#Lyndon’s on the left obviously | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

deadpresidents · 1 year

Note

I was going through your Lady Bird tags because I watched a documentary on CNN about Lady Bird and one of the things that stood out to me was how badly LBJ mistreated Lady Bird! How come she never left him? Did he really cheat in front of her, to her face, and she pretended she didn’t see anything? And from what I gathered, Lady Bird was loyal and devoted to Lyndon despite how he treated her , why though? I tried seeing if she cheated and couldn’t find anything, but she must have really loved him.

It's clear that LBJ and Lady Bird had a complex relationship, but I'm convinced that they really did love one another. On the surface, it might seem that she was blind to who LBJ was at times, or that he was too dominant of a force for her to handle with his famous "Johnson Treatment", but she was the strong one in the relationship and, time and time again, she was the backbone that LBJ needed during his frequent bouts with depression and when his self-confidence disappeared. Along with a marriage, they had a powerful political partnership and Lady Bird was just as shrewd and gifted of a political operator as her husband ever was. Biographers and historians have revealed tons of research over the years about how important Lady Bird was to LBJ's career and he genuinely couldn't have accomplished what he did without her.

As I wrote in an essay about their relationship a few years ago (one of my favorite pieces I've ever written), Lady Bird was well aware of how capricious Lyndon B. Johnson could be and that he was by no means a perfect husband:

It was Lady Bird who could calm him in troubled times. While Lyndon Johnson is remembered as a political maestro, particularly in legislative politics, Lady Bird had great political intuition and knew how to handle Lyndon himself. LBJ could be cruel and coarse -- not just to his colleagues and staff, but to Lady Bird. In a 1994 interview with The Washington Post, Lady Bird admitted as much. "Ours was a compelling love," said said. "Lyndon bullied me, coaxed me, at times even ridiculed me, but he made me more than I would have been. I offered him some peace and quiet, maybe a little judgment." That humility was not false humility; it was Lady Bird's characteristically earnest belief. Yet, she arguably offered him more than he offered her. When he was sick, she helped care for him. When he was depressed, she helped make his life as easy as possible. She motivated him in a way that nothing else could -- not even his intense drive to prove himself or ceaseless ambition for the power to help change things. If Lyndon Johnson was a hurricane -- a force to be reckoned with, Lady Bird Johnson was the quiet breeze and warm sunshine which helped settle everything in the storm's wake. I'm not sure Lyndon Johnson made Lady Bird more than she could have been, but I'm positive that Lady Bird helped LBJ become who he was.

There is an absolutely remarkable taped phone call available from the LBJ Library which gives us a fascinating look behind the curtain at Lady Bird's influence on LBJ's political career. After he gave a televised press conference on March 7, 1964, Lady Bird calls the President and asks him if he wants to hear her critique on his performance then or wait until later and LBJ says, "Yes, ma'am. I'm willing now."

So, the First Lady launches into a detailed review of how LBJ looked, sounded, and seemed during his press conference -- a quick, brilliant, perceptive analysis that touched on everything that President's communications director or press secretary might have scrutinized. She's fair and honest, supportive but direct and constructive, comparing the press conference she just watched with a recent one that she had only heard, and LBJ listens carefully and respectfully, obviously accepting her opinions as helpful and much-needed:

"I thought that you looked strong, firm, and like a reliable guy. Your looks were splendid. The close-ups were much better than the distance ones...Well, I would say this: there were more close-ups than there were distance ones. During the statement you were a little breathless, and there was too much looking down, and I think it was a little too fast. Not enough change of pace, dropping voice at the end of sentence. There was a considerable pickup in drama and interest when the questioning began. Your voice was noticeably better, and your facial expressions noticeably better. The mechanics of the room were not too good, 'cause although I heard you well throughout every bit of it, I did not hear your questioners clearly."

What I find most interesting about the call is that it's a different side of both LBJ and Lady Bird than the public perception of the two, and it's arguably the earliest -- and possibly best overall or most direct --- example of a First Lady's political influence and/or impact on a President's job performance. There is a little bit of back-and-forth between them during the call, but it's mainly Lady Bird in action as a virtual White House communications director and LBJ hearing her review, with Lady Bird declaring, "In general, I'd say it was a good B-plus. How do you fell about it?", before ending the call after confirming their plans for dinner later that night. It's really a pretty incredible peek into Presidential history and the life of a fascinating Presidential marriage -- and the best part is that you can listen to the whole thing yourself via the LBJ Library.

vimeo

13 notes · View notes

papirini · 2 years

Text

I legitimately cannot believe that there’s all this talk about Goncharov (1973) and no one here’s mentioned the Kubrick cut? Goddamn, people. Let me tell you, it was definitely an interesting thing to hear about (if not watch, which...well, read below).

