Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

For actor Matthew Modine, biking is a "tool for consciousness" and facing life's uphill battles

News Feed
Thursday, April 18, 2024

As the son of a drive-in theater manager, actor Matthew Modine grew up watching movies. “I always enjoyed films that were about problem-solving,” he told me on "Salon Talks." “And I never wanted to play bad guys. I didn't want to be the person who was causing problems . . . I wanted to be a person who was providing a solution.” Ideologically, Modine believes that actors have a personal responsibility for impacting people’s lives. And he lives it. Citing Native American sensibility, he notes, “What we have to do all the time in our lives is think and to try to look at [the] totality of our decisions, the things that we do.” That sensibility is at play in every role he takes. Nearly 40 years ago, he passed on the lead role of Maverick in "Top Gun," which eventually went to Tom Cruise and was the highest-grossing domestic film of that year. He found the story’s focus on “war pornography” disturbing, he said. “I didn't want to be in a movie that perpetuated this idea that 'those people are bad and we are good.' And 'We're right, you're wrong.' I just thought the whole movie was silly.” Modine's more recent roles, like Vannevar Bush (the scientist and creator of the Manhattan Project) in "Oppenheimer," can be hard to square with his stance on nuclear power. While he was honored to portray Bush for director Christopher Nolan as an important part of history, he balanced it by executive producing a documentary called “Downwind,” about the lethal effects of nuclear testing on American soil. Modine has been living what he advocates for many years as an environmentalist and also riding bicycles since he arrived in New York City as a struggling actor (he relied on a beach cruiser to get to auditions). So when his latest film "Hard Miles" (in theaters April 19) came along it had strong appeal: overcoming adversity, solving problems and cycling as a metaphor for freedom. Modine plays cycling coach Greg Townsend on a 760-mile bike trip that he rides with incarcerated students from Colorado’s Rite of Passage’s Ridge View Academy (a medium-security correctional school). Cycling from Denver to the Grand Canyon, the characters — based on real people — struggle mentally and physically, learning many life lessons. "It's always about how much you're willing to push yourself," Modine said of the journey. Watch my "Salon Talks" here on YouTube or read our conversation below to hear more about why Modine believes so strongly in building a career that reflects his personal values and politics and why he thinks his "Stranger Things" co-star Millie Bobby Brown and her fiancé Jake Bongiovi (the son of Jon Bon Jovi) asked him to officiate their upcoming wedding. The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length. Did you ride here on your bike? I didn't. No, I just finished work, so it was a short walk from the New York Public Library over here. Tell me a little bit about your character Greg Townsend in "Hard Miles." It’s based on a true story. Greg Townsend worked at this academy. He's a bicyclist. And he got the idea that what if I was able to teach these young people how to build bicycles so that they would create something that they would be proud of, that they would have their input and their life put into the building of a bicycle, that they'd be proud of the thing that they created. And then what if I took them on an arduous ride so that they could see that the world is bigger than the troubled home that they came from, that they could see that the world's bigger than the gang that they were a part of before they ended up in this facility? "I never wanted to play bad guys." If you're looking for a visual, imagine the horse that has the blinders on, and he's not able to have any peripheral vision. He's just able to see this part of the world. And so what Greg was able to do was to take them out into the world and help them expand their vision, to help give them peripheral vision, and see that there's much more to life than the little problems that are consuming them in their actual lives. And the real Greg Townsend, tell us about him. Greg was there for most of the filming. He always rode his bike to work. And there were some extraordinary . . . When we were in Northern California up near Mount McKinley, not only did he ride about 30 miles to get to the location, but he did a vertical mile to get up the mountain to the location. And he'd get up there and not even breathing hard. How old is he now? He's about 60. I'm so impressed. Yeah, me too. “Hard Miles” is a journey film and a triumph over adversity film — physical and mental. This is the story of these real hard-luck kids. They are juvenile offenders sort of given a second chance, but not valued or validated except by your character, and perhaps the social worker who's along for the ride. She's a great balance for you in the film. She really is, yeah. You needed her. Cynthia [Kay McWilliams] is a wonderful actor. And she grounds the story. Without her, I don't know how the story would've worked. It'd be very different. We need social workers to help level the field of some of these emotional reactions. Absolutely. You've been a cyclist since you were 18, coming here to New York as an impoverished actor. I've read the story about you getting a beach cruiser to ride around New York to your auditions. “Hard Miles” is set in Grand Canyon Village, 6,000-something feet above sea level, and these roads are no joke. What was your training like for the film? The training was on-the-job training because there wasn't a lot of time from the time that the boys, the younger kids in the film were cast to going on location and filming. They were sort of training on the job. And doing hard miles. The movie is appropriately titled. And you do a take and they say, "OK, let's do it again," and you have to ride back and do it again. So, we did a lot of miles in riding up and down the mountains and, "Let's do it again." And then I think the hardest thing was when we rode through the Navajo Nation, and just at the rim of the Grand Canyon it was 115 [degrees], and the heat coming up off the blacktop made it even hotter. The agony that you see as we're pedaling through that long, long road through the desert, there was no acting involved. You just had to put your head down and go and push. That's crazy. I did a road trip Arizona through Diné, actually, territory, and Navajo in August. It's brutal out there. Yeah, it is brutal. There are a lot of metaphors in this film, among them that life can be uphill and feel like a challenge for anyone. What does cycling represent for you in real life? Well, bicycling is one of the most tangible ways of explaining democracy. When the suffragettes were fighting for the right to vote, the women were not really allowed to drive carriages. They weren't allowed to ride horses, but there were no rules about the bicycles, so the bicycle became a symbol of freedom for women's rights and women's equality. I think that's amazing.  But I think that for young people today who are so caught up in their phones and social media, the thing about a bicycle is that if you want to be present and in the moment, ride a bicycle, because if you're looking at your phone when you're riding a bicycle, particularly around a place like New York City, you're just asking for trouble, you're asking to get hurt. "That's what film and television and theater has the potential to do — to help make the monsters go away, to illuminate." The bicycle is a tool for consciousness and awareness and also a kind of meditation that, especially on a hard ride where you're going through the desert . . . And we show that in the film the kind of nightmares and memories that people start to go through as they're suffering. And it's a sort of way of sweating those things out of your body. I made a movie a long time ago called "Vision Quest," and there I think are similarities in the journey that Louden Swain goes on in "Vision Quest" that echo the journey that these kids go on. In wrestling, you're always wrestling against yourself. You're seeing how far you're willing to push yourself. And I think when you're part of a Peloton, riding bicycles, that it's always about how much you're willing to push yourself to be able to discover your personal strength and vulnerabilities. Well, those who know me know I couldn't agree with you more, that cycling is therapy for me and it really is a way to sort of get everything out. And it's meditation, if you understand it. You have a very long history in TV and film. What draws you to these kinds of triumphant stories? I suppose my father was a drive-in theater manager, and I grew up watching movies. And I always enjoyed films that were about problem solving. And I never wanted to play bad guys. I didn't want to be the person who was causing problems. I wanted to be a person who was providing a solution. There's so much suffering in the world that why wouldn't we want to go and learn about people that are reducing that suffering and finding solutions to problems that make our lives better? I'm attracted to those kinds of stories. I know because of that background of the drive-in theater and seeing how movies and television affect people's lives, that when you come into people's homes on a television, when you're projected onto a motion picture screen larger than life, when you stand on a stage and do a play, the things that you do and the things that you say will have an impact on people's lives. I absolutely respect that, that people are going to be impacted. And so it can