Ariana Grande "Wicked" Body Scandal is Troubling, Matt Gaetz Withdraws AG Nomination, & Today's News
PDS Published 11/21/2024
-
Or, rather, let’s talk about why we shouldn’t talk about Ariana Grande’s body.
Because as she has just been everywhere while promoting the “Wicked” movie, there has been an insane amount of viral posts really dissecting her body, the way it looks in certain photos and videos, speculating about her weight.[][]
With many saying they think she has an eating disorder.
Some seemingly come from a place of concern for her, worried she is not healthy.[][]
Other posts seem more intent on shaming her or calling her out just to prove a point.][[][]
People also bringing her Wicked co-star Cynthia Uh-ree-vo into it and dissecting her body and weight as well.[]
And this has led to a ton of discourse, people pushing back, saying have we not learned our lesson when it comes to commenting on a celebrities’ body and health when we obviously do not know them or what they might be dealing with.[]
Some adding:[]
“centering SO much of the conversation during a giant dream project of ariana grande’s around her body is going to do harm, whether she is struggling or not.”
Some also saying that it is one thing to personally think someone is struggling, but:
“I feel like commenting on that constantly is not particularly helpful and is not always coming from a place of concern…On one hand I get how pointing out behaviours you recognize from having an ED might be useful for people going through it…but on the other she is a person and I doubt this is productive for her to see and is probably spiraling her deeper.”[][]
And all of this has prompted major outlets to publish articles in defense of Ariana and her right to just exist in a body without people deciding they get to talk about it all the time.
Ellen putting out a piece titled: “Ariana Grande’s Weight Should Not Be Up For Discussion.”
With that saying:
“so much of the wider commentary around the Wicked press tour has been levied at her appearance. What an indictment this is on our cultural criticism of women’s bodies. When will we learn?”
With that piece adding that since 2017, she has survived a terrorist attack at one of her concerts, dealt with the death of a former partner, and has had to reprocess her experience at Nickelodeon as allegations of severe misconduct have resurfaced.
And then explaining:
“There’s a very real chance that this considerable emotional toll weighed heavily on Grande, in turn, impacting her health and appearance. There’s also a very real chance that the trauma Grande has experienced has nothing to do with her outwardly appearance, and that she’s merely grown up.”
USA Today putting out a similar piece saying that the “cruel body comments around 'Wicked' need to stop” for both Ariana and Cynthia.
Arguing that:
“even well-intentioned comments on someone's looks can do more harm than good.”
The outlet also speaking to the regional medical director at the Eating Recovery Center, who explained that:
"These comments about how your body is acceptable or unacceptable, it reinforces again that you are not worth more than your body.”
Adding that these comments don’t just affect the person they are about, but instead they can impact "every single person that lives in a body."
This coming as Ariana has even pushed back against criticism of her body, saying in a TikTok last year:
“I think we should be gentler and less comfortable commenting on peoples’ bodies, no matter what.” (0:33-0:37)
And then more recently, she was featured on a remix of Charli XCX’s song "Sympathy is a Knife” and sang the lyrics:
“It's a knife when you're so pretty, they think it must be fake / It's a knife when they dissect your body on the front page / It's a knife when they won't believe you, why should you explain?”
Right, so she has made it clear she does not like being the subject of all this discourse.
So I would love to know your thoughts on all this, especially on the takes from experts about the fact that no matter the intent, sometimes saying something is just dangerous.
Because there has been some pushback to those takes online from people who fear saying nothing could normalize dangerous behaviors or appearances,
But at the same time, is pointing fingers also a dangerous thing to allow? Right, because what is the point of posting that you think a celebrity has an ED? Is it really because you are concerned and encouraging them to get help, or are you trying to get them to admit it, like force a confession out of them?
So I would just love to know your thoughts on all of this.
-
This decision came from the Illinois Supreme Court, but before we get to why it was made, let’s play some catch up.
Because it has been a minute since we talked about this case.
So, as you might remember, back in 2019, Smollett said that he was assaulted in Chicago by two men who yelled racist and homophobic slurs and even tossed a noose around his neck, leading to a massive media frenzy. []
But then, prosecutors accused him of staging the attack himself,
Claiming he hired and paid the two men and told them what to say, though Smollett has denied that this was a hoax and maintains he was the victim of a hate crime.
He ended up facing charges for staging a hoax, but prosecution eventually dropped the charges in exchange for him forfeiting his bond and performing community service. []
But that didn't land well with the public, so a special prosecutor revived the case and he ended up being convicted of disorderly conduct for falsely reporting to the police.
He was sentenced to five months in jail back in 2022, but was let out after just a few days after he was released on appeal.
