing a campaign to depose Mary. While Mary never wanted to execute Jane in the first place, she felt like she had no choice. Mary saw Jane as “a potential lightning rod for a rebellion,” as de Lisle puts it.

Jane and Guilford Dudley were both executed on February 12, 1554. 

source https://time.com/6992571/my-lady-jane-true-story/

What Mia Goth Learned from MaXXXine—And Why She’s Ready to Move On

It’s one of the most indelible images in recent cinema: “Please, I’m a star!,” wails the title character of Ti West’s 2022 cult horror film Pearl, after she’s been rejected for a role at an audition. But the actor behind Pearl cuts the precise negative of that widely memed film moment inside the greenroom of a Manhattan production studio one evening in June.

“I don’t feel famous at all,” says Mia Goth. This, despite having worked with auteurs like Luca Guadagnino (in 2018’s Suspiria) and Lars Von Trier (2013’s Nymphomaniac was her feature film debut); despite a bevy of accolades for her alternately fragile and furious work in Pearl; and despite the paparazzi shots of her walking in L.A. with the father of her child, Shia LaBeouf, published in The Daily Mail days earlier. (She says she didn’t notice the cameras.) All of which is to say nothing of the hot anticipation for MaXXXine, out July 5, ostensibly the last film in the series that began with 2022’s barnyard porn-shoot slasher X, continued with prequel Pearl, and made Goth one of the preeminent contemporary scream queens.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

West’s horror franchise, which almost immediately cemented its cult status and counts Martin Scorsese among its fans, has implicitly argued that Goth is like something out of another era. X is set in the ‘70s (and features Goth in the dual roles of porn performer Maxine Minx and the geriatric Pearl under pounds of prosthetics), Pearl in 1918, and MaXXXine in 1985, with Goth in a voluminous blonde wig. In person, Goth seems more Gen X in spirit than the younger millennial she is at 30. Unlike many of her generation who are outspoken about boundaries on-set, the British actor likes to “romanticize” fraught stories of directors pushing their actors, as Stanley Kubrick did to Shelley Duvall—to whom Goth is frequently compared—on the set of The Shining. “Art needs to be a little dangerous and to get genuine moments, you have to blur the lines a little,” she says.

Her effectiveness on-screen is reinforced by her conduct off of it. She doesn’t use social media, cultivating a “veil of mystery” that will make her more believable in roles. (And also: “I’m not trying to sell headphones.”) There’s much she is tightlipped about—from her relationship with LaBeouf to a lawsuit filed against her, West, and A24 by a MaXXXine extra. She claims to have no awareness of her steadfast gay following. And despite her rising star—she’s now in production on Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein remake—she’s not worried about keeping her ego in check. “My sense of self is actually quite low,” she says. “I’m actually trying to build myself up a little more.”

As she speaks, she seems sanguine about living in apparent contradiction. At one point, Goth says: “The truth is, I hate acting. Acting is actually the hardest thing to do. It’s this elusive thing and you think you have it—it’s like trying to grip smoke.” Within minutes, she would say of her job, “I love it so much.” None of the opportunities she’s received are lost on Goth, she says. Two things can be true at once.

---

MaXXXine is a city slasher bookending X’s rural spin on the genre. It finds Goth’s porn-star character crossing over to the relative mainstream via a horror sequel, The Puritan 2. She’s mysteriously trailed by a P.I. (Kevin Bacon) and haunted by accumulating deaths around her, while the city is terrorized by real-life serial killer Richard Ramirez, known as the Night Stalker. Hardened but still reeling from surviving the porn-set massacre of X, she assumes an offensive stance. Damsel-in-distress tropes are inverted; in one scene, she is chased down an alley then exercises brutal vengeance on her assailant. 

Compared to X and Pearl, MaXXXine was a comfortable shoot, according to Goth. The first two films in the trilogy were shot back-to-back in New Zealand in 2021 and both released the following year. There were six-day work weeks, and sometimes 20-hour days. MaXXXine was spread out over a comparatively cushy seven-week shoot. 

Goth is nothing if not thoughtful throughout our interview. Though it’s evening in New York, she’s tired. She’s been up since about 2 a.m. L.A. time thanks to a canceled flight. She sips on a coffee to counter her exhaustion. She sometimes thinks for nearly a minute before responding to a question, as with one about the appeal of these particular characters. “Playing Maxine and Pearl has been the most creatively fulfilling experience of my life,” she says finally. “And one of many reasons why it’s been such a gift is because I’ve been blessed to play these characters that are so fearless and have such agency.”

In a phone interview, West says Goth’s appeal comes down to authenticity. “Part of the allure is that it’s not pretend for her,” he says. “She finds a way to connect to the material. Sometimes it’s larger than life and crazy, but she finds a way to ground it within herself.” He recalls that when he told her he wanted her to play both Maxine and Pearl in X, “She just stopped and I could see the wheels turning. Then she was just like, ‘I could kill that.’ And I totally believed in her confidence.”

In a contrast to her pronounced humility regarding the phenomenon of her career, Goth points out that on set is where she feels most confident. “Whereas in my day to day life, I need a lot of validation, I don’t need that on set. It’s a way for me to feel liberated,” she says.

---

Goth can be straightforward to an extreme. When asked what her listed role as producer of MaXXXine meant functionally, she matter of factly retorts, “Um honestly, on this movie, it didn’t mean much.” She believes she was given the credit simply because it’s the third movie (she was an executive producer on Pearl). She did make the executive decision not to show her breasts in an early MaXXXine scene despite the script calling for it and having already done so in X. “I didn’t want to do that,” she says, adding that having a daughter in 2022 has made her see things differently. “It’s not that I wouldn’t do it again, it was just in that moment, I didn’t feel that the story needed it.”

When asked about the aforementioned Daily Mail pap piece that featured her and LaBeouf abreast, her consistently bell-clear voice drops. “I don’t like talking about that stuff,” she murmurs so quickly the words come out nearly jumbled. She won’t discuss her relationship with LaBeouf, who for years has conducted his own rather fraught relationship with fame, and has been accused of abuse and sued by his former girlfriend, the musician FKA twigs. (The twice-delayed trial is tentatively set to take place in October.) Speaking more generally about her personal life, Goth declares, “I would never want to share that part of my life. Why? For what?”

Goth similarly has little to say about a $500,000 lawsuit that was filed against her, West, and MaXXXine’s studio A24 in January by a MaXXXine extra named James Hunter, who accused her of intentionally kicking him in the head while filming and then taunting him. “I can’t talk about that at the moment because it’s an ongoing lawsuit,” she says without hesitating. “But I’m really grateful for A24’s support.” Goth, West, and A24 are all represented by the same attorneys. The next hearing is scheduled for July 10.

But she has plenty to say about what might be next for her as an actor. Her career-defining trilogy may be winding down—MaXXXine is being marketed as the “final chapter,” though West has an idea for an additional film that may or may not involve Goth. Either way, she may take some convincing, as she says she’s ready to move on from horror. While the genre has offered “roles written for women that you really sometimes struggle to find elsewhere,” she says she’s “tapped out in that area.” She adds that, “I’d love to make a romantic movie. I’ve been so focused on this end of the spectrum of violence and gore, but I love love too.”

Still she’s grateful for the experience. “There’s a reason certain characters come into your life,” she philosophizes. Plus, Maxine taught her a lot. When asked what, she takes a beat for nearly 30 seconds. And then, finally: “Just like: ‘You got this.’”

source https://time.com/6990983/mia-goth-interview-maxxxine/