(I have AdBlock on my puter. If there’s an orange box on this post for you, just tell the box you’ll fix it next time. It’s the first option. This is a wonderful thing to read on its own, but it seems a good recommendation, as well. Enjoy! -A.)
This guest review is from Crystal Anne! Crystal Anne with An E comes to us from a sunny clime, but prefers to remain a pale indoor cat. She enjoys reading, cross-stitching something nerdy, going to see live music, and playing video games.
She works as an autism consultant by day, got a degree in information science for fun, and currently serves on her local library advisory board.
CW/TW
โI believe the children are our futureโฆ.โ Sometimes this is not just a line in a song.
My daughter learned much of her geekery from me. Fortunately for us both, that means we have noticeably similar taste in things we enjoy. I got her into Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Hamilton. I procured her every single Percy Jackson book available when she decided she wanted to read them. She recently returned the favor, by introducing me to Epic: The Musical.
I am rather confident that I would not have discovered it without her. I am terminally online the way a 46 year old person is. She is terminally online the way that an 18 year old is, and these ways are pretty different. She also is deeply interested in art and animation in a way that I am not (I enjoy these things, but sheโs interested in making a career of it), and much of her discovery of this musical came about as she watched animatics of it. I am a deeply lucky parent in that when my daughter loves something, she wants me to love it, too, so she insisted that I was going to listen to the entirety ofย Epicย with her. Yes, all 2 and a half hours of it. (snip-MORE. Go read it! It’s delightful! -A.)
Elon Musk visited Donald Trump in the Oval Office yesterday and was a total disgrace.
Elon, who was in all black, wearing a black T-shirt and a black MAGA hat, said he was โopenโ and โhonestโ in his work finding waste and fraud in federal spending.
When asked about his lie that $50 million was spent on condoms for Gaza, Elon said, โSome of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected. Nobodyโs going to bat 1.000.โ A good example of โsomeโ of the things he says that are incorrect is his statement that DOGE was โopenโ and โhonest.โ
Before you tell a lie, like Elonโs condom bullshit, you can easily look up the facts, like when Elon lied about the last budget and claimed it included $300 billion for a football stadium in Washington DC, Congress would get a 40 percent pay increase, or that it funded bioweapons labs. Elon could have looked all this shit up before posting about it on his platform X/Twitterโฆover 100 times within 24 hours.
Unfortunately, we canโt fact-check Elonโs claims that the federal bureaucracy had been corrupted by cheats and officials who had approved money for โfraudsters.โ
We canโt fact-check his claim that officials at USAID were taking โkickbacks.โ
We canโt fact-check his claim that some officials โmanaged to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position.โ
We canโt fact-check his claim that some people were receiving Social Security benefits at the age of 150.
We canโt fact-check his statement, โThere are quite a few people in the bureaucracy who have ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow managed to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while they are in that position.โ
The reason we canโt fact-check any of that is because Elon didnโt provide any proof of his claims and DOGE is operating in secret. There is no transparency with DOGE. None, nada, zip, zip, zippity-doo-dah, none.
Hereโs a case of irony: The employee Musk claims made millions off the government had to file a financial disclosure form. Elon does not because Trump designated him a โspecial employee.โ So just as we canโt see Trumpโs tax returns, we canโt see Elonโs either.
When asked about the conflict of interest of him scouring billion-dollar contracts while his company Space X has billion-dollar contracts with the government, he said, โFirst of all, Iโm not the one filing the contract. Itโs the people at SpaceX or something.โ As Sarah Marshall said in the great film Forgetting Sarah Marshall, โbullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.โ Itโs still a conflict of interest, even if heโs not lying.
Elon said, โI donโt know of a case where an organization has been more transparent than the DOGE organization. He also said, โWe are actually trying to be as transparent as possible,โ and then some more crap came out of his mouth when he said, โSo all of our actions are maximally transparent.โ
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Without exhibiting any self-awareness, Elon said the bureaucracy is an โunelected, fourth, unconstitutional branch of government, which has, in a lot of ways, currently, more power than any elected representative. That might be the only thing Elon said that is true other than when he said, โThere are boogers in my ears.โ Weโll get to that.
Elon also lacked self-awareness when he said this bureaucracy โdoes not match the will of the people.โ Thatโs true because nobody voted for Elon.
A lot of Elon/Trump defenders say we did vote for Elon because Trump said Elon was going to find government waste if he won the election. What Trump did NOT say was that Elon would fire people himself, cut government spending himself, gain access to all our financial information, or hire Nazis to help (which he has rehired after momentarily firing him).
Elon also really really really really really lacked all fucking self-awareness when he said, โThe goal is to โrestore democracy. If the bureaucracyโs in charge, then what meaning does democracy actually have?โ
People like Musk and Trump donโt know the meaning of words like โdemocracy.โ When they say โdemocracy,โ they mean fascism. When they say โpatriot,โ they mean traitor beholden to Vladimir Putin, whom Trump surprised with a phone call today because itโs two days before Valentineโs. And when Trump says โvegetable,โ he means ketchup.
