You can display the Full post on your Blog Page
To submit a poem, please send an email, with the poem as an attachment, to poetry@texasobserver.org. We are looking for previously unpublished works of no more than 30 lines, by Texas poets who have not been published by the Observer in the last two years. Pay is $100 on publication.
Jesse Eisenberg stars in “Sasquatch Sunset,” though you’d never know it by watching the movie. He plays one of four sasquatches in the frustratingly abstract drama, a dialogue-free experiment about a year in the life of a group of Bigfoots.
We track the hairy creatures — they’re played by Eisenberg, Riley Keough, Christophe Zajac-Denek and co-director Nathan Zellner, all completely unrecognizable — as they traipse through the forest, perform various rituals, mate, grunt, attempt to count, eat their own boogers, trip on mushrooms and smell each other’s (and their own) fingers. And you thought your weekend plans were exciting.
They’re not cuddly; they’re disgusting, feral beings. Any compassion or resignation in their eyes is assigned to them by the human actors, which makes this an entirely odd proposition for a film: Is the point to humanize the sasquatch? Or to empathize with it? Or are were merely observing a year in the life of a fictional beast, so as to better understand ourselves, and what makes us human?
There are more questions than answers in Zellner’s film, which he co-directed with his brother David. (David also wrote the script.) We see the circle of life play out, we watch as the group discovers human creature comforts, and we bare witness to all of the sasquatches. (Yes, all of them.) The Zellners present “Sasquatch Sunset” as a kind of riff on a nature documentary, fiction through the guise of a nonfictional lens.
But it’s a tedious, patience-trying exercise, and the film’s juvenile reliance on scatological and anatomical humor grows tiresome. Does it want to be a deep experience about the world around us, or is it a meta joke perpetrated on the audience? Either way, this “Sasquatch Sunset” fades quickly.
Grade: D+
MPA rating: R (for some sexual content, full nudity and bloody images)
Running time: 1:29
How to watch: In theaters Friday
How to make Michael Twitty’s matzoh ball gumbo, a soup of Black and Jewish cuisines
What the ‘Fallout’ show gets right about the post-apocalyptic video game series
A weekend guide in Ouray, the country’s No. 1 vacation destination of 2024
Michael Douglas has a knack for unforgettable roles — here are 7 of the best
Jami Attenberg on her book ‘1000 Words: A Writer’s Guide to Staying Creative, Focused, and Productive All Year Round’
Myths about birth control are as old as the hills. But social media platforms, in particular TikTok and Instagram, are allowing false information to proliferate in new and dangerous ways.
The stakes are high. The twin forces of birth control-related misinformation, often from women sharing their personal experiences, and disinformation, typically posted by right-wing activists hiding their true agendas, is happening at a time of ever-shrinking access to abortion care in the U.S.
Physicians need to stay on top of what’s circulating so they know what might be influencing their patients’ views of contraception. The trend should also be a wake-up call: Women clearly feel their concerns aren’t being taken seriously by the medical establishment, and they are clamoring for more nuance in conversations about birth control. If doctors don’t step in to offer more knowledge and understanding — whether that’s in an exam room with a patient or as a trusted voice on social media — the void will be filled with potentially unreliable, biased and even downright dangerous information about contraception.
Women sharing their experiences about birth control isn’t a new phenomenon. They have always looked beyond their doctors for advice, and word of mouth, whether that’s an experience shared by a family member or friend, can be a powerful persuader.
But the women talking about it aren’t typically the ones who are happy with their birth control; it’s the ones who have had a bad experience that are more apt to share.
Social media, particularly TikTok, has amplified these anecdotes on a previously unfathomable scale. Once someone has interacted with one or two videos, the algorithm keeps pushing more, easily skewing perceptions of the risks of a particular form of birth control.
A group of family-planning researchers from Harvard Medical School recently analyzed the content of 700 videos tagged with some of the most popular birth control-specific search terms and found more than half touched on patients’ experience and the logistics of using a particular method of contraception. Those videos had received 1.18 billion views and had been shared 4.1 million times.
Another recent study, from researchers at Duke University Medical Center, found distrust in health care providers to be a common theme in the top 100 videos tagged with #IUD, which had 471 million views and 1 million shares. Creators often discussed the pain of having the device inserted, saying they felt gaslighted or lied to about the process, says Jonas Swartz, who led the Duke study.