So back when Goncharov was still in development in 1971, it was actually going to be a miniseries for the BBC, and Kubrick was asked to step in as director by Warner Bros, who held the international option for the books. He declined to direct (as at the time he was working on A Clockwork Orange, and we all know it was Matteo JWHJ 0715 who directed the whole shebang), but when he read the script he asked to edit the reels, and this was granted.

Obviously the feature version released in theaters was not the Kubrick cut, since keep in mind, it was meant to be a miniseries when he was on board. However, due to a very drawn-out contractual dispute between Warner Bros., the author’s estate and Mosfilm (the Russian/Soviet “right holders”, who tried to block the miniseries by claiming the books belonged to the Soviet state and thus the miniseries couldn’t be made without their permission)-which in and of itself deserves its own book-Warner Bros. was forced to downsize what it planned to do in order to recoup its budget. Still, two different Kubrick-edited work cuts of Goncharov exist despite the legal battle-a 9-hour cut (meant to be the miniseries), and a shorter 5-hour cut once the decision to shelve the miniseries was made. Warner Bros. then had Scorsese re-edit that down to a more “palatable” 3 hours, while Kubrick went on to develop and make Barry Lyndon.

Unfortunately, very few people have been given permission to see either Kubrick cut due to the aforementioned legal dispute. That said, I haven’t seen it myself, but my mother attended a screening put on by a Japanese businessman in 1982. It’s called “the Honolulu screening” (the second of only five known screenings of either Kubrick cut) and he’d put it on as thanks to the hospital staff for the care he received after his open-heart surgery. After seeing the interest in Gonacharov on Twitter based on the interest brewing on Tumblr, I asked her what she remembered, and from what she told me, I’m pretty sure she saw the 5-hour cut.

Some big differences between the theatrical cut and the 5-hour Kubrick cut, according to my mom:

-There were scenes of Goncharov’s childhood in Tsarist Russia, including the scene where he sneaks into the Winter Palace and sees all of the ostentatious riches and power of the men on top. It also shows Nicholas II (played by Michael Jayston, same as in Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) being alone and shot by Soviet troops in the basement. Obviously a foreshadow to Goncharov’s death.

-We also see how Katya and Sofia grew up, and it’s implied (though not shown) that they might have started their affair before Katya left for Italy.

-We actually see how Goncharov and Andrey meet-they’re on the boat to Istanbul as they flee Russia. We also see Goncharov’s affair with the Russian ambassador’s wife.

-Ice Pick Joe is not present in the film. Apparently he (and John Cazale) was added after the bulk of the filming had been done due to his performance in The Godfather. Definitely some reshooting was done.

-A character who IS present is Ambrosini’s Siberian man, Grigori Antonovokov (played by Christopher Lee). He joins Goncharov and eventually leads the men in revolt at the end.

-Another character present is Alexei, the child of Goncharov and the ambassador’s wife, who is basically smuggled into Naples and passed off as Andrey’s child from an old affair. The books have Goncharov and Andrey’s relationship develop in part due to his visits to see his son.

-Speaking of Alexei, it’s strongly hinted that Katya is aware of his existence, even though Goncharov never tells her about him. Sofia definitely becomes aware of him, and like in the book discretely smothers him in his sleep.

-Fruit stand scene is there, and it also includes Katya and Sofia’s carriage drive down the Amalfi Coast (updated to a car, obviously).

-The grandfather clock belonged to Ambrosini first and actually breaks three times throughout the movie. First time is when Ambrosini is murdered, second time is when Sofia murders Alexei, and the third time is when Goncharov is killed. It’s obviously not fixed that third time.

-Not surprisingly, Alexei’s death is why Goncharov and Andrey start to drift apart in the middle of the film.

#goncharov #goncharov 1973 #unreality #kubrick movie #martin scorsese #work cut #fun fact

25 notes · View notes

the-daily-tizzy · 4 years

Text

Secrets of the Secret Service

Interesting snippets from Ronald Kessler's book about our presidents.

JOHN & JACQUELINE KENNEDY

He was a philanderer of the highest order.