And the state’s supreme court has decided that the second prosecution violated Smollett’s rights.
With a justice writing:
“We hold that a second prosecution under these circumstances is a due process violation, and we therefore reverse the defendant's conviction.”
With the judge adding that even though the case generated public interest and not everyone was happy with the solution:[]
“What would be more unjust than the resolution of any one criminal case would be a holding from this court that the state was not bound to honor agreements upon which people have detrimentally relied.”
And as the AP explained, the ruling did not address Smollett’s claim of innocence,
And that is something the the special prosecutor touched on in a statement shared with the outlet, saying:
“The Illinois Supreme Court did not find any error with the overwhelming evidence presented at trial that Mr. Smollett orchestrated a fake hate crime and reported it to the Chicago Police Department as a real hate crime, or the jury’s unanimous verdict that Mr. Smollett was guilty of five counts of felony disorderly conduct.”
And it seems there is still an opportunity for a civil case to go forward.
Though, for his part, Smollett’s lawyers celebrated the decision.[]
But I would love to know your thoughts on this big update, and on the fact that five years later, we are still talking about this damn thing. Who woulda thought this story had this long of legs?
-
Matt Gaetz has withdrawn his name from consideration for Attorney General.
Right, just this morning, Gaetz announced the move in a statement on X, writing:
“I had excellent meetings with Senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback - and the incredible support of so many. While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition. There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I'll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General.”[]
And going on to say that he remains fully committed to ensuring the success of Trump’s presidency and is honored to have been tapped to run the DOJ.
So, in other words, it seems pretty clear that Gaetz didn’t have enough support from Senate Republicans to have his nomination approved.[]
And this decision comes after a whirlwind last few days for Gaetz.
While he was meeting with Senators yesterday, the House Ethics Committee was discussing whether or not to release its report into allegations against Gaetz of sexual misconduct, drug use, and accepting improper gifts.
Right, the committee was supposed to meet last week to discuss the matter, but that meeting was canceled after Trump tapped Gaetz as AG and Gaetz resigned immediately.
A move that effectively ended the probe and jeopardized the potential release of the report because the committee only investigates sitting members
And although there is precedent for releasing an ethics report after a member leaves Congress, many argued that it would go against House rules.[]
And while the panel — which is evenly split among Democrats and Republicans — was unable to reach an agreement to release the report, we still have gotten some insight into what those findings might contain.[]
Right, earlier this week, some pretty bombshell revelations from the lawyer who represents two women who testified against Gaetz.
With the attorney, Joel Leppard, confirming that both his clients told the House panel that Gaetz paid them for sex on multiple occasions — and one of those women also told lawmakers she personally saw him having sex with a minor:
“She testified in July of 2017, at this house party, she was walking out to the pool area, and she looked to her right, and she saw Rep. Gaetz having sex with her friend, who was 17.” 00:58 - 1:10
With Leppard going on to say that his client testified that her understanding was that Gaetz didn’t know the girl was a minor when he had sex with her.
And while she said he initially broke things off when he learned she was underage, he restarted his sexual relationship with the girl when she turned 18.
So right there, we’re looking at allegations of having sex with a minor and paying for sex in violation of Florida prostitution law — but that’s not all.
Right, Leppard said that his clients attended multiple drug-fueled “sex parties” where Gaetz paid them for sex, but there were other occasions too:
LEPPARD: “Well, not all of them were parties. Some of them were events, such as they attended election events, like at hotels. They went with him to New York for a taping on Fox News, but approximately about 10 times, 10 to 15 times.”
CHANG: “Their testimony is that Representative Gaetz took them across state lines for the purpose of having sex and paid them for that.”
LEPPARD: “That's correct.” 2:11 - 2:35
And that’s really notable here because if those claims are true, that would be a violation of federal sex trafficking laws.
Now Gaetz, for his part, has denied the allegations, which a spokesperson called “baseless.”
But that wasn’t the only intel we got on what the Ethics Committee has heard.
It was also reported yesterday that sources familiar with the investigation said that the Ethics panel had obtained records showing that Gaetz paid more than $10,000 to two women who testified before the members.
With one source adding that the two women testified that some of those payments were for sex.
And those claims have also been bolstered by documents obtained by The New York Times which also appeared to confirm that those two women had received payments from Gaetz.
And then, today, right before Gaetz announced that he was withdrawing his bid for AG, CNN reported that the woman who claimed she had sex with Gaetz as a minor:
“told the House Ethics Committee she had two sexual encounters with him at one party in 2017,” according to sources familiar with her testimony.
With the outlet reporting that the woman who was 17 at the time testified that the previously unreported second encounter included another adult woman.
