Sadly, those who were brave enough to come forward with their mental health struggles were frequently stigmatized by society at large. As a result of this intense, unwarranted judgment, many individuals felt there was no choice but to keep their disorders a secret.
With the passage of time, we’ve seen a turn of the tides in the US surrounding topics relating to mental illness. Now that research sheds light on how common these issues are, many people are encouraged to speak out about them. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, 1 in 5 individuals in the US struggle with issues relating to mental health.
Celebrities open up about mental health issues
For decades, mega-stars did their best to present only the most polished and sparkling versions of themselves and even give off an aura of mystery.
But nowadays, many celebrities are opening up to fans about their mental health struggles. Consumers of pop culture seem hungry for shared stories and experiences that are transparent and relatable rather than glamorized perfection. This cultural shift permits movie stars and pop sensations to get real with the world about personal issues that are far from picture-perfect.
Eliminating the stigma associated with depression, anxiety, PTSD, and more
When megastars get vulnerable and share about their behavioral health issues, individuals who are battling with mental illness feel seen. Knowing that their favorite actors and musicians also deal with anxiety, OCD, and depression can help so many people feel less alone.
And, fans can feel less ashamed about their own personal struggles when the people they look up to face similar obstacles.
If Selena Gomez can release an entire documentary about her experiences with bipolar disorder, it takes a weight off of people’s shoulders. If Megan The Stallion can shamelessly drop a track called “Anxiety,” fans can feel a sense of validation for their emotions. There’s something so comforting about knowing these mega-stars really are “just like us.”
But are these celebrities oversharing about their mental health?
Are Celebrities too candid with fans?
Not everyone is on board with this newfound transparency. On the other hand, a growing number of pop culture consumers think these celebs’ first-world issues have no relation to real-world problems and leave them totally out of touch.
Considering how wealthy most A-list stars are…some are convinced that celebrities will never understand the tribulations that lower and middle-class people face. As a result, some argue that celebrities have resources and access to things most of us could never dream of so they should have less mental stress.
Back in 2022, Bella Hadid was famously dragged when a resurfaced clip featured her crying when she couldn’t have a designer bag.
Of course, we’re all aware that Kendall Jenner has faced years of criticism for using her platform to talk about her crippling anxiety,
@bestmomentsofinteverview Kendall Jenner on her anxiety struggle. #fy #fyp #foryou #foryoupage #viral #modelling #kimkardashian #kimkardashianwest #khloekardashian #krisjenner #kyliejenner #kyliecosmetics #kendalljenner #kourtneykardashian #scottdisck #kendall #victoriasecret #runway #horseriding #drink818 #skims #skkn #skkypartners #goodamerican #thekardashians #keepingupwiththekardashians #kylieskin #kyliebaby #poosh #arthurgeorge87 #getsafely #caitlynjenner #kuwtk #thekardashianshulu #anxiety #anxietystruggle #anxietystruggles #mentalhealth ♬ original sound - bestmomentsofinterviews
“There is going to be those people that say, ‘Oh, OK, what does she have to worry about? What does she have to be anxious about?” the Keeping Up With The Kardashians star said in an interview with Vogue.
While Jenner goes on to acknowledge her privilege, she also says that fame doesn’t automatically preclude her troubles with mental illness. The reality star adds, “I’m still a human being at the end of the day.”
And let’s not forget during the height of the pandemic, when A-listers were brutally attacked online for complaining about being stuck inside their homes despite living in million-dollar mansions. In this instance, the masses were not so quick to sympathize with celebrities’ complaints.
When Ellen Degeneres whined about being unable to go outside during the pandemic and compared it to “being in jail,” the general public called her out.
Sophie Turner and other celebrities use their platform to advocate for mental health
But the notion that celebrities are out of touch when it comes to their first-world struggles is only half the argument.
Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan stirred the pot when he suggested many celebrities “fake” mental health issues in an effort to boost their careers. “Sadly, I know a lot of well-known people (not The Rock) who’ve jumped on the ‘victimhood’ bandwagon to get positive publicity for themselves,” the controversial figure tweeted in 2019. “They do those with genuine mental illness a great disservice.”
His controversial take was met with a wave of backlash from celebs and the general public alike. Game of Thrones superstar Sophie Turner, who is an avid advocate of mental health, clapped back at the Good Morning Britain host.
She responded in a heated tweet, saying, "Or maybe they have a platform to speak out about it and help get rid of the stigma of mental illness, which affects 1 in 4 people in the UK per year. But please go ahead and shun them back into silence.”
Sophie Turner via Twitter
There seems to be a divide over how people feel about celebrities sharing intimate details regarding their mental health affairs. Whether you believe stars are splattering personal concerns all over social media simply to remain relevant or if you genuinely think they do a terrific job destigmatizing mental health problems is entirely up to you.
Personally, I love it when people like Demi Lovato and Ariana Grande reveal their struggles with depression and anxiety because it makes me feel less sensitive and ashamed about my own inner frailties. And I feel less alone.
