Latest news with #ArianaTriggs
USA Today
02-05-2025
- USA Today
Booze at altitude: The messy truth about drinking on planes
Booze at altitude: The messy truth about drinking on planes Show Caption Hide Caption Shoes off, reclined seats tops pet peeves when traveling by plane Among the top pet peeves among Americans traveling on planes are passengers reclining their seats, according to a survey by The Vacationer website. Ariana Triggs, USA TODAY A passenger's excessive alcohol consumption on a flight raises questions about the responsibility of airlines to limit service. While some support drink limits on flights, the issue is complex due to alcohol's revenue contribution and passenger/airport bar sales. Although a federal law exists against serving intoxicated passengers, enforcement seems inconsistent. Jodi Smith lost count of the number of rum and Cokes her seatmate ordered on a recent flight from Boston to Los Angeles. Was it five? Or six? "He was a nervous flier," Smith remembered. "Old enough to order alcohol, but too young to make good decisions." After the third drink, the passenger started slurring his words, so Smith made eye contact with the flight attendant who had been mixing the Cuba Libres. She gave her the look of, "Can you do something about this?" "She just shrugged," Smith said. Check out Elliott Confidential, the newsletter the travel industry doesn't want you to read. Each issue is filled with breaking news, deep insights, and exclusive strategies for becoming a better traveler. But don't tell anyone! The flight didn't end well. For the sake of our family audience, let's just say it involved a lot of noise, agony and the discharge of bodily fluids. Smith, an etiquette expert, still has one question about the incident. "In most states, bartenders are legally obligated not to overserve," she said. "Why doesn't this also apply to those serving drinks in the air?" Are you the world's worst hotel guest? Here's how to tell (and redeem yourself) Everyone's talking about alcohol on planes She's not the only one asking. Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary recently blamed most of the air rage incidents in Europe on overconsumption and suggested a two-drink limit at airport bars. Since then, there have been a string of embarrassing incidents involving alcohol on planes, including inebriated passengers, crewmembers, and even pilots. So as this summer rolls around, it's not so much a question of whether drink limits are a good idea – it's more an issue of what limits make sense. A new survey by Global Rescue found that some travelers support limits on alcohol. About 1 in 5 passengers say airlines shouldn't serve more than one drink every 30 minutes, while 17% favored a limit of one an hour. A majority say serving alcohol should be left to the discretion of the crewmember or bartender. Dan Richards, Global Rescue's CEO, said there was one takeaway, no matter how travelers voted. "While travelers should always be responsible for their consumption, airports and airlines also have a duty to ensure the safety of all passengers," he told me. The problem is surprisingly complicated Imposing a drink limit sounds like an easy solution. While we're at it, maybe there should even be a federal law that would limit alcohol consumption on domestic flights. But this issue is surprisingly complex. For starters, alcohol is by far the biggest source of onboard revenue, so cutting off passengers would make a dent in the airline industry's profits. (During the pandemic, some airlines stopped serving alcohol amid an epidemic of in-flight violence, but they quickly resumed beverage service in an effort to reclaim lost revenue.) It's common knowledge that limiting alcohol can improve the quality of the flight. Recent research by the University of Texas found that consuming alcohol was a "significant contributor" to passenger misconduct. And German researchers also discovered that drinking on planes can harm your health. But the problem is, neither passengers nor airlines want limits. There's yet another layer of complexity. Many passengers board their flights already intoxicated because they've been hanging out at the airport bar. And those watering holes in the terminal selling overpriced cocktails would, of course, go out of business without nervous fliers who order a few drinks before their flights. So you can't just limit or ban drinking on a plane. You have to apply sensible rules to airports as well. And if you were cheering for a new drink limit rule, consider this: there already is a federal law that limits alcohol consumption on planes. It forbids airlines from serving anyone who appears to be intoxicated or who has a deadly or dangerous weapon accessible to him, among other things. So why did Smith's seatmate get so many rum and cokes? Perhaps the flight attendant had to make her sales quota. Should you drink on a plane? The decision about whether to drink or not on a plane is a personal one. Here are a few things to consider: Don't forget – you're on a plane. I know, it sounds obvious, but most people don't think about the effects of being in a pressurized cabin. "Unfortunately, sometimes the effects of alcohol don't show until the plane is in the air or the passenger has their next drink," said Beth Blair, a former flight attendant. She remembers serving a passenger a Bloody Mary – only one! – and the next thing she knew, he was knocking on the door of the flight deck, demanding to speak to the captain. "The FAA and FBI met our flight," she recalls. "There were severe consequences." I know, it sounds obvious, but most people don't think about the effects of being in a pressurized cabin. "Unfortunately, sometimes the effects of alcohol don't show until the plane is in the air or the passenger has their next drink," said Beth Blair, a former flight attendant. She remembers serving a passenger a Bloody Mary – only one! – and the next thing she knew, he