Though multiple sources said that other woman denied participating in the encounter.
So a lot of messiness, a lot of moving parts, and as far as what happens next, there are several key questions that remains.
First of all, who Trump will tap to lead the DOJ now that Gaetz is out.
And while that is up in the air, Gaetz’s withdrawal sends a very important message, with the Associated Press explaining:
“The abrupt withdrawal is a setback to Trump’s push to install steadfast loyalists in his incoming administration, but also a recognition of the resistance the Republican is already encountering from members of his own party to picks with checkered backgrounds.”
Another question that is also currently floating around is what will happen to Gaetz?
Right, he technically resigned from Congress immediately after Trump announced his nomination — which is very unusual because people in office don’t leave their current positions until they are confirmed in case the nomination falls apart like it did here.
And while some have speculated whether he might reconsider his resignation, others have noted that, in the resignation letter he submitted to the House he said didn’t intend to return to Congress for the next session.
So while his intentions may have changed, it's unclear right now if that letter is binding or if it could complicate an attempt to return.
What’s more, if he returned, he would be considered a sitting member of Congress again, meaning he would be under the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee, which could potentially justify releasing its report on him.
So this whole thing is really quite the spectacular shit show, and of course, this situation is still developing, so for now, we’re just going to keep a close eye on it and update you as more information comes in.
Visit Cozy Earth and use my code DEFRANCO to get 40% off your purchase!
Go to Beam for up to 50% off sitewide for a limited time only.
-
We gotta talk about these headlines we’ve been seeing about Russia reportedly firing an ICBM at Ukraine (1, 2, 3)
Right, ICBM is short for intercontinental ballistic missile, and they’re best known for being the type of missile to carry a nuclear payload.
And if the news is true, it would be the first time one has been used in ANY armed conflict.
Though, to be very clear, this wasn’t a nuclear strike.
Right, ICBMs can also carry conventional explosives –
And these would be more powerful than the cruise missiles and shorter-range ballistic missiles that Russia has been using to target Ukraine up until now.
Though, with that, it’s also not even clear that this was an ICBM.
Right, early today, Zelensky announced that Russia had attacked Ukraine with a new of missile, saying:
“ Its speed and altitude suggest intercontinental ballistic capabilities. Investigations are ongoing.”
And adding: “It’s clear that Putin is using Ukraine as a testing ground.”
And that wouldn’t be all that surprising considering how high tensions have been over the past week.
Right, in the past few days, after getting permission from the US and then the UK, the Ukrainian military has used longer-range American and British missiles to strike deeper into Russia.
And of course, that came after the news about thousands of North Korean troops entering the fray.
With all of this leading to Putin lowering the threshold for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons.
And then, yesterday, actually, something we haven’t talked about yet, Biden making the controversial move of agreeing to supply Ukraine with anti-personnel mines.
But with all that said, several Western officials have said that weapon we’re talking about was not actually an ICBM.
With one American official,for example, telling the New York Times the weapon appeared to be an intermediate-range ballistic missile, but also saying “...it is a new type we have been tracking.”
You also have one expert on Russian nuclear weapons telling The Guardian that using an ICBM would not make military sense because of their low accuracy and high cost.
But adding: “This kind of a strike might have a value as a signal”.
So, we’ll have to wait and see if a consensus emerges about what weapons was used after some more time passes.
But either way, the spiral of escalation continues.
Right, the one missile we’ve been talking about? It was one of nine missiles fired at the Ukrainian city of Dnipro.
With the attack being launched from a part of Russia several hundred miles away bordering the Caspian Sea. []
And Ukraine saying it shot down six missiles and the others hit without “significant consequences.”
And actually, one recent analysis found that Russia increased its drone attacks by 44 percent since Trump’s reelection.
With that notably coming before Russia launched its biggest aerial attack in months at the beginning of the week.
-
House Speaker Mike Johnson has instituted a transgender bathroom ban in the U.S. House.
Right, yesterday, the Republican leader announced that trans individuals would not be allowed to restrooms at the Capitol or in the House offices that correspond to their gender identity.
With Johnson saying the rule extends to all “all single-sex facilities” in the House side of the Capitol complex including “changing rooms, and locker rooms.”
And then going on to note that each member of Congress has a private restroom in their office and that there are unisex bathrooms “available throughout the Capitol,” arguing:
“Women deserve women’s only spaces.”
And as far as why we’re seeing this now, it’s because Sarah McBride, a Democrat from Delaware, just became the first trans person elected to Congress.
And earlier this week, while McBride was doing her orientation at the Capitol, Republican Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to ban trans women from using the ladies’ bathrooms in the complex.