She ordered the kitchen help to save all the left-over winefrom State dinners,

mixed it with fresh wine and served again during the next White House occasion.

LYNDON & LADYBIRD JOHNSON

LBJ was as crude as the day is long.

LBJ kept a lot of women in the White House for extramarital affairs and had set up early warning systems to alert him if if his wife was nearby.

He was a promiscuous and oversexed man.

Lady Bird was either naive or just pretended to not know about her husband's many liaisons.

RICHARD & PAT NIXON

A moral man, but very odd, weird, paranoid.

He had a horrible relationship with his family and was almost a recluse.

SPIRO AGNEW

Nice, decent man.

Everyone in the Secret Service was surprised by his downfall.

GERALD & BETTY FORD

A true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity.

He had a great sense of humor.

She drank a lot!

JIMMY & ROSALYN CARTER

A complete phony who would portray one picture of himself to public and very different in private, e.g. would be shown carrying his own luggage, but the suitcases were always empty. He kept empty ones just for photo-ops.

He wanted people to see him as pious and a non-drinker, but he and his family drank alcohol - a lot!

He had disdain for the Secret Service and was very irresponsible with the "football" with the nuclear codes. He didn't think it was a big deal and would keep military aides at a great distance.

Often did not acknowledge the presence of Secret Service personnel assigned to serve him.

She mostly did her own thing.

RONALD & NANCY REAGAN

The real deal; moral, honest, respectful and dignified.

They treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor, thanked everyone all the time.

He took the time to know everyone on a personal level.

One favorite story was early in his Presidency when he came out of his room with a pistol tucked on his hip. The agent in charge asked: "Why the pistol, Mr. President?" He replied, "In case you boys can't get the job done, I can help."

It was common for him to carry a pistol. When he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol in his briefcase.

She was very nice, but very protective of the President, and the Secret Service was often caught in the middle.

She tried hard to control what he ate. He would say to the agent, "Come on, you gotta help me out."

The Reagan's drank wine during State dinners and special occasions only, otherwise they shunned alcohol. The Secret Service could count on one hand the times they had served wine during family dinner.

For all the fake bluster of the Carters, the Reagan's were the ones who lived life as genuinely moral people.

GEORGE H. & BARBARA BUSH

Extremely kind and considerate, always respectful.

Took great care in making sure the agents comforts were taken care of.

They even brought them meals.

One time she brought warm clothes to agents standing outside at Kennebunkport. One was given a warm hat and, when he tried to say "no thanks" even though he was obviously freezing, the President said "Son, don't argue with the First Lady. Put the hat on."

He was the most prompt of the Presidents. He ran the White House like a well-oiled machine.

She ruled the house and spoke her mind.

BILL & HILLARY CLINTON

Presidency was one giant party.

Not trustworthy.

He was nice mainly because he wanted everyone to like him, but to him life is just one big game and party.

Everyone knows about his sexuality.

She is another phony.

Her personality would change the instant cameras were near.

She hated, with open disdain the military and Secret Service.

She was another who felt people were there to serve her.

She was always trying to keep tabs on Bill Clinton.

ALBERT GORE

An egotistical ass who once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his son that he needed to do better in school or he would end up “...like these guys,” pointing to the agents.

GEORGE W. & LAURA BUSH

The Secret Service loved him and Laura Bush.

He was also the most physically in shape who had a very strict workout regimen.

The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood that they were to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service.

She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest.

She never had any harsh word to say about anyone.

BARACK & MICHELLE OBAMA

The Clintons all over again.

Hated the military and looked down on the Secret Service.

He is egotistical and cunning.

He looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you but turns around and does the opposite.

He has temper tantrums.

She is a complete bitch who basically hates anybody who is not black, hates the military, and looks at the Secret Service as servants.

1K notes · View notes

scripttorture · 4 years

Note

I’m not sure if you’ll be comfortable answering those, but with recent police brutality in the U.S, I want to write about police torture of protestors and protestors’ feelings. I have a wheelchair user Latina girl and a blind Black trans man. They will be arrested together after the trans man tries to talk down a cop (inspired by a real video) and I wanted them both to be tear gassed. I have experience with police brutality, but was not arrested.

Part 2- How do they arrest blind people and wheelchair users? I understand mobility aids are usually taken away. Does this apply to canes for blind people? Also, I was going to have them in holding for 1 day with no treatment for their eyes after being tear gassed. Is this realistic or do you think police should pour water on them? I was going to involve the arrested characters all going on hunger strike, which might cause the police to transport them to booking faster. Does this sound okay?