be a tool of propaganda that is detrimental to society, or it can be something that . . . My grandmother used to say that, "The room is full of monsters when it's dark." And she said, "It only takes turning on the light to make the monsters go away.” That's what film and television and theater has the potential to do — to help make the monsters go away, to illuminate. In 2020, you told Salon's Chauncey DeVega that you have chosen, "in my personal life to be on the right side of history." Can you explain what that means to you today? I'm reading a book right now called “The Pursuit of Happiness.” And Benjamin Franklin was someone who kept slaves, George Washington was someone who kept slaves, and they all recognized that it was a cruel and inhuman thing to do, but they all appreciated the luxury and the convenience that came with owning another human being to do things that you didn't want to do. Now, I think that Benjamin Franklin is one of the brightest, most moral people in our nation's history and the fact that he recognized, the fact that he was doing something that was wrong and cruel, but so he did get on the right side of it. Abraham Lincoln was for slavery until he was against it. "What are the repercussions of the decisions I make today? What will they have on people that are not yet born?" What we have to do all the time in our lives is think and to try to look at the circumstances in its totality of our decisions, the things that we do. So, I'm an environmentalist, and I do everything that I can to be on the right side of that history, to leave the world a better place for my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. They say that we don't plant trees for ourselves, we plant them for our great-grandchildren because we will never enjoy the shade of those trees. So that kind of Native American wisdom that that story comes from, the planting trees for our great-grandchildren, that's where that seventh generation comes in. I actually have a production company called Seventh Generation Stories. It’s the same concept, which stems from the conservation philosophy from the Iroquois Confederacy, the First Governance. It says that you should always leave things in a way that will be better for seven generations living afterward. And it's why in indigenous culture it's auspicious to have a centenarian and an infant alive at the same time because it doesn't happen that often. So, it's a beautiful way to live. I try to live that way. Sounds like you do as well. I try. What are the repercussions of the decisions I make today? What will they have on people that are not yet born? We live unfortunately in the United States that I don't know that we're even a democracy anymore, we're a corporatocracy and we're making decisions that are based on financial gain. And with eight billion people on the planet, it's unsustainable. We can't make decisions that are just based on finance and profit. It won't work. We're consuming the Earth's resources at an unsustainable pace. You have shown in your film choices over the years that the personal is political by turning down roles that became huge blockbusters. Examples include Maverick in “Top Gun,” Marty McFly in “Back to the Future,” and Charlie Sheen's character in “Wall Street.” I did, yeah. Are you sorry about any of those choices? Marty McFly I would've loved to have done. But Eric Stoltz is a dear friend of mine, and they had let Eric go. He was playing the part, and then they said, "You have 24 hours to make a decision about replacing him." And I wanted to know, "Why did you fire Eric Stoltz?" That didn't make sense. But in fact, I can't imagine a better actor than Michael J. Fox playing that part. I'm 6’3. Can you fit in a DeLorean? [Laughs]. And this is not to make Michael J. Fox small, but there's something about . . . If you think of a Jack Russell and a Labrador, let's say that it needed a Jack Russell. And Marty McFly and Michael J. Fox, he was that Jack Russell. Michael J. Fox in that movie is always on the front of his foot, leaning in, ready to fight. He was relentlessly attentive and determined. So, I didn't turn that down for political or philosophical reasons. I just didn't see myself playing the role. But “Top Gun,” absolutely. I didn't want to be in a movie that perpetuated this idea that those people are bad and we are good. And we're right, you're wrong. I'm right. I'm smart, you're stupid. I just didn't want to be a part of something like that. I just thought the whole movie was silly. It was what I would call war pornography. There's plenty of it. People like war pornography. There's a big market for it. You mentioned your environmentalism. You executive produced a documentary called “Downwind,” released last year and narrated by Martin Sheen, that chronicles the lethal effects that nuclear testing has had on American soil, and specifically on U.S. citizens who are downwind from toxic chemicals. Many of them are indigenous people in the Southwestern states. So, tell us how you square our own politics with playing roles like the brilliant nuclear scientist that you just played in “Oppenheimer,” Vannevar Bush, creator of the Manhattan Project. Well, to be invited to be part of the ensemble of Christopher Nolan's “Oppenheimer” was a great honor. And it's the second time I've worked with Christopher and his wife Emma. They're incredibly talented, gifted storytellers, and so it was an obvious honor to do it. And then a bunch of actors that I hadn't worked with that I really admire, including Matt Damon. Robert Downey [Jr.] and I started out in the business at the same time, so it was nice to reconnect with Robert. I'm really pleased for him and all of the success that the film brought him. Cillian Murphy, I'm just a great admirer of him, and he lived up to everything that I hoped that he might. He was extraordinary, and such a gentleman, so Irish in all the best qualities of being Irish. A poet. He really is a poet. But that's an important story to tell about . . . When I started kindergarten in San Diego, Imperial Beach, California, we were still crawling under our desk, doing duck and cover drills, and it was frightening. I remember very vividly, there was a song that came out, "The End of the World." And of course it's a love song, but to me . . . I remember asking my older brothers, "Does this mean, because crawling under the desk, that the end of the world is near?" And they terrified me and said, "Yes, of course." And then the Vietnam War happened, and all the instability that comes to a child through those kind of horrors. Death and destruction seems so imminent. Always. And even more so. It continues. So my brother Maury, he's the one that got me really involved mentally about the Downwinders. I was watching the news and he was being arrested on CNN, handcuffed. And the microphone came pushed into his face, and they said, "Why are you protesting?" And my brother said, "They know they work. Why do they have to test them?" And I think it was the most important simple statement ever made, that since the Trinity Test that Oppenheimer covers, why did they need to keep testing them — especially after dropping them on human beings twice in Japan, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima that caused the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of people? So, why do we need to keep testing them? And there's no logical explanation for why they need to keep testing them. And they're talking about starting it up again, and testing them in our near future. I have memories of not being able to drink the milk when Three Mile Island had leaks here in New York when I was a kid. I think most of the past few generations have had some experience, unfortunately, with this awareness, this fear of being poisoned to death. I was in England when Chernobyl happened. My wife was nursing and they said, "It's not a problem unless you're a nursing mother," which my wife was. Because the radiation gets in the breast milk. And yeah, it's a real nightmare. It's a real nightmare. Last question, I'm going to throw one away for the Gen Z-ers. It’s been widely publicized that you're going to officiate "Stranger Things" castmate Millie Bobby Brown's wedding. Yes? How did this come about? She asked me. She must have talked to Jake, and they had a conversation. And I honestly don't know how it happened, but it's a great honor. I had married a dear friend of mine during COVID. It was an outdoor wedding. It was extraordinary when you think that people are coming together that when you say, "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here," it's "we" – it becomes a kind of beautiful spiritual gathering of people . . . because this is not an arranged marriage, this is a marriage of choice, and there's something that's beautiful about that. To be the person who gets to officiate, and to join those two people, and give them some, I don't want to say advice, but share some thoughts about the journey that we can make together as human beings, I'm really chuffed that they asked me to be the guy that does it. And where can everyone see "Hard Miles"? It opens on April 19th at 600 theaters across the United States, so I encourage you to go see it in a movie theater because it's really beautiful. The photography is stunning. And it's just fun to go be in a room with a bunch of people and experience a movie together. Quite different than watching a movie sitting on your couch and being disrupted by your phone. Going to a movie theater, having grown up with my father's drive-in movie theaters and movie theaters in Utah, there's nothing like it. It's better to go to movies with people and watch it together. Watch more "Salon Talks" with actors

