Everything we feared about communism - that we would lose our houses and savings and be forced to labor eternally for meager wages with no voice in the system - has come true under capitalism.
A propaganda system will consistently portray people abused in enemy states as worthy victims, whereas those treated with equal or greater severity by its own government or clients will be unworthy.
The stock market is only the tip of the iceberg of what’s being rigged. For a taste of what’s rigged, ask yourself this question: if Mr. Elite Insider perpetrates a scam, and Mr. John Q. Citizen breaks similar laws, is there any difference between the treatment each receives?
Let’s go even deeper and ask: why is looting legal, even though it is obviously crooked? Why is high-frequency trading legal? Why is it legal for the Fed to offer money at 0% to its buddies but not to Mr. John Q. Citizen?
Why is it legal to issue student loans to future debt-serfs that is unlike all other debt in that it cannot be discharged in bankruptcy?
Normcore was about dropping the pretense and learning to throw themselves into, without detachment, whatever subcultures or activities they stumbled into, even if they were mainstream. “You might not understand the rules of football, but you can still get a thrill from the roar of the crowd at the World Cup,” the report read.
New book explores ‘frontier’ metaphor in science
Leah Ceccarelli is a professor of communication and author of the book “On the Frontier of Science: An American Rhetoric of Exploration and Exploitation.”
She answered a few questions about the book for UW Today.
Q: What’s the concept behind this book? Why did you write it? A: I kept seeing appeals to the American frontier spirit in the public arguments of scientists. That rhetoric was often inspiring, giving scientists an exciting image of their work across the metaphorical “boundaries” of knowledge. But it was also troubling in the expectations it set out about the manifest destiny of scientists to push forward at all costs, and in the way it reinforced their separation from a public that funds their endeavors. (via New book explores ‘frontier’ metaphor in science | UW Today)
The history of the movie trailer
Filmmaker IQ has a nice exploration of the history of the movie trailer. And yes, they actually used to play at the end of (i.e. “trail”) the film.
Coming into the 1960s, a new generation of star directors began to redefine the trailer - among them was the legendary Alfred Hitchcock. Instead of showing scenes from the movie, Hitchcock, who had become quite well known to audiences from his “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” TV series, cashed in on his celebrity… taking audiences on a tour using his gallows humor style in this trailer for 1960’s Pscyho.
The reemergence of Cubism in film and commercial art in the 1960s was not lost on another emerging filmmaker - Stanley Kubrick. Having experimented with fragmented cutting styles in the trailer to 1962’s Lolita, Kubrick comes back strong in 1964’s “Dr. Strangelove” with a trailer that I consider one of the most bold and brazen pieces of movie advertising ever made.
To many Americans, the U.S. economy of recent years has become a vast casino in which too many decks are stacked and too many dice are loaded. I hear it all the time: The titans of Wall Street made unfathomable amounts gambling with our money, and when their bets went bad in 2008 we had to bail them out. Yet although millions of Americans are still underwater and many remain unemployed, not a single top Wall Street banker has been indicted. In fact, they’re making more money now than ever before. Top hedge-fund managers pocketed more than a billion dollars each last year, and the stock market is higher than it was before the crash. But the typical American home is worth less than before, and most Americans can’t save a thing. CEOs are now earning more than 300 times the pay of the typical worker yet the most workers are earning less, and many are barely holding on.
Again, the ego of a man was as fragile as the heart of a woman.
Nostalgia is inevitably a yearning for a past that never existed, and when I’m writing, there are no bees to sting me out of my sentimentality. For me at least, fiction is the only way I can even begin to twist my lying memories into something true.
Michael Paul Smith takes photographs of classic cars that evoke feelings of nostalgia for America in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. Take a look, these are about as Pleasantville as you can get:
But as you’ll discover browsing through Smith’s collection, the cars he photographs are scale models. Here’s the set-up for that second shot:
And here’s further evidence of Smith’s trickery:
No Photoshop here…all effects are done in-camera. As Smith notes, “It is the oldest trick in the special effects book: lining up a model with an appropriate background, then photographing it.” (via @osteslag)
It may well be, as you suggest, that Walmart could afford to pay its workers more — though the underlying issues are, well, complicated, and there’s a pretty good case that Walmart’s low prices benefit the working class. But conservatives would say, following Hayek, that even if you feel certain that Walmart is run by greedheads who are just lining their own pockets, the government is extremely ill-equipped to judge that kind of question — and for that reason and others, if you’re trying to maximize growth, employment and entrepreneurship overall, it’s much wiser to leave it to the market to decide the prevailing wage. Then if we, as a society, think that market forces and economic efficiency are leaving too many people behind, and some kind of wage threshold makes sense as a matter of distributive justice … well, then, we can create one, as programs like the E.I.T.C. effectively do. But we should recognize that what we’re doing is straightforward redistribution, and just redistribute transparently instead of imposing what amounts to a tax on low-wage employers and calling it a living wage. (And this is especially true in an era of mass unemployment, when we want low-wage employers to feel comfortable hiring as many people as possible.) The issue, again, is not that you’re necessarily wrong to judge Walmart’s wage decisions harshly. It’s that there just isn’t some kind of perfect morality-plus-economics mechanism for policymakers to use to figure out which businesses have selfish motives and which ones are paying the best wage that their business model enables them to afford. So rather than imposing a single standard on an incredibly diverse landscape, it’s better to do whatever redistribution you favor more directly, even when it sometimes seems to let bad actors off the hook.
Since these so much being said about “Noah”, I thought I’d add my two cents. (SPOILER ALERT)!!! I saw it last night; fortunately since one of my degrees is in Jewish Studies and I had a particular interest in Jewish legends concerning Genesis, there were no surprises. If you went expecting to see a Christian fundamentalist approach to Noah you would obviously be disappointed, but once it was clear that it was a Jewish perspective, immediately obvious from the zohar, then the film should be evaluated from that perspective. From that frame of reference, it was a very well done portrayal of a combination of Biblical and Midrashic views on the pre-Deluge world and on the flood itself, even to the Fallen Angels “being made one with the earth.” That point in particular was intriguing to me because the same legend was used recently in, of all places, “I Frankenstein”, which depicted these rock like creatures who could transform into angelic like beings, who were drafted by St. Michael to help fight the demons and when they were killed, ascended to Heaven in a glorious shaft of blue light. As to all the eco-babble about the film Noah, that’s a gross exaggeration; rape, murder , and other acts of violence were the clear issues, not strip mining. There was a clear revulsion of Noah and his family about eating meat, which was perfectly Biblically appropriate, since the Covenant with Adam forbade it: “I will give you all the plants for food.” Ironically , it was the post-flood covenant with Noah, that subsequently permitted eating meat. Noah’s family’s revulsion to killing animals was not eco-babble veganism but the appropriate response to a covenant still in effect. To appropriately contextualize Noah’s response to his family, think Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac. He apparently believed he was called to do it because he viewed all people as so wretchedly fallen, his experience of love for the twins and his wife’s argument demonstrated that innocence was possible and their starting over was the better response. If you were open to the Jewish perspective, it was a great film.