was knocking on the door of the flight deck, demanding to speak to the captain. "The FAA and FBI met our flight," she recalls. "There were severe consequences." If you drink, do it in moderation. That's the consensus of the behavioral experts I talked to for this story. "If we get the little bottle of wine or beer in economy class with our meal, that should be enough," said etiquette expert Adeodata Czink. "No more alcohol than that. This way we would have our wine and there would be much less intoxication." That's the consensus of the behavioral experts I talked to for this story. "If we get the little bottle of wine or beer in economy class with our meal, that should be enough," said etiquette expert Adeodata Czink. "No more alcohol than that. This way we would have our wine and there would be much less intoxication." You're really better off avoiding alcohol on flights. That's especially true if you take any prescription medications. "The vast majority of medical emergencies our team have been asked to intervene in with other passengers have involved alcohol," said Bob Bacheler, managing director of Flying Angels, a medical transportation service. "It's usually a combination of alcohol and sedatives. I can't stress how dangerous the combination of sedatives, alcohol and decreased cabin pressure is." Ultimately, the choice is yours, of course. But ask yourself: Do you want to end up getting hauled off the plane in handcuffs, like the guy on Blair's flight? Maybe you can wait until you land to have that drink. So, how do you fix this problem? I've been writing about problem passengers since the 90s, and in almost all cases, alcohol is involved. Airlines have had plenty of warnings, from the drunken passenger who defecated on a meal cart to the epidemic of air rage during the pandemic. Take away the alcohol, and you remove some of the fuel that powers these outbursts of antisocial behavior. I've also seen the destruction alcohol can wreak on the ground. I've watched relationships get ripped apart, and I've lost friends to alcohol. And by "lose," I mean they are dead. It affected me so profoundly that I stopped drinking a decade ago. The debate over alcohol consumption on flights is more nuanced than it might initially seem. While limiting or banning alcohol could improve passenger behavior and reduce incidents of air rage, it's not a decision airlines can make lightly. After all, alcohol sales contribute significantly to their bottom line, and many passengers look forward to that glass of wine or cocktail during their flight. But the consequences of excessive drinking onboard – from unruly behavior to safety risks – can far outweigh the temporary pleasure of a drink. Abstaining from alcohol while in the air is a simple and responsible choice. After all, a few hours without a drink isn't too much to ask. And for airlines, perhaps it's time to prioritize passengers over profit and consider following the lead of carriers in the Middle East who have adopted a dry policy altogether. Maybe the real question isn't whether alcohol should be limited on flights, but whether the convenience of a drink is worth the potential risks it brings to the flight experience. As for Jodi Smith's seatmate, the rum-and-coke binge wasn't just a bad decision – it was a reminder that when alcohol is involved, it's not just the passengers who are at risk, but everyone onboard. So, the next time you're flying, ask yourself: Is it really worth it? Christopher Elliott is an author, consumer advocate, and journalist. He founded Elliott Advocacy, a nonprofit organization that helps solve consumer problems. He publishes Elliott Confidential, a travel newsletter, and the Elliott Report, a news site about customer service. If you need help with a consumer problem, you can reach him here or email him at chris@
USA Today
28-02-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Patriarchy Hannah built a following as the perfect trad wife. Was it all a lie?
Patriarchy Hannah built a following as the perfect trad wife. Was it all a lie? Show Caption Hide Caption 'Trad wives' are becoming more popular for young women. What to know. The 'trad wives,' or a traditional wife lifestyle gained popularity on social media. Now more young women are exploring the alternative lifestyle. Ariana Triggs and Claire Hardwick, USA TODAY She has 14 children. She dotes on her husband, Tony, who works in construction. She frequently discusses the importance of wives "submitting" to their husbands − and built a significant following online in doing so. To many, she's the quintessential "trad wife." Or is she? On X, the trad-wife influencer known as "Patriarchy Hannah" has come under scrutiny, after internet sleuths alleged the idealized, "traditional-wife" persona she presents online is a lie. The controversy has sent shockwaves through the trad-wife corner of the internet, where many looked to Patriarchy Hannah for advice on matters of family, marriage and faith. In response, the Patriarchy Hannah account posted a since-deleted apology on X, according to screenshots circulating online and a report from NBC News. The person behind the account could not immediately be reached for comment, and the account on X has also been deleted. 'I just want to say that I am sorry for the lies I told and the hurt I caused," read the apology. "I never intended for this account to become as big as it did, and once things started snowballing, I enjoyed the relationships I'd built and didn't know how to put an end to it." Regardless of who Patriarchy Hannah actually is, experts say the debacle serves as an important reminder to approach what you see online with skepticism, particularly when it comes from an influencer touting a lifestyle that's unrealistic or unattainable for many. 