From “Oppenheimer” to “Stranger Things” and “Hard Miles,” Modine shares how his acting career reflects his values

As the son of a drive-in theater manager, actor Matthew Modine grew up watching movies. “I always enjoyed films that were about problem-solving,” he told me on "Salon Talks." “And I never wanted to play bad guys. I didn't want to be the person who was causing problems . . . I wanted to be a person who was providing a solution.” Ideologically, Modine believes that actors have a personal responsibility for impacting people’s lives. And he lives it. Citing Native American sensibility, he notes, “What we have to do all the time in our lives is think and to try to look at [the] totality of our decisions, the things that we do.”

That sensibility is at play in every role he takes. Nearly 40 years ago, he passed on the lead role of Maverick in "Top Gun," which eventually went to Tom Cruise and was the highest-grossing domestic film of that year. He found the story’s focus on “war pornography” disturbing, he said. “I didn't want to be in a movie that perpetuated this idea that 'those people are bad and we are good.' And 'We're right, you're wrong.' I just thought the whole movie was silly.” Modine's more recent roles, like Vannevar Bush (the scientist and creator of the Manhattan Project) in "Oppenheimer," can be hard to square with his stance on nuclear power. While he was honored to portray Bush for director Christopher Nolan as an important part of history, he balanced it by executive producing a documentary called “Downwind,” about the lethal effects of nuclear testing on American soil.

Modine has been living what he advocates for many years as an environmentalist and also riding bicycles since he arrived in New York City as a struggling actor (he relied on a beach cruiser to get to auditions). So when his latest film "Hard Miles" (in theaters April 19) came along it had strong appeal: overcoming adversity, solving problems and cycling as a metaphor for freedom. Modine plays cycling coach Greg Townsend on a 760-mile bike trip that he rides with incarcerated students from Colorado’s Rite of Passage’s Ridge View Academy (a medium-security correctional school). Cycling from Denver to the Grand Canyon, the characters — based on real people — struggle mentally and physically, learning many life lessons. "It's always about how much you're willing to push yourself," Modine said of the journey.

Watch my "Salon Talks" here on YouTube or read our conversation below to hear more about why Modine believes so strongly in building a career that reflects his personal values and politics and why he thinks his "Stranger Things" co-star Millie Bobby Brown and her fiancé Jake Bongiovi (the son of Jon Bon Jovi) asked him to officiate their upcoming wedding.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Did you ride here on your bike?

I didn't. No, I just finished work, so it was a short walk from the New York Public Library over here.

Tell me a little bit about your character Greg Townsend in "Hard Miles."

It’s based on a true story. Greg Townsend worked at this academy. He's a bicyclist. And he got the idea that what if I was able to teach these young people how to build bicycles so that they would create something that they would be proud of, that they would have their input and their life put into the building of a bicycle, that they'd be proud of the thing that they created. And then what if I took them on an arduous ride so that they could see that the world is bigger than the troubled home that they came from, that they could see that the world's bigger than the gang that they were a part of before they ended up in this facility?

"I never wanted to play bad guys."

If you're looking for a visual, imagine the horse that has the blinders on, and he's not able to have any peripheral vision. He's just able to see this part of the world. And so what Greg was able to do was to take them out into the world and help them expand their vision, to help give them peripheral vision, and see that there's much more to life than the little problems that are consuming them in their actual lives.

And the real Greg Townsend, tell us about him.

Greg was there for most of the filming. He always rode his bike to work. And there were some extraordinary . . . When we were in Northern California up near Mount McKinley, not only did he ride about 30 miles to get to the location, but he did a vertical mile to get up the mountain to the location. And he'd get up there and not even breathing hard.

How old is he now?

He's about 60.

I'm so impressed.

Yeah, me too.

“Hard Miles” is a journey film and a triumph over adversity film — physical and mental. This is the story of these real hard-luck kids. They are juvenile offenders sort of given a second chance, but not valued or validated except by your character, and perhaps the social worker who's along for the ride. She's a great balance for you in the film.

She really is, yeah. You needed her. Cynthia [Kay McWilliams] is a wonderful actor. And she grounds the story. Without her, I don't know how the story would've worked. It'd be very different.

We need social workers to help level the field of some of these emotional reactions.

Absolutely.

You've been a cyclist since you were 18, coming here to New York as an impoverished actor. I've read the story about you getting a beach cruiser to ride around New York to your auditions. “Hard Miles” is set in Grand Canyon Village, 6,000-something feet above sea level, and these roads are no joke. What was your training like for the film?

The training was on-the-job training because there wasn't a lot of time from the time that the boys, the younger kids in the film were cast to going on location and filming. They were sort of training on the job. And doing hard miles. The movie is appropriately titled. And you do a take and they say, "OK, let's do it again," and you have to ride back and do it again.

So, we did a lot of miles in riding up and down the mountains and, "Let's do it again." And then I think the hardest thing was when we rode through the Navajo Nation, and just at the rim of the Grand Canyon it was 115 [degrees], and the heat coming up off the blacktop made it even hotter. The agony that you see as we're pedaling through that long, long road through the desert, there was no acting involved. You just had to put your head down and go and push.

That's crazy. I did a road trip Arizona through Diné, actually, territory, and Navajo in August. It's brutal out there.

Yeah, it is brutal.

There are a lot of metaphors in this film, among them that life can be uphill and feel like a challenge for anyone. What does cycling represent for you in real life?

Well, bicycling is one of the most tangible ways of explaining democracy. When the suffragettes were fighting for the right to vote, the women were not really allowed to drive carriages. They weren't allowed to ride horses, but there were no rules about the bicycles, so the bicycle became a symbol of freedom for women's rights and women's equality. I think that's amazing. 

But I think that for young people today who are so caught up in their phones and social media, the thing about a bicycle is that if you want to be present and in the moment, ride a bicycle, because if you're looking at your phone when you're riding a bicycle, particularly around a place like New York City, you're just asking for trouble, you're asking to get hurt.

"That's what film and television and theater has the potential to do — to help make the monsters go away, to illuminate."

The bicycle is a tool for consciousness and awareness and also a kind of meditation that, especially on a hard ride where you're going through the desert . . . And we show that in the film the kind of nightmares and memories that people start to go through as they're suffering. And it's a sort of way of sweating those things out of your body. I made a movie a long time ago called "Vision Quest," and there I think are similarities in the journey that Louden Swain goes on in "Vision Quest" that echo the journey that these kids go on. In wrestling, you're always wrestling against yourself. You're seeing how far you're willing to push yourself. And I think when you're part of a Peloton, riding bicycles, that it's always about how much you're willing to push yourself to be able to discover your personal strength and vulnerabilities.

Well, those who know me know I couldn't agree with you more, that cycling is therapy for me and it really is a way to sort of get everything out. And it's meditation, if you understand it. You have a very long history in TV and film. What draws you to these kinds of triumphant stories?

I suppose my father was a drive-in theater manager, and I grew up watching movies. And I always enjoyed films that were about problem solving. And I never wanted to play bad guys. I didn't want to be the person who was causing problems. I wanted to be a person who was providing a solution. There's so much suffering in the world that why wouldn't we want to go and learn about people that are reducing that suffering and finding solutions to problems that make our lives better? I'm attracted to those kinds of stories.

I know because of that background of the drive-in theater and seeing how movies and television affect people's lives, that when you come into people's homes on a television, when you're projected onto a motion picture screen larger than life, when you stand on a stage and do a play, the things that you do and the things that you say will have an impact on people's lives. I absolutely respect that, that people are going to be impacted. And so it can be a tool of propaganda that is detrimental to society, or it can be something that . . . My grandmother used to say that, "The room is full of monsters when it's dark." And she said, "It only takes turning on the light to make the monsters go away.” That's what film and television and theater has the potential to do — to help make the monsters go away, to illuminate.

In 2020, you told Salon's Chauncey DeVega that you have chosen, "in my personal life to be on the right side of history." Can you explain what that means to you today?

I'm reading a book right now called “The Pursuit of Happiness.” And Benjamin Franklin was someone who kept slaves, George Washington was someone who kept slaves, and they all recognized that it was a cruel and inhuman thing to do, but they all appreciated the luxury and the convenience that came with owning another human being to do things that you didn't want to do. Now, I think that Benjamin Franklin is one of the brightest, most moral people in our nation's history and the fact that he recognized, the fact that he was doing something that was wrong and cruel, but so he did get on the right side of it. Abraham Lincoln was for slavery until he was against it.

"What are the repercussions of the decisions I make today? What will they have on people that are not yet born?"