The way I see it, when someone like Kendall Jenner gets brutally honest about her journey with crippling anxiety, it creates a sense of unity for everyone out there who is dealing with the same thing. Kendall, along with a slew of other celebrities, leverages her platform to build a fervent discourse on topics that have been swept under the rug for far too long.
Democratic Socialism: Explained
Democratic Socialism, a subset of the democrat party, has been thrust into the spotlight recently with the shocking victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over a 10-term incumbent. Ocasio-Cortez often referred to in the media as AOC, is a self identified Democratic Socialist, as was 2016 presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders. Despite this newfound prominence, the political affiliation is still widely misunderstood, often confused with communism or European style socialism. So what exactly is Democratic Socialism? And how would a Democratic Socialist platform affect your life?
According to the biggest socialist organization in the US, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), "Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives." This polished and condensed definition sounds good, but it's difficult to grasp what it actually means in practice. To help you understand, we've broken down the four pillars of Democratic Socialism to explore how their implementation in the American government could affect your life.
Workers Control Means of Production/The Importance of Unions
Perhaps most central to Democratic Socialism is the belief that American industry should be controlled by the workers who run it and the consumers who gain from it. Generally, they believe in a decentralized economy, though they think some indispensable portions of industry, like energy and steel, should be government controlled. As the DSA puts it, "We believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect."
In practice, this decentralization would likely mean the fruition of things like workers cooperatives and publicly owned ventures. Essentially, this economic model would mean that it would be much more difficult for a few people to get obscenely wealthy while those on the bottom of the economic ladder remain impoverished. Instead, everyone would have fairly equal opportunity to profit off the success of a business, creating a more widespread sense of ownership over the success of the economy, therefore stabilizing it. Unions are an important part of this pillar, as Democratic Socialists believe unions are essential in order to hold companies accountable to their workers and to empower workers to challenge capitalism as a concept.
Capitalism Promotes Greed and Must be Regulated
Democratic Socialists believe that capitalism has the inherent tendency to keep the rich rich and the poor poor and that capitalist corporations will always act in the interest of maximum profit at the expense of all else. Therefore, private corporations must be regulated by the government in order to ensure that they look out for the wellbeing of workers and lower rung employees. With this kind of philosophy implemented, there would likely be a strengthening of labor laws, a higher minimum wage, expanded parental leave, the prevention of foreign outsourcing to low wage countries, and the prevention of environmentally harmful activities.
A Minimum Quality of Life for All Citizens
This is perhaps the simplest pillar of Democratic Socialism though likely would prove to be the most difficult to fulfill. Essentially, Democratic Socialists believe that all human beings have the right to sustenance, housing, clean water, healthcare, education, and child care, and that the government should ensure these things are accessible to all US citizens. This would likely mean significantly more spending on social welfare programs and expansion of government housing, which would inevitably require higher taxes. Of course, with the implementation of the other pillars of Democratic Socialism, more people would have a better chance of reaching this minimum quality of life even without an expansion of welfare programs.
Importantly, healthcare is an essential part of this equation in the eyes of Democratic Socialists. They don't merely believe in "medicare for all" health care system, but also that medical facilities should be publicly run and doctors publicly employed.
Grass Roots Means of Achieving Power
As mentioned before, the welfare of the community is important to Democratic Socialists, meaning that the election of the individual is also seen as having the tendency to play into the patterns of the centralization of power. A traditional Democratic Socialist would likely reject the concept of election altogether, instead opting for grass roots organization and mass mobilization. But as shown by AOC and all the other Democratic Socialist candidates elected this year, most who ascribe to these beliefs recognize that it's necessary to participate in the democracy in order to insight change, but still maintain that true change and empowerment comes from the mass mobilization of the people.
What Happens When the President Declares a State of Emergency?
In the past, Donald Trump has threatened to declare a "national emergency" in order to forcibly move forward with his plan for a $5.6 billion border wall. A state of emergency, designated for times of crisis and national instability, is meant to accelerate the government's political process in order to restore stability. When presidents declare national emergencies, the law provides hundreds of provisions that endow the commander-in-chief with "extraordinary authority" to make executive decisions without asking congress for approval.
After the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (NEA), presidents must identify which specific powers they're asking to activate in order to address the designated emergency–which means selecting a few out of approximately 130 laws that grant special authorities to the President. Barack Obama invoked those powers 13 times over his eight years in the White House; similarly, George W. Bush did so 12 times over his two terms. One major dilemma with the NEA, however, is that it does not create a time limit within which a state of emergency must be resolved, allowing for various national emergencies to remain ongoing simultaneously (in 2017, there were 28 concurrent active emergencies). This, of course, allows the sitting President to hold "extraordinary authorities" for an indeterminate period of time.
Another yet greater shortcoming of the NEA is that it doesn't define what constitutes an "emergency," allowing a President to interpret current events–and the laws–in his own way. Alarmingly, the President doesn't operate under many limitations when it comes to defining and declaring a national emergency. Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, says, "There aren't a lot of legal limits on his ability to do that, frankly, even if there isn't a real emergency happening."