‘Comfortable’ feels like the wrong word for all of this subject to be honest. I don’t think I could do this if I was comfortable, I am incandescent with rage. I am furious that the world we live in is still infested with this pointless, preventable brutality. Yes I am essentially a ball of rage and ferrets.

And a portion of that is about the fact it only really makes the news when it affects wealthy countries. Seeing the response in Kenya and Nigeria to these movements/events in the West has been… interesting.

Let’s start off with some definitions here because I think that will help as we discuss the story idea.

Realism in the context of these discussions doesn’t necessarily mean ‘this would happen to 100% of people in this situation.’ If we’re talking about torture techniques used and treatment of particular groups in society then it’s less a case of ‘does this happen or not’ and more a case of ‘how often does this happen?’ ‘how likely is this?’

Most modern torture is ‘clean’, which means that it doesn’t leave obvious external marks. But you do still get incidents (including in rich Western countries) where scarring torture occurs. They just a lot rarer.

And, continuing this example, if a writer came to me asking about writing a scarring torture in a modern setting I’d warn them about the implications that can go with that. I’d talk about how survivors of clean tortures are dismissed and belittled. I’d talk about how the harm clean tortures do is downplayed. And I’d say that while there’s nothing wrong with wanting to use a scarring torture in a story, when we do it’s important to be aware of the context: that scarring tortures are rare and that they’re not ‘worse’.

Everything you’ve described for your story is possible and it’s the sort of thing that’s more common in the country and time period you’ve chosen for your story.

I’ve found it difficult to get hold of larger studies focused on the US. A lot of the statistical analysis I’m seeing focuses on mental illness or doesn’t draw a distinction between mental illness and physical disability. That can be pretty common when you’re looking up stuff about disability. It can be a helpful approach in some respects, showing how the disabled population broadly is discriminated against. But it also masks things that affect particular sub sections of the disabled population by lumping everyone in together.

The Prison Policy Initiative has a page here you might find helpful, but most of these articles focus on mental illness and low IQ. Solitary Watch has a frankly horrifying list of cases in a prison where the disabled were routinely denied treatment and left in neglectful conditions that amount to torture. (The list includes a blind man denied a cane for 16 years.)

Based on individual cases I’ve read I’d say that what you have planned is realistic, in the sense that it is possible. Similar things have occurred in America.

In the absence of clear statistics on the number of disabled people in custody in the US, let alone how they’re treated, I’m finding it difficult to say how common this would be.

Part of the problem is a lack of consistent standards or definitions across the country. This is from a Reuters investigative piece on deaths and abuse in US jails: ‘Seventeen states have no rules or oversight mechanisms for local jails, according to Reuters research and a pending study by Michele Deitch, a corrections specialist at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. In five other low-population states, all detention facilities are run by state corrections agencies. The other 28 have some form of standards, such as assessing inmates’ health on arrival or checking on suicidal inmates at prescribed intervals. Yet those standards often are minimal, and in at least six of the states, the agencies that write them lack enforcement power or the authority to refer substandard jails for investigation.’ (Emphasis mine, full article series can be found here. It contains video footage of torture (beating), some graphic descriptions of racist abuse and miscarriage.)

What this means for you is that there’s massive variation between jails in the US. The variation affects everything from the structure of the jail itself, to staffing levels, to workplace culture, to oversight, to provision of medical care. Basically some jails are a lot more abusive and dangerous then others.

It’s also difficult to identify problem facilities because, as the Reuters article points out, a lot of the relevant statistics aren’t released to the public. Reuters came up with their statistics by examining jail records and reporting of deaths or abuse in local newspapers over a period of several years.

In some of the accounts from US prisoners I’ve read people were allowed to keep wheelchairs. In others they were taken away.

The cases where wheelchairs were taken were generally reported as part of a wider pattern of torturous neglect. I do not have enough evidence or cases here to say that that’s always the case: I don’t think this proves that prisons or jails which take mobility aids always neglect disabled prisoners. Because I don’t know whether taking a mobility aid, in and of itself, would be reported if it wasn’t happening alongside prisoners being left lying in their cells for days, unable to eat or clean themselves.

I’ve tried my best to read about disability generally over the years. Because I live in the UK most of what I know about disability is based here. I know about attitudes in Saudi, where I grew up and a little about Cyprus where my family is from.