The disconnect between patients’ experiences and doctors’ communication about IUD insertion is a problem. Since running the IUD study, as well as others that looked at topics like medication abortion and IVF, Swartz approaches interactions with patients differently. He asks his patients if they have seen anything on social media and how they feel about what they heard. “It really is important to start out the conversation if nothing else with an acknowledgement that a patient has some education about the device or treatment you’re going to offer,” he says.
The Duke and Harvard studies, as well as other efforts to understand how social media are influencing views of contraception, are critical to understanding the scope of the problem and crafting strategies to improve communication with patients.
When patients come in after absorbing content on social media, it’s important to “break down those walls,” says Michael Belmonte, an ob-gyn and complex family planning specialist and fellow with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Don’t get defensive or simply spit out facts, “but really start a dialogue so we can come to the best decision for them.”
But there’s a problem: Doctors can only have those conversation with the patients they see. An unchecked narrative that hormonal contraception is “unnatural” or unsafe, or that IUDs are problematic, might dissuade women from even considering those forms of birth control, which are the most effective with typical use.
Social media trends suggest that already could be happening. In the past two years, posts on TikTok and Instagram from women abandoning IUDs and daily pills in favor of “natural” birth control have proliferated. In the worst-case scenario, “natural” means an unproven supplement, which could be not only ineffective but potentially harmful. In the best-case scenario, “natural” means using a fertility-awareness methods, tracking ovulation to avoid intercourse or use a backup method on days when a pregnancy is most likely to occur.
Women have always used cycle tracking, though the process has been modernized with a bevy of apps, including one with Food and Drug Administration clearance. But the approach requires significant rigor to get right and isn’t a good fit for everyone.
“I am unaware of a single person who has been able to use natural family planning in the long term,” meaning women either got pregnant or moved on to another contraceptive method, says Deborah Bartz, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and lead author of the Harvard study. That’s backed up by the data: Fertility awareness has a 24% failure rate (put another way, that adds up to 24 pregnancies per year for every 100 users) with typical use.
One fact that family planning experts emphasized to me over and over again: Roughly half of the women who get an abortion say they had used some form of birth control during the month they got pregnant.
In other words, any drop in use of birth control increases the risk of unintended pregnancies. That’s a scary thought at a time when abortion is banned in 13 states and counting.
Birth control is a very personal decision, and identifying the method that works best for an individual can require some experimentation. That is best done when a doctor, not social media influencers, guides those choices.
Women, meanwhile, should remember to be smart consumers of social media. When fed a video about the dangers of hormonal birth control, ask whether the content comes with a hidden agenda — is it trying to sell a product or pushing a political agenda?
And even if the information is well-intentioned, women should always do their own vetting — the consequences of bad advice are too grave to put one’s health in the hands of an influencer.
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News.
Thomas Friedman: How to be pro-Palestinian, pro-Israeli and pro-Iranian
Andreas Kluth: Even Republicans are now calling out Putin’s lies
Alison Schrager: The 4-day work week is decades away
James Stavridis: Putin’s new front in the Ukraine war is in the Balkans
Thomas Friedman: Iran made a big mistake. Israel shouldn’t follow. Now, isolate Iran.
A bipartisan push to legalize sports betting in Minnesota still has momentum at the Legislature, but the odds it’ll succeed this year are still unclear.
Thirty-eight states have legalized gambling on sports in some way since 2018, including all of Minnesota’s neighbors.
Efforts in the Minnesota Legislature have failed despite optimism after the state’s tribal gaming association said it would back legalization two years ago — a key factor in gaining support from a wide swath of Democrats.
This year, proposals have advanced in both House and Senate committees, but face headwinds once again as lawmakers struggle to balance the disagreements between tribal casinos and horse tracks and address concerns from charitable gambling groups.
The two tracks — Canterbury Park in Shakopee and Running Aces in Columbus — say access to the biggest expansion of gambling in decades is key to their survival. But the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association wants to preserve its control over most gambling in the state.
And, this year there’s been an expanded debate involving gambling addiction.
Sports betting is not a party-line issue. Some Democratic-Farmer-Labor senators oppose legalization because of what they see as the harm it could do to vulnerable communities.