With Mace also posting a video that went viral on X where she can be seen posting a hand-written sign that says “biological” over the placard for the women’s bathrooms.
And while Mace’s bill didn’t mention McBride by name, she did explicitly say “it’s 100 percent because of McBride” and adding that the representative-elect “doesn’t get a say” in shaping the bathroom policy.
Though, very notably, during a news conference the other day, Johnson refused to say whether he thinks McBride is a woman or a man, then later telling reporters:
“Let me be unequivocally clear: A man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and a man cannot become a woman. … But I also believe that we treat everybody with dignity, and so we can do and believe all those things at the same time.”
Now Mace, for her part, has argued that this proposal is necessary to protect women, saying:
“This is about women and our right to privacy, our right to safety. I’m not going to allow biological men into women’s private spaces. It is the height of hypocrisy.”
And, according to reports, those proposed restrictions quickly gained the support of other Republican women in the chamber.
With many applauding Johnson for taking action on this front.
But, on the other side, you also had a lot of people furious about this decision, calling it discrimination.
Other’s also saying that, despite the claims made by Mace and other Republicans about keeping women safe, this move will actually have the opposite effect.
This including the likes of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who has repeatedly slammed the effort:
1:10 - 1:24
Right, and to her point there about how this rule will be enforced without massive violations of personal privacy that likely would constitute sexual harassment — that does remain a major question.
And when The Washington Post posed that question to the Speaker's office, it “declined to elaborate.”
And when reporters asked Mace for specific details, she literally just said the House sergeant at arms “can enforce it.”
Now, as far as how McBride has responded to all this, many have praised her handling the situation with grace.
With her posting a statement on X saying:
“I’m not here to fight about bathrooms. I’m here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down costs facing families. Like all members, I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson even if I disagree with them. This effort to distract from the real issues facing this country hasn’t distracted me over the last several days, as I’ve remained hard at work preparing to represent the greatest state in the union come January.”[]
But this is also likely just the beginning of the battle, with Mace thanking Johnson in a post on X and adding:
“We want to ban men from women’s spaces in EVERY federal building, school, public bathroom, everywhere.”[]
And already, she has introduced a bathroom ban bill that would apply to buildings owned by the federal or D.C. governments.
With The Post reporting that the legislation “appears to extend to the District’s libraries, recreation centers and, potentially, D.C. Public Schools.”
But, again, there are SERIOUS questions about enforcement — especially when we’re talking about children.
And it seems unlikely the bill would overcome the Senate filibuster, but still, this is the kind of thing we can definitely expect to see more of as we head into this next chapter.
-
One of the largest auto lenders in the country is deliberately targeting people who are struggling, pretending to offer a compassionate solution…
Only to squeeze every dollar they can out of those people, leaving them high and dry, and then further profiting from their suffering.
And one of those people was Jessica Patterson, a struggling mother of three young children.
Jessica’s credit history was riddled with unpaid bills - but even people with bad credit need cars so in the spring of 2017, she sat at a table in a CarMax location in Kansas City with $200 in her pocket. []
She had just moved her family out of a domestic violence shelter and her job paid her $12 an hour and things felt shaky. []
But there was hope - the CarMax employee told her that Exeter Finance, one of the largest auto lenders in the country, would loan her the full $15,000 for a no-frills 2015 Kia Rio with low mileage. []
See, Exeter specializes in subprime lending - which means they give high-interest loans to people with a history of defaulting on debt or not paying bills.
So for Jessica’s case, that meant her 6 year loan had a 25.17% interest rate - making her monthly payment was just over $402 per month.
Which made her car payment cost a full quarter of her take-home pay every month.
Which is almost twice as much as consumer finance experts recommend. []
But there weren’t any other options and Jessica needed to get her kids to school - so she took the loan.
And she spent 7 months struggling to make it work - she took her kids to free church dinners twice a week and got donations from the local food bank to save on the grocery bill. []
Hell, she even skipped Christmas gifts in order to make that car payment but it didn’t matter - all of that still wasn’t enough.
Come January of 2018, she got a letter from Exeter Finance - saying she had gone into default and threatening to seize the Kia. []
And when she called them, looking for a solution, the answer from Exeter came easily - they offered to extend her loan.
The company would move the two missed payments to the end of her payment schedule, adding two months to the loan. []
And there wasn’t even any extension fee.
But what she didn’t know is that while they may not have charged her a fee, that extension wasn’t free.