Based on what I know about disability generally I’d say that when mobility aids and canes are taken away neglect and abuse are more likely. And I think that would include being left in a cell, having been tear gassed, with no water.

In terms of physically arresting people with disabilities, well there are problems with abuse of disabled people the world over. I’ve heard stories from a lot of different countries about people being ripped out of wheelchairs, being tackled, being dragged. Unfortunately a lot of people are taught to doubt disability and to treat obviously disabled people with contempt.

But you should remember that I read about the worst case scenarios. My knowledge is focused on abuse and ideas about what encourages or discourages it. Which can skew the perception of how common these things are. (I really wish I could find some decent statistical data here, the absence is maddening.)

I think part of the way to approach this is to break it down and figure out how many groups these characters are being passed between. I don’t actually know how the booking in process in the US works. (I’m sorry but the nature of the blog is that I’ve got a lot of broad knowledge, I’m not an expert on every police system in the world.)

The standard of treatment could easily vary between the people making the arrest and the people actually holding the prisoners.

And all of this means that I think you’ve got a lot of leeway here. There’s a big range of things that are possible here. So there’s scope to choose how bad it’s going to be.

You’re already doing that to some extent with the way you’ve planned this out and thought it through. That’s good, it’s important to work within your limits and focus on the elements you’re interested in.

There will be real cases similar to your story that went a lot worse and there’ll be cases where things went a lot better. No one story can capture everything and that’s OK.

I think these characters will probably be acutely aware that things could go very badly for them. They’ll probably have heard stories about people of their race, disability and gender being abused or even murdered by police. Use that in the story. Try to bring some of that fear and rage and defiance into the story.

I’m not sure what kind of cultural weight hunger strike carries in the US. I can link you to my masterpost on starvation which outlines the physical and psychological effects of hunger.

I also want to leave you my masterpost on solitary confinement, because I’m aware that US jails and prisons often put vulnerable prisoners straight into solitary.

It’s really clear just from your question that you’ve already put a lot of thought into this and done a fair bit of reading. Keep going.

You’re probably going to need sensitivity readers. It’s also probably going to take a lot of time, editing and re-reading to get this story as good as you want it to be.

And it’s going to be hard. Researching this stuff is incredibly exhausting. For the love of gods take breaks. I’ve got a guide to researching difficult topics here. It can be hard to follow the advice there, hell I struggle to sometimes, but you can’t let this stuff poison you.

I hope that helps :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

#writing advice #tw torture #tw racism #tw police brutality #tw transphobia #tw ableism #disability #clean torture #tear gas #pepper #America #American National Style #jails #abuse of prisoners #prison systems #blind characters #paralysis

23 notes · View notes

thecrownnet · 4 years

Link

*Amy Roberts is nominated for an Emmy in Outstanding Period Costumes for episode 10 Cri de Coeur.

The third season of The Crown, Netflix’s lavish, semi-fictionalized series about Queen Elizabeth II and her family, sees the monarch, Prince Philip and Princess Margaret entering middle age. Claire Foy hands off the role of Elizabeth to Olivia Colman, with Helena Bonham-Carter and Tobias Menzies joining the cast as her sister and husband. Kicking off in 1964 with a Soviet spy scandal ripped from the headlines and ending with the Queen’s 1977 Silver Jubilee, this season of The Crown also covers events some viewers will remember firsthand. Though paparazzi activity hints that the show’s fans are ardently awaiting Princess Diana’s season four entry (and luckily for them, filming wrapped about a week before coronavirus lockdowns were instated), season three is a nuanced historical and personal portrait of the family making their way through a politically pivotal era, from Margaret’s charming of President Lyndon B. Johnson to Prince Charles’s investiture in Wales.

The season also spans one of the 20th century’s most distinct time periods in terms of fashion. Working with a team that can number from 45 people up to 130 on the biggest shooting days, costume designer Amy Roberts joined The Crown for seasons three and four, taking over from Jane Petrie and previously, Michele Clapton. Roberts balances the royal family’s distinctly staid aesthetic with glimpses of the styles of the era, seen on younger characters like Princess Anne (Erin Doherty) and Roddy Llewellyn (Harry Treadaway), Margaret’s youthful, long-term affair.

Queen Elizabeth, however, is still at the crux of every episode, and for the monarch, Roberts embraces an early version of the vivid colors and matching ensembles that have come to dominate her personal style. We spoke with the costume designer about building imagined looks versus hewing to history, her personal style favorites from the season, and the new hues that set the tone for the Queen’s next half-century of outfits.