Every MAGAt who defends Elonโs claims is too stupid to realize they donโt see any evidence of his claims. A few days ago, an Elon-defending MAGAt asked me, โWhat do you have against transparency?โ. Again, total lack of awareness. People who defend Elon and Trump take them at their word, which is bizarre because theyโre both huge sack-of-shit liars.
Trump and Elon talk about fraud and theft in the federal government while taxpayers are paying millions for Trump to sleep in his own bed at his bedbug-ridden golf resorts. Remember when Trump tried to host an international summit at one of his golf clubs? If you believe that was the best venue in the nation for a G7 summit, then let me sell you some golf club memberships and some bridges.
The only person who didnโt lie to the press in the Oval Office yesterday was Elonโs booger-mining kid, named X. At one point, X, who is Elonโs 11th child, stuck his fingers in his fatherโs earsโฆthe same fingers he was picking his nose with. Trump seemed very uncomfortable with the kid in the room, probably because heโs jealous that X has at least outgrown his diapers. X can probably also hold a water bottle with one hand.
Elon wants to cut funding to feed children living in poverty, but his little trust-fund baby has so much White privilege that he gets to pick his nose in the Oval Office because his dad has so much White Privilege that heโs not required to wear a suit and tie in the Oval and instead can come dressed as a Bond villain.
Now there will have to be DNA experts to figure out which boogers under the Resolute Desk belong to Little Xโฆand which belong to Trump.
We ask for peace. We, at the boundย ย O life, are weary of the roundย ย In search of Truth. We know the questย ย Is not for us, the vision blestย ย Is meant for other eyes. Uncrowned,ย ย We go, with heads bowed to the ground,ย ย And old hands, gnarled and hard and browned.ย ย Let us forget the past unrest,โย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย We ask for peace.
Our strainรฉd ears are deaf,โno soundย May reach them more; no sight may woundย Our worn-out eyes. We gave our best,ย ย And, while we totter down the West,ย ย Unto that last, that open mound,โย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย We ask for peace.
This poem is in the public domain. Published in Poem-a-Day on February 8, 2025, by the Academy of American Poets.
I do not care for sleep, Iโll wait awhileย For Love to come out of the darkness, wait For laughter, gifted with the frequent fate Of dusk-lit hope, to touch me with the smileย Of moon and star and joy of that last mileย Before I reach the sea. The ships are late And mayhap laden with the precious freight Dawn brings from Lifeโs eternal summer isle.
And should I find the sweeter fruits of dreamโ The oranges of love and mating songโ Iโll laugh so true the morn will gayly seemย Endless and ships full laden with a throngย Of beauty, dreams and loves will come to meย Out of the surge of yonder silver sea.
This poem is in the public domain. Published in Poem-a-Day on February 9, 2025, by the Academy of American Poets.
It reminds me of how “Cosmopolitan” was one of the early ‘mainstream’ magazines honestly discussing the AIDS virus, where to find care, and knowledge to avoid contracting it. They knew and reported early on that any- and everyone can catch what we now know as HIV. This piece is about early cancer info dissemination.
At a time when people wouldnโt even say the word, journalists at Good Housekeeping, Redbook, and other womenโs magazines were informing readers how to recognize, protect against, and talk about cancer.
Maxine Davis wrote about plenty of tough topics during her long career in journalism, but none of them frightened her as much as the assignment she received in the spring of 1940. Her editors at Good Housekeeping wanted her to cover cancer, a disease so cloaked in stigma that Davis, like many other Americans, was afraid to say its name out loud.
The sweeping series of articles she produced that year changed her thinking. โMy research has dispelled that terror,โ she wrote in an article that appeared in Good Housekeepingโs April 1940 issue, declaring that cancer could be cured especially if it was caught early through education and hypervigilance. Cancer, she explained, was โsneaking, insidious. Only you and you alone can guard yourself against it.โ
At the time Davis wrote these words, cancer was a taboo topic. The term itself wouldnโt be spoken on the radio until 1945. Rumors about its causes were rampant. (Many Americans at the time believed it to be contagious or a sign of poor character.) Physicians routinely withheld cancer diagnoses from patients to spare them shame. Although it wasnโt always a death sentence, the treatments we rely on today were nascent or nonexistent. And yet, the editors at Good Housekeeping still decided to devote pages and pages to in-depth coverage of the disease.
This is one example of how, during the 1940s and 1950s, womenโs magazines played a vital and largely forgotten role in educating average Americans about burgeoning efforts to prevent and treat cancer. It was a pivotal era for modern medicine thanks to scientific advancements and increased attention to public health. Cancer was among the leading causes of death, and rates were increasing in part because people were living longer. Print media in all its forms played a major role in normalizing public conversations about cancer, but womenโs magazines took a unique approach. They made disease prevention personal, calling upon women to become cancer watchdogs for themselves and their families.