What we have to do all the time in our lives is think and to try to look at the circumstances in its totality of our decisions, the things that we do. So, I'm an environmentalist, and I do everything that I can to be on the right side of that history, to leave the world a better place for my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. They say that we don't plant trees for ourselves, we plant them for our great-grandchildren because we will never enjoy the shade of those trees. So that kind of Native American wisdom that that story comes from, the planting trees for our great-grandchildren, that's where that seventh generation comes in.

I actually have a production company called Seventh Generation Stories. It’s the same concept, which stems from the conservation philosophy from the Iroquois Confederacy, the First Governance. It says that you should always leave things in a way that will be better for seven generations living afterward. And it's why in indigenous culture it's auspicious to have a centenarian and an infant alive at the same time because it doesn't happen that often. So, it's a beautiful way to live. I try to live that way. Sounds like you do as well.

I try. What are the repercussions of the decisions I make today? What will they have on people that are not yet born? We live unfortunately in the United States that I don't know that we're even a democracy anymore, we're a corporatocracy and we're making decisions that are based on financial gain. And with eight billion people on the planet, it's unsustainable. We can't make decisions that are just based on finance and profit. It won't work. We're consuming the Earth's resources at an unsustainable pace.

You have shown in your film choices over the years that the personal is political by turning down roles that became huge blockbusters. Examples include Maverick in “Top Gun,” Marty McFly in “Back to the Future,” and Charlie Sheen's character in “Wall Street.”

I did, yeah.

Are you sorry about any of those choices?

Marty McFly I would've loved to have done. But Eric Stoltz is a dear friend of mine, and they had let Eric go. He was playing the part, and then they said, "You have 24 hours to make a decision about replacing him." And I wanted to know, "Why did you fire Eric Stoltz?" That didn't make sense. But in fact, I can't imagine a better actor than Michael J. Fox playing that part. I'm 6’3.

Can you fit in a DeLorean?

[Laughs]. And this is not to make Michael J. Fox small, but there's something about . . . If you think of a Jack Russell and a Labrador, let's say that it needed a Jack Russell. And Marty McFly and Michael J. Fox, he was that Jack Russell. Michael J. Fox in that movie is always on the front of his foot, leaning in, ready to fight.

He was relentlessly attentive and determined.

So, I didn't turn that down for political or philosophical reasons. I just didn't see myself playing the role.

But “Top Gun,” absolutely. I didn't want to be in a movie that perpetuated this idea that those people are bad and we are good. And we're right, you're wrong. I'm right. I'm smart, you're stupid. I just didn't want to be a part of something like that. I just thought the whole movie was silly. It was what I would call war pornography.

There's plenty of it.

People like war pornography. There's a big market for it.

You mentioned your environmentalism. You executive produced a documentary called “Downwind,” released last year and narrated by Martin Sheen, that chronicles the lethal effects that nuclear testing has had on American soil, and specifically on U.S. citizens who are downwind from toxic chemicals. Many of them are indigenous people in the Southwestern states. So, tell us how you square our own politics with playing roles like the brilliant nuclear scientist that you just played in “Oppenheimer,” Vannevar Bush, creator of the Manhattan Project.

Well, to be invited to be part of the ensemble of Christopher Nolan's “Oppenheimer” was a great honor. And it's the second time I've worked with Christopher and his wife Emma. They're incredibly talented, gifted storytellers, and so it was an obvious honor to do it. And then a bunch of actors that I hadn't worked with that I really admire, including Matt Damon. Robert Downey [Jr.] and I started out in the business at the same time, so it was nice to reconnect with Robert. I'm really pleased for him and all of the success that the film brought him. Cillian Murphy, I'm just a great admirer of him, and he lived up to everything that I hoped that he might. He was extraordinary, and such a gentleman, so Irish in all the best qualities of being Irish. A poet. He really is a poet.

But that's an important story to tell about . . . When I started kindergarten in San Diego, Imperial Beach, California, we were still crawling under our desk, doing duck and cover drills, and it was frightening. I remember very vividly, there was a song that came out, "The End of the World." And of course it's a love song, but to me . . . I remember asking my older brothers, "Does this mean, because crawling under the desk, that the end of the world is near?" And they terrified me and said, "Yes, of course." And then the Vietnam War happened, and all the instability that comes to a child through those kind of horrors. Death and destruction seems so imminent.

Always. And even more so. It continues.

So my brother Maury, he's the one that got me really involved mentally about the Downwinders. I was watching the news and he was being arrested on CNN, handcuffed. And the microphone came pushed into his face, and they said, "Why are you protesting?" And my brother said, "They know they work. Why do they have to test them?" And I think it was the most important simple statement ever made, that since the Trinity Test that Oppenheimer covers, why did they need to keep testing them — especially after dropping them on human beings twice in Japan, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima that caused the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of people? So, why do we need to keep testing them? And there's no logical explanation for why they need to keep testing them. And they're talking about starting it up again, and testing them in our near future.

I have memories of not being able to drink the milk when Three Mile Island had leaks here in New York when I was a kid. I think most of the past few generations have had some experience, unfortunately, with this awareness, this fear of being poisoned to death.

I was in England when Chernobyl happened. My wife was nursing and they said, "It's not a problem unless you're a nursing mother," which my wife was. Because the radiation gets in the breast milk. And yeah, it's a real nightmare. It's a real nightmare.

Last question, I'm going to throw one away for the Gen Z-ers. It’s been widely publicized that you're going to officiate "Stranger Things" castmate Millie Bobby Brown's wedding. Yes? How did this come about?

She asked me. She must have talked to Jake, and they had a conversation. And I honestly don't know how it happened, but it's a great honor. I had married a dear friend of mine during COVID. It was an outdoor wedding. It was extraordinary when you think that people are coming together that when you say, "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here," it's "we" – it becomes a kind of beautiful spiritual gathering of people . . . because this is not an arranged marriage, this is a marriage of choice, and there's something that's beautiful about that. To be the person who gets to officiate, and to join those two people, and give them some, I don't want to say advice, but share some thoughts about the journey that we can make together as human beings, I'm really chuffed that they asked me to be the guy that does it.

And where can everyone see "Hard Miles"?

It opens on April 19th at 600 theaters across the United States, so I encourage you to go see it in a movie theater because it's really beautiful. The photography is stunning. And it's just fun to go be in a room with a bunch of people and experience a movie together. Quite different than watching a movie sitting on your couch and being disrupted by your phone. Going to a movie theater, having grown up with my father's drive-in movie theaters and movie theaters in Utah, there's nothing like it. It's better to go to movies with people and watch it together.

Watch more

"Salon Talks" with actors

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

When Susan Wojcicki Discovered She Had Lung Cancer, She Decided to Find Out Why

After her shocking lung cancer diagnosis, the late Susan Wojcicki dedicated herself to fighting the disease and looking for answers