'Provider women': Are they the opposite of 'trad wives'? They're getting attention on TikTok. "Anytime that people feel swindled or conned, there's going to be a visceral response to it," psychotherapist Stephanie Sarkis says. "We as humans generally trust in someone as who they say they are. So, when we find out that's not true, it brings up a lot of questions about human nature and also people feeling taken advantage of." Why we need to be more skeptical On the internet, the term "trad wives," short for "traditional wives," refers to a subgroup of women who choose to live as homemakers. Trad wives are typically conservative, usually Christians and post about things like cooking, cleaning and subservience to their husbands. Some emulate a wardrobe and aesthetic akin to women from the 1950s. The Patriarchy Hannah account purported to be run by one of these women. It amassed over 25,000 followers on X, making it a significant presence in the online trad-wife community. On Feb. 14, X user Ryan Duff posted a lengthy thread of alleged inconsistencies in Patriarchy Hannah's personal story. The thread went viral with over 3 million views. Then came the apology. 'The bottom line is that I am not who I presented (myself) to be," the since-deleted Patriarchy Hannah post read. "I'm not going to be giving my reasons for why I started because I am not looking for sympathy here. It was wrong, and I humbly hope that you all can find it in your hearts to forgive me in the future." What is a 'trad wife'? These controversial women are drawing attention – and opinions Followers expressed a range of emotions, including shock, outrage and sadness. "I'm not sure who the sadder people are in the Patriarchy Hannah debacle…" one user wrote. "The girl for perpetuating the fraud… or the people who wanted it to be real so bad they believed it." Others have found the whole thing entertaining, like user Hilary Crowder: "Listen two things can be true: (1)The 'Patriarchy Hannah' situation is horrible, sad, and shows the depth of deception humans are capable of AND (2) I need another hit of this story because Netflix hasn't produced anything as compelling as this dumpster fire in years." If Patriarchy Hannah did fabricate her life story, she's not the only influencer to do so. Annabelle 'Belle' Gibson, for instance, became an Instagram star while proclaiming she had an elixir that managed her terminal cancer. In reality, it was a con she implemented to launch a wellness empire that included a cookbook and an app. Netflix recently turned Gibson's grift into a six-episode limited series called 'Apple Cider Vinegar.' 'Trad wives' controversy continues: TikTok star Nara Smith reacts to 'hateful' criticism Catfishing happens often and to varying degrees, thanks to the anonymity afforded by the internet. Stories of catfishing captivate us because they hit on a core human fear: that of being deceived, Sarkis says. "It really calls into question our ideas of trustworthiness and how quickly someone can feel attached to someone that is having a shared experience," she says. This also goes for people who don't agree with Patriarchy Hannah or trad wives, but who still engaged with her posts. "If you didn't agree with the account, if you were still viewing it, you were still having some type of connection." What the Patriarchy Hannah controversy says about trad wives To some, the Patriarchy Hannah situation speaks to deeper issues within the trad wife movement. Critics of trad wives often accuse them of promoting a lifestyle that's unattainable. As journalist and author Jo Piazza previously told USA TODAY, the purported '50s sitcom life was just that: a television ideal, not a real one. "It's a false nostalgia for a time that didn't exist for the majority of the population, and for a time that was incredibly demeaning, condescending and difficult for women," Piazza previously said of trad wives. More: Could trad wives, influencers have sparked the red wave among female voters? Trad wives tend to draw a lot of attention in general because their content hits on topics that are already polarizing: gender dynamics, relationship structures and politics. The controversial nature of trad wives adds to the intrigue around Patriarchy Hannah. "If you have a topic that's very polarizing, you're going to get the people that identify with it and the people that are against it," she says. "Anything that's polarizing draws attention from a large swath of people." Contributing: Erin Jensen, Ariana Triggs, Claire Hardwick and David Oliver
USA Today
21-02-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Did Project 2025 release a book ban list? No, a social media user did
Did Project 2025 release a book ban list? No, a social media user did | Fact check Show Caption Hide Caption Texas school district to review ban of Anne Frank novel, other books The Keller Independent School District in Texas is reviewing at least 41 books that the school board has recommended to ban from school libraries. Ariana Triggs, USA TODAY The claim: Project 2025 seeks to ban nearly 3,000 books over topics including 'female autonomy and independent thought' A Feb. 15 Instagram post (direct link, archive link) claims the conservative policy initiative Project 2025 plans to restrict access to certain books. The post includes a video with text that reads in part, '#Project 2025 is terrified of women. It links to a spreadsheet of books labeled "Ban book list." 'It is almost 3,000 books long, and it makes the somewhat critical mistake of explaining why it's banning books,' the post's creator says in the video. 