Over her two month reprieve, interest continued to build and the next 5 payments Jessica made went exclusively towards that - meaning that she wasn’t paying down the original loan balance at all. []
So while she was able to keep her car, that pause in payments added $2,000 in new interest charges - which, according to ProPublica, Exeter didn’t clearly disclose. []
ProPublica used her loan statements and did the math - they found that over 3 years, Jessica had paid $17,097. []
For a $15,000 car, if you remember.
And 80% of that had gone to interest - meaning Jessica was still left with more than 11 grand in debt.
Upon realizing just how fucked the whole thing was, Jessica’s new husband advised her to just let Exeter take the car.
And that’s exactly what they did - in the fall of 2021, the car was repossessed and auctioned off for $13,800. []
And Jessica isn’t alone there - when Exeter customers are left with a massive bill at the end of their loan schedule thanks to the extension process, the company will often repossess the car and send the bill to a debt collector.
In one case, an Exeter customer who had taken 12 extensions over 7 years ended up paying more than $800 over the amount outlined in his initial loan contract and the company said he still owed more than $9,000. []
When he couldn’t pay, Exeter repossessed his car and, to this day, a collections agency is pursuing him for thousands of dollars.
Now, many lenders offer extensions in the case of serious emergencies - like when the borrower loses their job or like when the pandemic hit.
But at Exeter Finance, they hand out extensions like candy - which helps with the whole “we’re here to help” branding they’ve got going on.
ANd ProPublica reports that dozens of customers have said that Exeter did not tell them about the additional interest costs. [] his added cost.
With the outlet saying that Exeter didn’t provide any specific information about their extensions.
Specifically, they didn’t note that the borrower’s next payments would first go to the interest built up from the extension - delaying payment on the principal loan. []
Now, the company says that they’ve updated those disclosures - though they didn’t provide any details to ProPublica about those changes. []
And notices sent out to customers this year did reportedly say that the extension would increase their interest charges but they didn’t include the actual dollar amount.
Instead, they directed the borrower to call to learn more. []
With the company saying that when they call, customers are clearly told that interest will continue to accrue and are given the true cost so that their customers can make an informed decision about the extension. []
But ProPublica says that none of the customers they spoke to had that experience.
Actually, upwards of 20 of them even said that they weren’t given a dollar amount of what their extensions would actually cost before they agreed to them. []
And ProPublica even explicitly asked Exeter why they didn’t disclose that dollar amount - to which they replied,
“Customers who request an extension are given the option before accepting the extension to immediately speak with an agent who can provide the cost of the interest that will accrue during the extension period. Some customers choose not to be transferred to an agent to receive the explanation.” []
But it doesn’t just stop with disclosure issues - former employees say that they were offered bonuses to keep loans out of delinquency.
And one of the big ways they did that was by offering - you guessed it - extensions. []
With one former employee saying,
“The object was for the agent to keep the customer in the car no matter what. That’s the end game. Because as long as that customer stays in that car, guess what? They are getting that interest. And the interest brings them more money.” []
It is worth noting that Exeter has denied the incentive accusation but ProPublica found that the company has made loan delinquency a key part of its business strategy.
Regulatory records show that, with extensions, many customers paid the equivalent of a full loan or more - only to see their car repossessed. []
In many cases, Exeter makes more money on loans that default than on ones that are paid on time. []
And ProPublica’s analysis found that nearly a quarter of Exeter loans between 2020 and 2021 ended with borrower’s stopping repayment early.
That’s more than 65,000 loans. []
Now, Exeter’s brand of shady business is not unique - in fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took action against the country’s largest subprime lender Santander Consumer USA back in 2018 for similar practices. []
Including offering loan extensions without clearly disclosing the financial impacts.
However, as of now, the CFPB hasn’t set its sights on Exeter but ProPublica reports that the number of complaints about the lender to the bureau has tripled in the last five years, hitting nearly 900 last year.
And Exeter has captured the attention of regulators in 3 different states - in 2019, the attorneys general of Massachusetts and Delaware settled lawsuits against Exeter alleging the lender had violated consumer protection laws.
Though the company says those settlements had nothing to do with their extension practices and contained no admission of any wrongdoing. []
The Georgia attorney general also confirmed that it is investigating Exeter - though we don’t have any information about that as of now.
But experts have said that Exeter’s extension practice undermines the Truth in Lending law - meant to eliminate financial surprises for consumers. []
With the consumer protection director at the Consumer Federation of America saying,
“If you can manipulate the payment schedule in such a way that makes the original disclosures meaningless, that’s a huge problem.” []
But I would love to know your thoughts about this - especially if you’ve worked with Exeter before.
Let me know in those comments down below.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(757x164:759x166)/Cynthia-Erivo-Ariana-Grande-olympics-072624-tout-db25deb767b547feac003cf0f754b664.jpg){kind=link}