Over the course of Trump's first two years as President, he declared three events to be national emergencies, including the H1N1 influenza epidemic and a series of cyber-hacking activities that still technically constitute a national emergency to this day. Recently, Trump has openly called the US-Mexico border a crisis situation, saying, "We have a crisis at the border, of drugs, of human beings being trafficked all over the world, they're coming through . . . criminals and gang members coming through. It is national security. It is a national emergency."
So what happens when a President does declare a national emergency?
According to the Congressional Research Service, there are hundreds of specific provisions codifying what the president is allowed to do–and those powers are far-reaching and invasive into daily American lives. While "the vast majority of them are of the stand-by kind — dormant until activated," a state of a national emergency allows the President to: "seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens."
NY Times
What It Means:
1. Presidents can control funding
Trump could declare a national emergency in order to fund his wall. As Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University, told Vox, "It could be that by putting together a lot of different sources of emergency authority, the president could tap a lot of different funds and at least start." With the above powers to seize property and commodities, as well as regulate means of production and private enterprises, the President could re-direct government funding away from ongoing military projects to fund the border wall. Last Friday, Trump told reporters, "I can do it if I want."
Technically, he's right. If Trump's administration can prove that the border wall is a "military construction," then using military funding would fall under the U.S. code for "Reprogramming During National Emergencies," which states that a President may "apply the resources of the Department of the Army's civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense."
New York Post
2. Presidents can control the internet.
Seizure and control of transportation and communication includes controlling all internet traffic, restricting access to information deemed security risks. Today, that could mean "impeding access to certain websites and ensuring that internet searches return pro-Trump content as the top results."
Ars Technica
3. Presidents can deploy troops to your neighborhood—easily.
4. Presidents can confiscate your property.
5. Presidents can forcibly relocate Americans.
Among the most notorious and regretful instances of Presidents declaring states of emergency is Franklin D. Roosevelt's use in 1941, months after Pearl Harbour was attacked. The above powers endowed the President to forcibly relocate more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans to internment camps. To retell it simply, the President instituted martial law along the east coast, forcibly transported U.S. citizens to the camps, confiscated their property, and restricted them from leaving or communicating with the outside world. Meanwhile, Roosevelt deployed the U.S. military overseas to enter World War II. 30 years later, the NEA was designed to prevent sitting Presidents from abusing declarations of emergencies, but with its vague language, much of the law remains to be tested in court.
Equal Justice Initiative
In total, lack of clarity in the NEA gives Trump the legal grounds to argue for emergency powers over the country. However, legal experts, as well as passionate congressmen, have been outspoken about fighting against the president if he were to push that agenda. After all, congress reserves the right to overrule a president's declaration if they can pass a resolution to do so in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, the President would need to sign the resolution; otherwise, congress would need a second majority vote to override his veto.
President Trump is due to give a national address Tuesday night at 9PM. While he is not expected to declare a national emergency, he is expected to urge the American people that the southern border constitutes a "humanitarian and security crisis" that urgently needs to be addressed. To Trump, that means building a border wall, even if it means prolonging what is already one of the longest government shutdowns in history, or perhaps even abusing executive powers.
Meg Hanson is a Brooklyn-based writer, teacher, and jaywalker. Find Meg at her website and on Twitter @megsoyung.
A Second Woman Accuses Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct
Brett Kavanaugh and The White House have publicly denied a second woman's claims of sexual misconduct by the Supreme Court nominee. This allegation comes in the wake of negotiators reaching a decision to hold a hearing to investigate the claims of Kavanaugh's first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. In light of the new accusation, the top Democrat on the senate judiciary committee, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, called for immediate postponement of Kavanaugh's confirmation process. In a letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley., Sen. Feinstein asked that the matter be referred to the FBI for investigation.
The new allegation dates back to the 1983-84 school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. Deborah Ramirez, Kavanaugh's classmate at Yale at the time, was contacted by The New Yorker after the allegation was relayed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. She was originally reluctant to share the story, in part because she had been drinking at the party in question and felt she had some gaps in her memory of the night. After several days of assessing her recollection with her attorney, she said she felt certain enough of the memory to describe it in an interview with The New Yorker.
The New Yorker reports, "Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away."
Ramirez recalled being shaken by the event. "I wasn't going to touch a penis until I was married," she said. "I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated." The New Yorker reported that Ramirez "...remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. 'Brett was laughing.' she said. 'I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.'" She also stated that another student "yelled down the hall, 'Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie's face.'" She remarked, "It was his full name. I don't think it was just 'Brett.' And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there."
Regarding the incident, Ramirez said, "I would think an FBI investigation would be warranted."
Brett Kavanaugh in the Yale Yearbookwhitehouse.gov
In response to Ramirez's allegation, the White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec stated, "This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man. This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say. The White House stands firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh."
It has been confirmed that four Democratic senators have received information about Ramirez's allegation, and at least two are investigating the matter further. Ramirez will not be appearing at Kavanaugh's hearing on Thursday.
Brooke Ivey Johnson is a Brooklyn based writer, playwright, and human woman. To read more of her work visit her blog or follow her twitter @BrookeIJohnson.