In 2022 Susan Wojcicki was on top of the world—CEO of YouTube, parent to five kids and running a few miles a day—when she received a shocking diagnosis: metastatic lung cancer. She soon resigned from YouTube and dedicated herself to fighting the disease and looking for answers. Why does the leading cause of cancer deaths receive less funding than some less lethal cancers? How could her lung cancer have progressed so far undetected? And how did she get lung cancer even though she had never smoked? This episode is dedicated to Wojcick, who passed away last year.LISTEN TO THE PODCASTOn supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.TRANSCRIPTElah Feder: One day in late 2022, Susan Wojcicki had plans to meet up with her childhood friend, Joanna Strober. Here's Joanna.Joanna Strober: We were supposed to go for a walk on a Sunday, and she called me and she canceled because she had some hip pain. And you know, I just thought, okay, you probably exercised too much. Susan was a runner. Maybe she pulled something, but she went to her doctor and then she- I guess she got an MRI. And it was cancer, and that was her first indication—hip pain.Elah Feder: Lung cancer, and it had spread, which was shocking. Susan, she was 54 years old and in top shape, running a few miles a day at that point. And on top of everything, Susan had never smoked.Joanna Strober: Susan led the most healthy life. She didn't eat sugar. She was very careful about exercising every day. She was very careful about not eating pesticides. I mean, she was on the extreme of leading a healthy lifestyle. So yes, it's not just the not smoking, but she was doing everything she possibly could to stay healthy.Elah Feder: Susan's experience is not as unusual as you'd think. Lung cancer is the most common kind of cancer in the world. Third most common in the US. Smoking is still the leading cause, but a growing number of people who get lung cancer don't smoke, were never smokers. That's especially true of women who get lung cancer.To be clear, this is a terrible diagnosis to get for anyone, whether they smoked or not, but for those who haven't, there can be an extra layer on top of all the other feelings: confusion. So when Susan got this diagnosis, of course she wanted treatments, but she also wanted answers. Why did this happen to her?Elah Feder: This is Lost Women of Science, and I'm Elah FederKatie Hafner: And I'm Katie Hafner and today the story of Susan Wojcicki, who died last year of lung cancer.Elah, before we get to Susan's lung cancer, I want to acknowledge—some people out there might already be familiar with her name because Susan Wojcicki was one of the most successful and influential people in the world.Elah Feder: Yeah. Susan was the longtime CEO of YouTube, and she got involved in Google very early on, so that by 2022, her estimated net worth was about $800 million.Um, there's a story that gets quoted a lot about her early business acumen. When she was a kid, she and her friend, Joanna Strober—who you heard earlier—they sold what they called spice ropes. Here's Joanna again.Joanna Strober: It's really not that big of a deal. All we did was we made these yellow and orange yarn things and we put cinnamon in them and we called them spice ropes, and we sold them to the neighbors who of course had to buy them because they were neighbors.Elah Feder: The way the story gets told, it's like, look at this Susan kid born entrepreneur, but Joanna says, “no, no, no.” The point is they were just regular kids being kids.Katie Hafner: Right. It was their version of a lemonade stand. Right?Elah Feder: Exactly.Joanna Strober: We were not special. We were normal 10 year olds in a really beautiful environment that was supportive of our endeavors.The environment was the Stanford community. We grew up surrounded by smart people who were doing really interesting research and who, quite honestly, were changing the world in lots of ways. Lots of scientists, physicists, entrepreneurs. It was a wonderful way to grow up because everything felt very possible growing up on the Stanford campus in the seventies.Elah Feder: Susan grew up on the Stanford campus because her dad was a physics professor there, Stanley Wojcicki. Um, her mom—also very impressive—Esther Wojcicki, she's a journalist, educator, writer. She- she wrote a book called How to Raise Successful People, and I mean Esther Wojcicki has the cred to back this up. Uh, a couple of years ago, Mattel decided to honor women in STEM by making Barbies of some of the more notable figures. All three of her kids made the cut.Katie Hafner: Of course they did. Esther: mother of champions.Elah Feder: What you're hearing is a video of Susan, Janet and Anne Wojcicki all unboxing their Barbie likenesses.Janet Wojcicki: Let's do physics, mathematics. Let's show them what the childhood was really like!Elah Feder: You just heard Janet, she's the middle sister. Uh, she's a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at UCSF.Then there's the youngest kid. Anne.Katie Hafner: Yes, Anne Wojcicki: the co-founder of 23andMe. Listeners might recognize her name from all the times we thank the Anne Wojcicki Foundation in the credits—and her foundation funded this episode as well, right?Elah Feder: And then there was Susan, the eldest. I talked to Anne and Janet a few weeks ago. All all three sisters were very close in age, all born in a span of, of just five years. But talking to them, it sounds like Susan had classic first child syndrome. You're gonna hear Anne first.Anne Wojcicki: She was always the responsible one. Janet was not. And- and but-Janet Wojckick: And you were halfway in between.Anne Wojcicki: I was halfway in between, yeah. My friends always liked hanging out with Susan, but they didn't like hanging out with Janet. And then part is that Susan was so kind. Susan was kind. She was responsible, like she would take us out to ice cream. She would pick me up from ice skating. She was like, always on time.Elah Feder: If Susan Wojcicki promised you ice cream, you were gonna get ice cream. This is a quality that surely you'd want in a leader. But Anne says Susan wasn't born to be a mogul or anything.Anne Wojcicki: I'd say Susan was very much almost like the accidental CEO. I never would've looked at her when we were younger and said like, “oh, my sister is going to be a CEO.” You know, like there's definitely other people I look at in high school who have focused on finance and thinking about their careers and stuff.Elah Feder: Susan, on the other hand, was a history and literature major, but in 1998 she got involved in the creation of a new tech company when she rented out her garage to two Guys: Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They were starting a new company, and I think you know the name. Um…Katie Hafner: Google, if I'm not mistaken!Elah Feder: Google!Newscaster: a little engine that could, we're talking about this morning, has nothing to do with the children's story about a brave little locomotive. That's because this engine is a search engine. Google by name, an internet website, partnered with our own CBS news.com.Elah Feder: Susan soon became the company's first marketing manager, and a few years after that she led them in buying another tech company: a company called YouTube. And in 2014 she was appointed YouTube CEO.Newscaster 2: Well, her name is Susan Wojcicki and she's one of the most powerful women in tech. She's also mother of four and more than eight months pregnant with her fifth child. So how did she do it all?Elah Feder: So, in 2022, Susan has been CEO of YouTube for eight years. Somehow she still had time to raise five children and run a few miles a day, which is completely alien to me.You know that Beyonce meme, like Beyonce has as many hours in the day as you do, and it's, like, meant to shame you for being inadequate. Um, that is how I feel hearing about Susan Wojcicki. Point is she's doing really well when she gets this news. And it's a complete shock. Here's Anne again.Anne Wojcicki: I think when you suddenly- like Susan was kind of on top of the world, like she loved her job, YouTube is taking off and she had her five kids and they're all amazing and um, and then suddenly it was like, your life is gonna be over soon. Right away the first priority was treatment.Elah Feder: Very quickly, Susan resigned from YouTube and really gave herself over to fighting this.Joanna Strober: What she really did was started working with scientists…Elah Feder: Joanna, again.Joanna Strober: …doing the in-depth work to understand the science and what treatments were available and what she could do, but it was very scientifically focused.Elah Feder: Susan would go on to learn a lot about lung cancer, and one of the things that she learned that really disturbed her is that doctors were not great at detecting her kind of cancer: lung cancer in non-smokers. Often there are no early signs, or in Susan's case, very few signs even when the cancer has progressed. Here's her sister, Janet.Janet Wojcicki: We went to see her, you know, thoracic oncologist, right? Her lung oncologist. She's sitting on the table and the oncologist is actually examining her and she's listening to her lungs and Susan's basically saying like, you don't hear anything, right? You, you hear nothing like it sounds totally normal, right? And the oncologist is like, yeah. So just from a clinical exam, she was perfect. There was nothing. So she was like, how is it that I have stage four lung cancer? You're an oncologist, you're listening to me, you're looking at me, and like, nothing's awry. So it's- it was that kind of disconnect that was also kind of a call to action.Elah Feder: How could Susan's lung cancer have gone undetected so long that it had spread? And why is it that when lung cancer is detected, survival rates aren't higher? Well, part of the reason might be that we need more funding despite some very effective anti-smoking campaigns, lung cancer is still the leading cause of cancer deaths in the U.S., but it only gets about half the federal research funds that breast cancer does- or it did. The NIH has been slashing research funding, including cancer research. We'll see how this all shakes out in the coming months and years. In any case, lung cancer might not be the only cancer that's in trouble going forward. But historically, part of the reason that lung cancer got proportionately less funding might have to do with attitudes toward lung cancer. It just isn't viewed the same way that breast or prostate or pancreatic cancers are. It's often seen as something you bring on yourself. Here's Anne again.Anne Wojcicki: I think that the stigma has really hurt research- is that people look at it and they say like, oh, well you smoked. And um, and I think that's one of the things that Susan really wanted to change.Elah Feder: It took a long time to get this broad consensus that smoking causes lung cancer. If we go back to the forties and fifties, that's when you first see a bunch of studies coming out that demonstrate this link. And even so, if you asked a doctor in 1960, if the link had been proven, a fifth said they didn't think so. About half of them still smoked, but eventually the other side prevailed. We now have a consensus that smoking does cause lung cancer, but the downside is stigma.Katie Hafner: You know? And the stigma is really, really