Mortality rates from selected cancers among women in the United States, 1930โ2008 (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program 2013, National Library of Medicine)
Davis was among the best-known of the womenโs magazine journalists covering cancer. By the early 1940s, she had reported on the League of Nations, driven all over the United States to research a book about American youth, and founded a wire service aimed at explaining politics to women. Her cancer stories for Good Housekeeping launched her to a new level of prominence, one akin to modern day health influencers. Her editors promoted her work heavily, framing her as a lay expert with carefully cultivated sources. โDoctors like to work with her,โ they wrote in an introduction to her spring 1940 cancer series, โand they give her all the help they can.โ
Writing in May of 1940, Davis introduced readers to the basics of cancer treatment, explaining in plain language how surgery, X-rays, and radium were being used to help patients.
Sometimes X-ray, radium, and surgery are all used to treat a malignant condition. Take the case of Ada Johnson. Ada put off going to hospital longer than she should have after she felt a lump in her breast; but the doctor didnโt think the situation was hopeless. This is what he did:
First, there was a surgical operation. When that had been successfully accomplished, the specialist in cancer of the breast applied radium to the chest wall. That wasnโt all. The doctor then used deep X-ray therapy on Adaโs breast and armpitโฆ.This was repeated for thirty-five treatments. Ada is perfectly well today.
Davis was not, however, the only womenโs magazine reporter working the cancer beat at midcentury. Seventeen magazineโs beauty editor Jean Campbell urged her young readers to get involved in efforts to bring specialized cancer to more communities. โDemand them,โ she wrote in the April 1948 issue, โand raise funds for them.โ That same year Miriam Zeller Gross deftly described the history of stomach cancer treatment in a gripping feature story that appeared in Better Homes and Gardens. In the early 1950s, Redbookโs Collie Small encouraged women to overcome โfalse modestyโ and allow physicians to screen them for breast cancer. Womenโs magazines were publishing hundreds of articles on cancer by dozens of writers. Women also wrote about cancer for general magazines including The Saturday Evening Post, which featured a handful of stories in the 1950s by female cancer survivors.
Stories about cancer were far less common before World War II, but they did sometimes appear in womenโs magazines. Ladies Home Journal has been credited by medical historians with publishing the very first general interest article about cancer detection in 1913. Others, including Good Housekeeping, featured occasional educational columns by physicians during the 1920s.
While less common, articles about cancer did appear in womenโs magazines in the early 20th century, such as this piece by Dr. Harvey W. Wiley in the November 1922 issue of Good Housekeeping. (Cornell University Library)
In addition to becoming quick experts on complex medical topics, these journalists managed often-fraught relationships with health professionals who tended to distrust journalists. It became common practice during this time for physicians to review stories before they were published. Sometimes, one of those physicians would write a sidebar: In 1955, American Cancer Society vice president Dr. Charles S. Cameron had reviewed a draft of an April 1955 article on cervical cancer by health journalist Gladys Denny Shultz for Ladies Home Journal, and wrote a public note of thanks, proclaiming that the magazine was โoffering its readers a great service by publishing this excellent article. It should be a means of saving thousands of lives.โ
While most of the bylines atop womenโs magazine stories about cancer belonged to female journalists, editors did occasionally invite physicians, almost always men, to contribute. Cosmopolitan published a 14-page essay by Walter Alvarez, who had just retired from clinical practice to pursue a second career in medical writing. The piece, which appeared in January of 1953, sprawled across 14 pages under the headline โDanger Signals in Your Lifeโ and includes tips to spot illnesses like cancer in children, teens, and adults. Alvarez assured readers he wasnโt out to scare them. Instead, he hoped to save โwise persons from avoidable illness or death.โ
Much of this coverage was driven by coordinated public relations campaigns initiated by the American Cancer Society and similar organizations. In addition to connecting journalists with expert sources and organizing junkets to prominent research centers, such campaigns included advertising blitzes promoting new treatments, championing medical breakthroughs, and reminding Americans of the importance of cancer screenings. Womenโs magazines were a popular venue for such ads, so it wasnโt uncommon for some issues to feature a reference to cancer on nearly every page.
While groundbreaking, the cancer coverage provided by midcentury womenโs magazines was imperfect. Race and class were seldom addressed because these publications โ like much of the news media โ assumed their audience was white and financially stable. Some coverage also illustrates the eraโs rudimentary and fast-evolving scientific knowledge. One example is a story that appeared in Parents magazine in 1943. Written by journalist Constance J. Foster and prominently endorsed by the New York City Cancer Committee, the article proclaimed that โcancer is not hereditary.โ A piece that appeared in Redbook a decade later explained new research showing that some forms of cancer do run in families.
The role of womenโs magazines in the fight against cancer is a fascinating chapter in media history, one laced with a type of gender politics that feels familiar today. The cancer beat gave women journalists like Davis access to male-dominated sectors like medicine, public policy, and journalism, but it also kept them firmly tethered to domestic matters and subservient to male physicians. Their work, while educational, put undue pressure on individual women to spot the signs of cancer. But it also brought hope to families facing a terrifying diagnosis. As Davis wrote in the October 1948 issue of Good Housekeeping, โCancer is not necessarily fatal. Cures do exist.โ
Northeastern University student Elsa OโDonnell contributed archival research for this article.