Since the DFL has a one-seat majority in the Senate, any proposal that gets to the finish line will need Republican backing. And in turn, the DFLers in control of state government will have to address concerns of the tracks and charitable organizations to get GOP votes.
Concerns about problem gambling also have led to alternative proposals, including a sports betting bill from Sen. John Marty, a Roseville DFLer who chairs the Senate Finance Committee. The committee is a key hurdle any sports betting bill must clear before seeing a vote of the entire Senate.
Marty’s bill would ban betting on college sports, and place restrictions on sports betting apps including a ban on mobile push notifications. It also includes a 40% tax rate — much higher than any of the other proposals at the Capitol.
Sen. Matt Klein, DFL-Mendota Heights, is a sponsor of the Senate sports betting bill that is now just a committee stop away from making it to the Senate floor. Klein said with various proposals floating around there’s still work to be done before a final product can move forward. There’s about a month left before the close of the 2024 session.
“We continue our discussions and are trying to get the best product out there for Minnesotans,” said Klein, adding, “I’m still optimistic.”
In its current form, Klein’s bill taxes sports betting at 20%, which would bring in about $18 million annually. Of that amount, 5% goes to the racetracks and 10% goes to addressing problem gambling. Other amounts go to youth sports and the state tourism agency for sports and events grants.
That’s lower than the original projected revenue of $40 million, but the amount dropped because of an amendment adopted in March by the Senate Commerce Committee that placed limits on in-game bets.
The sports betting industry doesn’t support the ban on what are known as prop bets, where a person can place live bets on aspects of a competition that aren’t tied to the outcome, such as points scored by a certain time in a game.
Meanwhile, the tribes expressed concern about the ban at the time, but did not oppose it outright.
On the House side, Rep. Zack Stephenson, DFL-Coon Rapids, is advancing a bill that would address the concerns of charitable groups, who say they face significant revenue losses after the state changed rules on e-pulltabs last year.
In an agreement Stephenson announced in March, charities who lost revenue due to changes in e-pulltab rules would get $40 million in tax cuts which would be financed by a 20% tax on sports betting revenue.
The House measure has not adopted the same in-game betting restrictions as the Senate versions.
“The tax cuts in this agreement will be a major benefit to organizations ranging from American Legions, to youth hockey clubs, to organizations that serve people with disabilities,” Stephenson said in a news release at the time.
And as the sides try to find a solution, the tracks and tribal casinos are clashing on other fronts — two of which emerged just this month.
This week, Running Aces filed a federal racketeering lawsuit against three tribal casinos, alleging they offer gambling options beyond those permitted in their agreement with the state of Minnesota permitting them to offer gambling.
In the lawsuit, Running Aces alleges Grand Casino in Hinckley and Mille Lacs and Treasure Island Resort and Casino, which belongs to the Prairie Island Indian Community, offered Three Card Poker and Ultimate Texas Hold’Em, variants of poker not covered by their state-tribal gaming compacts.
Sen. Klein said he doesn’t think the lawsuit will have an effect on what happens at the Capitol. Though others said fights over other pieces of gambling turf could complicate negotiations.
“It makes it more challenging to have some of these conversations about working toward towards a solution,” said Sen. Jeremy Miller, a Winona Republican who also has a sports betting bill. “But again, I still think it can be done; I think there is a solution out there that benefits the tribes, it benefits the tracks and it benefits the charities.”
The tribes and tracks also are at odds over a new expansion to gaming at horse tracks approved by the Minnesota Racing Commission earlier this month. Under the new rule, Running Aces and Canterbury will be permitted to have 500 machines for historical horse racing, where bets can be placed on races from the past.
Minnesota Indian Gaming Association condemned the move, calling it an “extreme violation” of legislative authority as lawmakers had not directly authorized historical betting. They argue the betting terminals are essentially the same thing as slot machines, and therefore violate tribal monopoly on video gambling.
DFL lawmakers plan to take action on the issue before the end of this session, said Klein.
Jordan Rodell: Proposed Minnesota social media legislation would undermine First Amendment protections
Gov. Tim Walz says copper wire theft bills are ‘top priority,’ urges legislators to move them forward
Jacob Wetterling Resource Center director honored with national award
DFL disavows local endorsement of northwestern Minnesota candidate with assault conviction
Other voices: Legal marijuana is making roads deadlier