deeply embedded in our society. The minute you hear that somebody has been diagnosed with lung cancer, the very first thing you ask is, do they smoke? Have they smoked? Have you smoked? Has she smoked? And, so you immediately assign that stigma to the lung cancer even when it quickly gets established that there was no smoking. And that could also have an indirect effect on this lack of funding.Elah Feder: Yeah, that's the suspicion, and of course the stigma and the victim blaming is terrible for people who did smoke too. So, that really bothered Susan and she gave a lot of money for research, but she was also at the same time just investigating her own cancer. You know how, how did she get it?Anne Wojcicki: I think one of the first things we did was we got the houses tested for radon exposure.Elah Feder: Katie, do you know about radon? Are you familiar with radon?Katie Hafner: I mean, I'm familiar, but I have no idea what that has to do with it. Tell me.Elah Feder: I only recently learned about this, so, so radon is a radioactive gas. It- it sounds like one of these scary things you read on the internet, but this is real. It's a radioactive gas that naturally occurs in the ground, but it leaks into basements where it can accumulate to dangerous levels. It has no smell, no- no color. So you really would not know if it's in your home unless you test for it. Um, but it's the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.Katie Hafner: You mean before secondhand smoke?Elah Feder: Apparently. In the U.S. radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers according to the EPA.Other causes, of course, do include air pollution, asbestos exposure, and secondhand smoke.Katie Hafner: Wow. So, I've always thought secondhand smoke was it? But it sounds like it was, it sounds like it's radon.Elah Feder: Me too. Maybe it used to be when people were smoking more.Katie Hafner: Yeah.Elah Feder: But yeah, radon is unfortunately in the lead. Um, Susan's basement: clear of radon.Katie Hafner: And what about genetics? Last week, you know, we talked about a researcher named Maud Slye who worked to show that heredity explained all cancer.Elah Feder: Wrongly, but yes.Katie Hafner: Turns out not to be true, but that's okay. You go Maud. Um, are there genes linked to lung cancer? I guess that's my question.Elah Feder: There are, um, but lung cancer is still, for the most part, a disease caused by- by either your environment or your lifestyle. Some genes have been linked to increased cancer risk. For example, a certain mutation in the EGFR gene. More genes might be found. It's also possible that it's not just about finding a single gene, but about how mutations in a bunch of genes interact. But yeah, for the most part, lung cancer tends to be about environment and lifestyle more than genetics.Here's a part where there's sometimes confusion. Cancer usually happens when there's a genetic mutation in a cell, actually a series of mutations. And these cause that cell to start acting weird and replicating out of control. So in a sense, genetics is always involved in cancer, but in this case, we're not talking about inherited genetics, we're talking about mutations that you get in some of your cells later in life. They can pop up when you're 10 or 30 or 80 or hopefully never. But then, some people do have preexisting germline mutations. Some mutations that you have had since you were a little zygote that exist in every cell of your body. And, these don't usually directly cause cancer on their own. Um, I think an analogy might be helpful here. So, imagine a mutation as a switch. You usually need a few switches to turn on before a cell becomes cancerous. But some people are born with one of their switches already in the on position. And that makes them more vulnerable. Does that make sense?Katie Hafner: It makes sense. It, I mean, it makes me think about the BRCA gene.Elah Feder: Mm-hmm. Exactly.Katie Hafner: So you might be born with this mutation that puts you at high risk of getting breast cancer, but you might still not get it, but it still seems like a good idea to find out if you're at risk so that you can take some precautions and plan ahead.Elah Feder: Right. Although with lung cancer, genetic screening is tricky. Like I mentioned, heredity is not the driving factor usually for this kind of cancer. Um, but say- say you do find you have a heritable mutation that puts you at risk. You're limited in what you can do. It's not like BRCA where you might consider a double mastectomy. You're- you're gonna keep your lungs. You could take extra care to avoid environmental exposures—something we really should all do. You might even get regular low-dose CT scans—that’s actually something that is recommended for people who have smoked after a certain age to detect any lung cancer early, but those come with risks too: you’re getting a little bit of radiation each time. I’m not saying it's not worth it, it might be if you are very high risk, but it's a consideration. Anyway, that's for people who do not have lung cancer already, but are concerned about a genetic predisposition. For someone who does have lung cancer, yeah, you probably want to know what's going on in your tumor genetically.Katie Hafner: So what about Susan's case? Did she find a genetic cause for her lung cancer that could be really useful for her family to know?Elah Feder: No. Um, Susan did not actually test positive for any hereditary mutation linked to cancer, but there are still genes that may not have been identified. Even before her diagnosis, she and her husband were donating money for cancer research through their foundation. After her diagnosis, they ramped this up. Donating to research about immunotherapies, early detection. But, also funding a new project at her sister's Company 23andMe. It's called the Lung Cancer Genetic Study. So, they are trying to build a massive database of genetic information from people with lung cancer.One of the project's goals is to find heritable genetic risk factors, but they explain it's actually bigger than that. They want to know how heritable mutations, tumor mutations, and lifestyle all interact so that they might figure out, for example, why one person who smokes develops cancer, but another doesn't. It might also help them to develop new therapies. So-Katie Hafner: I just wanna interject with something that strikes me just as we're having this conversation, which is that, um, people who are listening to this probably know that 23andMe had a lot of problems, ended up filing for bankruptcy protection and Anne resigned earlier this year. Um, I'm sure that it's been very challenging for Anne, but it sounds like she is in her very best, um, Wojcicki family-like way: making lemonade out of lemons in this regard. That's my initial reaction to everything you're saying.Elah Feder: Yeah. And as you know, 23andMe—while it filed for bankruptcy—it lives on and created a nonprofit called the TTAM Research Institute. It bought 23andMe in July this year. And so, 23andMe is still going and so is this project. So far about 1200 patients have signed up and the goal is to reach 10,000.Anne Wojcicki: If you think about any one medical center, if it's UCSF or at Stanford or Harvard, getting a thousand patients coming in is- is a lot. And so, that's kind of the beauty of being able to go and find people around the entire country, is to be able to pull all that data together and then make that accessible to the research community.Elah Feder: 23andMe's Lung Cancer Genetics Study was officially announced in July last year. Susan Wojcicki died a few weeks later on August 9th, 2024. She was 56.Katie Hafner: So, Susan never did get an answer. She never found out why she had lung cancer.Elah Feder: No, she did not. And we're still trying to understand a lot about lung cancer in general. Here's Anne.Anne Wojcicki: There's still just like a lot you don't know. Understanding environmental science I think is really important. We live in a very complicated world with a lot of, you know, there's fires and there's pollution and there's what you eat and we just don't know. You don't know what the impact of all of that is, and so, you can't- I mean you can't live your life trying to measure everything and worry about everything. Like in some ways you have to come to terms with that, that you can't- you can't worry about it all the time.Elah Feder: This is a big part of life. It's understanding that so much of it is beyond our control, and we often don't even get answers. We don't find out why bad things happen to us. At the same time, when it comes to lung cancer, there is more that we can do. Here's Janet.Janet Wojcicki: I mean, if there are modifiable risk factors that we can identify—I mean the key word being modifiable, right? Then, ideally we could act on them.Elah Feder: We can fight air pollution, we can stop kids from getting their hands on cigarettes. We can look for more heritable risk factors and invest more money in treatments. As for Susan Wojcicki, despite all of her resources and all of her drive, ultimately she couldn't stop the cancer in her own body, but she left her mark in business in cancer research. She left a bigger mark than most of us ever will, but her sisters and her friend, Joanna- the thing that they really remember is how she never let any of that success go to her head.Anne Wojcicki: It didn't matter if we were like some fancy party or if Oprah wanted to talk to her. She was kind of the same. She was always very unaffected. And, it was, like, really fun going to the Oscars with her because she'd be like, “ah, I'm just gonna buy this dress on clearance at Macy's, and like no one cares what I wear.” And that was kind of the thing that was fun. She'd be like, “it would just be fun with you and like only going so that we can hang out.”Anne Wojcicki I always ride in my flats and my skirts. You're going to- are gonna YouTube? I’m actually really curious. Are you gonna meet YouTube- are you gonna meet Mr. Beast?Elah Feder: This episode of Lost Women of Science was produced by me, Elah Feder, and hosted by our co-executive producer Katie Hafner.Our senior managing producer is Deborah Unger. We had fact-checking help from Danya AbdelHameid. Lily Whear made the episode art. Thanks as always. To our co-executive producer, Amy Scharf, Eowyn Burtner, our program manager, and Jeff DelViscio at our publishing partner, Scientific American. This episode was made with funding from the Anne Wojcicki Foundation.You can find a transcript and a link to the Lung Cancer Genetics Study at www.lostwomenofscience.org.HostKatie HafnerHost and Senior ProducerElah FederGuestsAnne Wojcicki Anne is Susan Wojcicki’s youngest sister and the co-founder of 23andMe.Janet WojcickiJanet is the middle Wojcicki sister. She’s a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).Joanna StroberJoanna is the co-founder of Midi Health and a long-time friend of Susan Wojcicki.Further Reading“From Susan” — Susan Wojcicki’s final post, written a few weeks before she died and published on YouTube’s blog on Nov. 25, 2024.How to Raise Successful People. Esther Wojcicki, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2019The Lung Cancer Genetics Study“Does Lung Cancer Attract Greater Stigma Than Other Cancer Types?” by Laura A. V. Marlow et al., in Lung Cancer, Vol. 88, No. 1; April 2015