How do you decide whether to put together new looks or look to history for costuming major, well-documented events, like the Queen’s Jubilee, Prince Charles’s investiture, or the tragedy of Aberfan?

I think it’s an emotional decision. And those big events, particularly Aberfan, it doesn’t make sense to veer away from it. Often, some generations remember it very clearly, and it would seem arrogant of me to even think, oh, I’m going to change history. That’s my strong feeling. Those are a few very key, important moments, but there is so much on The Crown where you don’t know what they wore, you don’t know what they said, you don’t know what went on, so there are plenty of other times when you can let your imagination run free or be more filmic. That’s the joy of The Crown.

Queen Elizabeth has such an interesting style legacy because you have people who think she’s the most fashionable woman in the world, as well as a camp that finds her rather dowdy. What’s your opinion, and what guides you as you’re designing for her?

Well, I was one of those people who thought the Queen’s dress-sense-look-style was not of great interest or groundbreaking. But the more I looked at her, not just my period of time — the 60s through the early 90s, up through season four — you realize she’s actually amazing. You can see where a lot of designers have drawn inspiration, whether it’s Dolce and Gabbana or Vivienne Westwood. So I was really surprised. And the color choices, they’re absolutely extraordinary, even in the present day. I know she dresses to be seen in vivid colors, but she owns it. You see her privately at Balmoral, maybe in her kilt and her twin set and some scarves, and she looks amazing, with a Burberry mac on. There are some really weird ones, like the investiture, but they’re always interesting.

The royal family has an aesthetic unto itself, which isn’t necessarily representative of the era. There are so many fashion hallmarks of the 1960s and 70s in particular, which are not things the Queen would ever wear. Was it difficult to conceive of costumes that illustrate the time period while still being accurate to the family?

The first two seasons, which are absolutely beautiful, had the aesthetic of the 30s, 40s, and 50s color palette. I suppose in a way what opened the door for us in this era was color. We have a huge wall in our studio where we put up lots of images, each member of the royal family’s journey, in a huge chart. And I think what everybody realized was it’s the color — those sugar pinks, lemon, tangerines, and turquoises — suddenly you’ve got that, which you hadn’t got before. I think Jane [Petrie] slightly touched on it towards the end of season two, but we could really go for that, those more synthetic tones that heralded in the 60s and 70s, those post-war colors and patterns.

And as we get closer to modernity, can you buy and rent costumes for supporting characters, or is everything purpose-built?

All the principals are designed and made, but what we could start to do in this era was introduce a little bit of buying, for Princess Anne and some of the important smaller parts. The budget’s fantastic, but you can’t afford to make everyone, nor do you have the time. It’s got to be the best quality, obviously, but you can source the 60s and 70s clothes pretty easily. We didn’t do that at all for the Queen — maybe an old Burberry mac, actually — but for Princess Anne, we introduced a few buys, some knitwear, and we found some fantastic jeans. And obviously, for the crowd, that is all sourced and hired from costume houses in England, a little bit in Spain, and we used a fantastic place in Paris.

The real royals wear fur. How do you deal with that for the show?

Quite rightly, Netflix and Left Bank have a policy of no fresh fur. But you can use, and we would use, fur from the late 50s. Margaret and the Queen do occasionally wear fur coats, much to the horror particularly of Olivia Colman. They [Colman and Bonham-Carter] don’t love it at all. I have to stress that: there’s no enjoyment to them wearing fur coats. But you might be thinking about Charles’s investiture robe. There’s a good story there. That had to be made from scratch. The lining of that cloak is ermine. That was problematic because we could only use old ermine. They came from all over, the color had to be matched, they had to be cleaned and stretched by a furrier, and there aren’t many furriers anymore. But they had to be a certain date, none of it was fresh fur. It’s absolutely forbidden. So that took a long time to source, do it properly, and within strict guidelines. And it’s hard for actors, sometimes. They want a sign saying “this isn’t me, I don’t approve!” We only used fur coats when it was absolutely needed, and the odd fur stoles, but we steered away from it as much as possible.

Did you have a favorite character to dress in season three?

I always say this, but I loved doing Princess Alice of Greece, Prince Philip’s mother, the nun [Jane Lapotaire]. Because suddenly, after all that pomp, silk, and patterns and color, you do something completely different, and pure and simple. I don’t know, I just loved that beacon in the midst of it all. And I loved doing Wallis Simpson; her clothes and style were just very modern. The palette we went for was a personal favorite of mine. So Princess Alice and Wallis Simpson — two extremes, really, both as women and as looks.