'So, for example, when it says it is banning Virginia Woolf's 'A Room of One's Own,' it says, 'Promotes female autonomy and independent thought.'' The post received more than 145,000 likes in five days. Similar claims also spread on X. More from the Fact-Check Team: How we pick and research claims | Email newsletter | Facebook page Our rating: False Project 2025 did not make the list. It was created by a TikTok user. TikTok user took credit for list Project 2025 is a policy blueprint published by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation in April 2023. Also known as "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," the playbook includes policy recommendations to overhaul the government under a conservative president beginning in 2025. The organization said it didn't generate a banned book list. "That rumor is completely false and ridiculous," foundation spokesperson Ellen Keenan told USA TODAY. A TikTok user created the spreadsheet and said as much in an introduction at the top of the document. 'I made this list to spread awareness that you might not find these books at the libraries,' the list's creator wrote. 'Few people don't have a privilege to buy books so they rely on school/libraries to access it. There is alot of books we didn't know that got ban.' (sic) The document also includes a resource list of news articles and watchdog groups. Fact check: No proof Elon Musk ordered all federal workers to pass drug tests or be fired One of those sources, PEN America, is a nonprofit that has been tracking school book bans since 2021. The organization wasn't aware of an official Project 2025 banned book list. 'Last summer, PEN America issued an analysis of the education component of Project 2025,' Pen American spokesperson Suzanne Trimel told USA TODAY. 'Nothing in this report raises up a 'book ban list.' Certainly, if there had been one, we would have included it.' The user who posted the claim told USA TODAY she received the list from someone who characterized it as Project 2025's 'book-banning plan.' She later learned Project 2025 did not create the list. 'Had I known that post would have gotten so many views, I would have chosen my words more carefully,' she said. Project 2025 does oppose some library materials It's unclear where the purported ban of Woolf's essay originated, but many titles on the list have been the subject of debate. Bans over the past three years have predominantly targeted books with themes of race, sexuality and gender identity, according to PEN America. Although Project 2025 didn't create the list in question, it does use rhetoric consistent with other book-banning efforts, Trimel said. The Project 2025's forward, for example, references an 'omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology,' which it considers 'pornographic.' It says educators and public librarians who provide access to such materials should be 'classed as registered sex offenders." Some of Project 2025's coalition partners also maintain book rating websites and have been "active in the organized campaign to target books and the freedom to read," Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom, told USA TODAY. USA TODAY reached out to the list's creator for comment but did not immediately receive a response. Our fact-check sources Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaper here. USA TODAY is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network, which requires a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisanship, fairness and transparency. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Meta.
USA Today
20-02-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Should Wyoming still permit 'whacking' after man paraded wounded wolf through local bar?
Should Wyoming still permit 'whacking' after man paraded wounded wolf through local bar? Show Caption Hide Caption Yellowstone wolves grab 'toys' for pups to play Footage from Yellowstone National Park shows adult wolves fetching and delivering "toys" to their pups resting in their den. Ariana Triggs, Storyful A year after a Wyoming man shocked the world by carrying a wounded wolf into a rural bar and letting buddies snap selfies with it, state lawmakers are considering whether to toughen animal cruelty laws. The incident in Daniel, Wyoming, last year drew international condemnation and sparked death threats after the man ran the female wolf over with a snowmobile, duct-taped its muzzle shut and dragged it into the Green River Bar in a shock collar at the end of a leash. He later killed it. Wyoming state officials fined the man $250 ‒ not for torturing the animal but instead for possessing live wildlife ‒ because state law permits people to use snowmobiles or ATVs to chase and then run down wolves, coyotes and other predator animals in a process known as "whacking." "It's a practice that needs to stop," state Rep. Mike Schmid, a Republican who grew up near the bar, told USA TODAY Thursday. "It's painting all hunters in a bad light." Wolves and coyotes are widely disliked in Wyoming, largely because they kill livestock, or game animals like elk and deer that hunters would prefer to shoot themselves. Under existing state law, it's legal to run down predators under almost any circumstances in large portions of the state. While Schmid is trying to ban the practice of "whacking" entirely, lawmakers are also considering a separate measure requiring anyone who runs over a predator on public land to kill it cleanly, rather than letting it suffer and die. Schmid said as a kid, he chased his fair share of coyotes on snowmobiles, but was always taught to dispatch them with a bullet. He said the practice is less common than it once was, but still happens mostly in the western part of Wyoming where deep snows fall on federal lands. His proposal includes an exemption for ranchers targeting predators on private property. Polls conducted on behalf of both wildlife advocates and hunting groups indicted broad support for banning "whacking," and animal-rights groups are frustrated lawmakers haven't yet acted. While a legislative committee approved the "clean kill" measure on Thursday morning, Schmid's more comprehensive bill appears to have died. "It should have been a slam-dunk issue," said Kristin Combs, executive director of Wyoming Wildlife Advocates. "I can appreciate the fact that people need to protect their livestock. But they don't need to be committing torture."