The conservative parties can change their leaders – but it won’t stop the NSW Coalition’s death spiral | Anne Davies

The Nationals have a new leader in Gurmesh Singh and Kellie Sloane could soon replace Liberal leader Mark Speakman. But the Coalition is fractured on net zeroThe NSW Nationals have a new leader, Gurmesh Singh, and the Liberals will almost certainly follow suit by early next week.It’s desperation politics. Changing leaders will likely do nothing to stop the apparent death spiral the conservative side of politics has inflicted upon itself – in Canberra and now the states. Continue reading...

The NSW Nationals have a new leader, Gurmesh Singh, and the Liberals will almost certainly follow suit by early next week.It’s desperation politics. Changing leaders will likely do nothing to stop the apparent death spiral the conservative side of politics has inflicted upon itself – in Canberra and now the states.If they needed evidence of what the electorate was thinking, it was shouting at them from internal YouGov research presented to the NSW Liberal party room on Tuesday. The party’s MPs and MLCs were considering whether to dump net zero as their federal counterparts did on the weekend.YouGov found only one-third of Australians would now seriously consider voting for the Coalition, the party room was told.It found 26% of Australians who are former Coalition voters won’t seriously consider the Coalition in the future. That’s approximately 5 million voters the Coalition needs to persuade to consider them again, the pollsters said.“Only one in five (21%) of former Coalition voters see the Coalition as being in touch with modern Australia. Only one in four (25%) see them as aligned with their values,” the YouGov report stated.One in two (52%) of former Coalition voters said they would only consider a party ready to govern if it had credible policies to address climate change and its impacts.Without a coherent position on the most pressing problem of our generation – how to slow climate change – voters, in particular younger cohorts, have fled in droves. They are unable to take seriously a political party that ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus and the economics of renewables.The federal Liberals have chosen to dump any semblance of a coherent plan.The NSW Liberals, however, voted on Tuesday to retain a net zero emissions by 2050 target. They are sticking with the bipartisan energy transition roadmap devised by the state Coalition when in government.But how does that work when their federal counterparts are talking up new coal-fired power stations and their junior state partner has abandoned the net zero target?Singh, the NSW National’s newly minted leader, hopes a compromise might be reached – though it takes a vivid imagination to see it working.As the first Indian-Australian to leader a major party, he’s a break from the white male graziers that the NSW National party usually chooses.Singh has a degree in industrial design, has worked in advertising and was previously a big wheel in the blueberry and macadamia industries. He formerly chaired Oz Group Co-op – the major marketing co-operative in the Coffs region.His family is still a major player in the Coffs Harbour blueberry industry, an industry that has divided the local community over rapid rapid expansion, use of pesticides, environmental standards and use of contract labour.Singh is acutely aware that on the north coast, his own and other seats face an existential political threat from the progressive side of politics, in the form of the Greens and teals, who have made action on climate change central to their platforms.The Greens already hold the state seat of Ballina, just north of Singh’s seat. In the 2025 federal election, teal candidate Caz Heize slashed the National’s margin in the seat of Cowper (which includes Coffs Harbour) to 0.14% on a two-party preferred basis.Singh is no Barnaby Joyce or Matt Canavan, dinosaurs of the National party whose mission includes returning Australia to a coal-fired past. But he is of the same party.Asked at his first press conference how he would reconcile the Nationals’ position with that of the Liberals in NSW, Singh highlighted the cost of power, the plight of pensioners in the regions who can’t afford hot showers, and suggested a better-managed rollout was required. He didn’t diss renewables per se.Meanwhile, the Liberals’ leadership drama is still to unfold, probably on Thursday, or possibly early next week.Moderate Kellie Sloane, a former journalist who has been an MP for less than three years, appears to be the frontrunner to replace Mark Speakman.However, Alister Heskens, from the right faction and the manager of opposition business, is also canvassing the numbers.The difficulty for Sloane will be her lack of history in the party and her inexperience in government. Heskens’ challenge is his low profile and convincing colleagues he offers an improvement on Speakman. He is likely to relish attacking Labor more than Speakman does.The NSW Liberals have, at least, heeded the YouGov polling on attitudes to climate change and have not been infected by the nonsense pedalled by Advance and other climate-denying figures on the right.The party issued a statement on Tuesday that it remained “committed to a target of net zero by 2050”.“It’s been our target since 2016. It’s a target to be achieved alongside a focus on energy reliability, affordability, and industrial competitiveness.”

Federal Cash for Lead Pipe Replacement Isn’t Making It to Illinois Communities

This story, a partnership between Grist, Inside Climate News, and Chicago-area public radio station WBEZ, is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Lead pipes are ubiquitous. At this point, no state has gotten rid of all of its toxic lead service lines, which pipe drinking water to homes and businesses. But some cities like Chicago, New York […]

This story, a partnership between Grist, Inside Climate News, and Chicago-area public radio station WBEZ, is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Lead pipes are ubiquitous. At this point, no state has gotten rid of all of its toxic lead service lines, which pipe drinking water to homes and businesses. But some cities like Chicago, New York City, and Detroit have more lead plumbing than others, and replacing it can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Biden-era infrastructure law, promised $15 billion for lead pipe replacements across the country to be disbursed over five years.  But in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency sent earlier this week, a group of Illinois congressional delegates allege that $3 billion appropriated for lead pipe replacements nationwide for the fiscal year that ended in September has not reached communities yet. They warn that the delay is a “dangerous politicization” that puts children and families at risk. “It feels like it’s targeting blue states or blue cities that might require more of this mitigation.” “Federal resources are not partisan tools—they are vital lifelines intended to serve all Americans,” the letter notes. “Using federal funds as leverage against communities based on political considerations represents a dangerous abuse of power that undermines public trust and puts lives at risk.”  The move comes as communities in Illinois, which is among the top five states with the most lead service lines, and across the country are grappling with the overwhelming cost of removing the hazardous metal piping from water systems. The Trump administration has already withheld congressionally appropriated funding for infrastructure and energy projects from Democrat-led states like New York, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Massachusetts. Now, lawmakers fear money for lead pipes is stuck in Washington too.  “I think that they’re playing games,” said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, one of the lawmakers who led the effort to send the letter. “It feels like it’s targeting blue states or blue cities that might require more of this mitigation than other parts of the country.”  Lead is toxic and dangerous to human health. Lead plumbing can flake and dissolve into drinking water, which can lead to brain damage, cardiovascular problems, and reproductive issues. The EPA advises that there is no safe level of lead exposure. A spokesperson for the federal agency said it is “actively working” on allotments for lead service line replacements. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for disbursing the federal funds to local governments, did not respond to a request for comment. The Chicago Department of Water Management said it received $14 million from the Illinois EPA for the 2025 financial year and was approved for $28 million for the next fiscal year.   “The estimated replacement cost for the Chicago region alone is $12 billion or more, and statewide, it could be $14 billion,” Krishnamoorthi said. “Whatever amounts would come to Chicago would not be enough to do the entire job, but the federal component is vital to get the ball rolling.” Chicago has more than 412,000 lead service lines, the most of any city in the country. So far, the city has replaced roughly 14,000 lead pipes at a cost of $400 million over the past five years. That’s due in part to the high cost of replacing lead pipes. In Chicago, a single lead pipe replacement can cost on average $35,000. Federal rules require that Chicago replace all its pipes by 2047, but city officials have cited concerns over the unfunded federal mandate.  “This is impacting people’s health,” said Chakena Sims, a senior policy advocate with Natural Resources Defense Council. “The federal government politicizing access to safe drinking water is an all-time low,” she added. “It’s encouraging to see our Illinois congressional leaders stand up for communities.”  

Best Leaders 2025: John Palfrey

From finding MacArthur ‘geniuses’ to funding transformative change

John Palfrey is used to thinking about the biggest issues confronting society and what we should all do about them. And in these turbulent times, Palfrey, the president of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, has reaffirmed his and the foundation's commitment to supporting democracy, creativity, learning and diversity.“I have a relentlessly positive nature, and I do, for better and for worse, often see what is possible and then have the temerity to think we can go get it,” Palfrey said in an interview with U.S. News & World Report. “I think that form of optimism is very helpful, particularly on the darkest of days.”With $9.2 billion in assets, the MacArthur Foundation is one of the nation’s largest philanthropic organizations. In 2024 alone, the foundation paid out more than $350 million in grants. This year, the foundation announced it would increase its grants for 2025 and 2026 because of the federal government’s cuts to funding – which could be devastating for the arts, environmental protection, public safety and more.Meet America's Best LeadersU.S. News & World Report selected its 2025 Best Leaders in public service, business, healthcare and education.See the Top 25 of '25The foundation makes “Big Bets,” investing in initiatives intended to bring about transformative change. For example, in October, the foundation announced it would participate in Humanity AI, an initiative to help ensure that artificial intelligence is a positive tool for society, funding efforts to safeguard democracy from negative effects of the new technology and to protect artists and other creators from theft of their intellectual property.MacArthur also makes “enduring commitments” to invest in journalism that promotes inclusive news narratives and supports a healthy democracy, and it funds initiatives in Chicago, where it is headquartered, to support racial equity and a more inclusive community.It’s perhaps most famous for the MacArthur Fellowships – referred to as “genius grants” – which award 20 to 30 extraordinary creative people in various fields with $800,000 each over a five-year period.Palfrey, 53, likens the foundation to “sort of a nonprofit venture capital” fund.“We prize creativity and effectiveness. And so we are constantly looking for people and institutions and networks that are creative and have new ideas and different ways of approaching topics,” he says.As an educator and acclaimed legal scholar who previously worked at Harvard University and Phillips Academy, Andover, Palfrey has studied some of the most complex challenges facing a democratic society – such as education’s need to respect both free speech and diversity and the influence of technology on society. He understands the fraught nature of these issues and has written seven books, such as “Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces,” to address them head-on.But Palfrey did not anticipate the recent need to advocate for American democracy itself.“The First Amendment, our freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, the freedom to give, the freedom to invest,” he says. “These are 250-year-old American traditions that are unbroken.” And all of a sudden, he says, “they need advocates in a way that they haven’t before.”In addition to the foundation’s ongoing support of the independent press, Palfrey has spearheaded the creation of Press Forward, a new initiative supported by several foundations to rebuild local news.He’s also been touring the country to speak on the importance of democracy and the First Amendment as well as continuing that dialogue in essays and social media.Watching other institutions, such as universities, agree to substantial changes in policy in light of federal government demands, Palfrey thought of historian Timothy Snyder’s first rule for resisting tyranny: “Do not obey in advance.” So, in April 2025, Palfrey and colleagues at other foundations decided to “unite in advance,” issuing a statement that they must have the freedom to give to the causes they believe in. More than 700 foundations from across the ideological spectrum have since signed on.

‘They’re playing games’: Illinois lawmakers press Trump administration over stalled lead-pipe funding

Congress appropriated $15 billion to replace lead pipes across the country. Is the Trump administration withholding it?

Lead pipes are ubiquitous. At this point, no state has gotten rid of all of its toxic lead service lines, which pipe drinking water to homes and businesses. But some cities like Chicago, New York City, and Detroit, have more lead plumbing than others, and replacing it can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Biden-era infrastructure law, promised $15 billion for lead pipe replacements across the country to be disbursed over five years.  But in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency sent earlier this week, a group of Illinois congressional delegates allege that $3 billion appropriated for lead pipe replacements nationwide for the fiscal year that ended in September has not reached communities yet. They warn that the delay is a “dangerous politicization” that puts children and families at risk. “Federal resources are not partisan tools — they are vital lifelines intended to serve all Americans,” the letter notes. “Using federal funds as leverage against communities based on political considerations represents a dangerous abuse of power that undermines public trust and puts lives at risk.”  The move comes as communities in Illinois, which is among the top five states with the most lead service lines, and across the country are grappling with the overwhelming cost of removing the hazardous metal piping from water systems. The Trump administration has already withheld congressionally appropriated funding for infrastructure and energy projects from Democrat-led states like New York, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Massachusetts. Now, lawmakers fear money for lead pipes is stuck in Washington too.  “I think that they’re playing games,” said Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, one of the lawmakers who led the effort to send the letter. “It feels like it’s targeting blue states or blue cities that might require more of this mitigation than other parts of the country.”  Lead is toxic and dangerous to human health. Lead plumbing can flake and dissolve into drinking water, which can lead to brain damage, cardiovascular problems, and reproductive issues. The EPA advises that there is no safe level of lead exposure. A spokesperson for the federal agency said it is “actively working” on allotments for lead service line replacements. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for disbursing the federal funds to local governments, did not respond to a request for comment. The Chicago Department of Water Management said it received $14 million from the Illinois EPA for the 2025 financial year and was approved for $28 million for the next fiscal year.   “The estimated replacement cost for the Chicago region alone is $12 billion or more, and statewide, it could be $14 billion,” Krishnamoorthi said. “Whatever amounts would come to Chicago would not be enough to do the entire job, but the federal component is vital to get the ball rolling.” Chicago has more than 412,000 lead service lines, the most of any city in the country. So far, the city has replaced roughly 14,000 lead pipes at a cost of $400 million over the past five years. That’s due in part to the high cost of replacing lead pipes. In Chicago, a single lead pipe replacement can cost on average $35,000. Federal rules require that Chicago replace all its pipes by 2047, but city officials have cited concerns over the unfunded federal mandate.  “This is impacting people’s health,” said Chakena Sims, a senior policy advocate with Natural Resources Defense Council. “The federal government politicizing access to safe drinking water is an all-time low,” she added. “It’s encouraging to see our Illinois congressional leaders stand up for communities.”   This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘They’re playing games’: Illinois lawmakers press Trump administration over stalled lead-pipe funding on Nov 13, 2025.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.