#olivia colman #tobias menzies #helena bonham carter #the crown #ben daniels #josh o'connor #erin doherty #jane lapotaire #geraldine chaplin #charles edwards #jason watkins #costume design #the crown netflix

17 notes · View notes

douchebagbrainwaves · 3 years

Text

HERE'S WHAT I JUST REALIZED ABOUT CHALLENGE

This is not just a machine. Even then I took embarrassingly long to catch on. But I think that's ok. It's an excuse to work on boring things, even if they wanted to do things that make you stupid, and if they don't go into research.1 Why don't more people start startups. But how do you become one? What super-angels and VCs. So starting a startup and failed over someone who'd spent the same time working at a big company.2 In America, companies, like practically everything else, are disposable. So why do so many founders build things no one wants to do it may be best to go for brevity. Facebook seemed a good idea to understand what's happening when you do have kids.3

If you learn to ignore injuries you can at least avoid the second half. But if you're looking for companies that hope to win by writing great software.4 For the average startup, that would explain why they'd care about valuations.5 The other way to tell an adult is by how they react to a challenge. A nerd looks at that deal and sees only: pay a fortune for a small, dark, noisy apartment. A high-frequency trader does not. US are auto workers, New York is incomparable.6 But airports are not so harmless.7 There is no absolute standard for material wealth. This is about cities, not countries.

The reason he and most other startup founders are richer than they would have made working 9 to 5 at a big company. So maybe hacking does require some special ability to focus. If accelerating variation in productivity increases with technology, then the idea will fit in the user's head too. The other is that, in a hits-driven business, is that they're the same. The mere prospect of being interrupted is enough to prevent hackers from working on their startup for a whole year before being squashed by Google Calendar. The other way to tell an adult is by how they react to a challenge from an adult in a way people will increasingly be.8 I was walking along the street in Cambridge, and in practice they are usually interchangeable. I thought were the 5 most interesting startup founders of the last 30 years. Design is not just that it makes trade work. When Rajat Suri of E la Carte decided to write software for restaurants, he got out one of the founders of Sun.9 Finally at the end of this long process the VCs might still say no.10 Not just because it's better, but the pain of having this stupid controversy constantly reintroduced as the top one in your mind.11

The iPhone isn't so much a phone as a replacement for a phone.12 San Francisco, or Boston, or New York, where people walk around smiling. It felt as if someone had flipped on a light switch inside my head. They're willing to let you work so hard that you endanger your health. That's because, unlike novelists, hackers collaborate on projects. Someone with ordinary tastes would find it hard to come up with the numbers. Even now the image of a very ambitious German presses a button or two, doesn't it? Northern Italy in 1100, off still feudal. If you don't have to look at. Whereas if the speaker were still operating on the Daddy Model, and saw wealth as something that flowed from a common source and had to be built on NT. There is a large, existing population of stodgy people. Seriously, though, that there are going to get till the last minute.

As the CEO of a large public company makes about 100 times as productive as an ordinary one, but a leading indicator. Several of the most successful startup founders are often technical people who are great at something are not so much the day to day management. To me she seems the best novelist of all time. What nerds like is the kind of problems are those? You'd think it would be such a great thing never to be wrong that everyone would do this. So there is obviously not a fixed pie that's shared out, like an introductory textbook. I've rarely had a neat answer to it. A startup is not to try to think of startup ideas. There are now a few VC firms outside the US. The chance of getting rejected after the full partner meeting averages about 25%.13

Notes

This is true of nationality and religion as well. Some VCs seem to be free to work than stay home with them. To a kid and as a cause as it was overvalued till you run through all the page-generating templates are still called the executive model. Philosophy is like math's ne'er-do-well brother.

To get a lot more frightening in those days, but getting rich, purely mercenary founders will usually take one of the next one will be near-spams that you should push back on the grounds that a their applicants come from meditating in an equity round. In many ways the New Deal was a test of intelligence. One YC founder wrote after reading a draft, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson.

Did you know about a week for 4 years. The facts about Apple's early history are from an interview. That's the best are Goodwin Procter, Wilmer Hale, and tax rates, which shows how unimportant the Arpanet which became the Internet. I'm not dissing these people.

For example, because despite some progress in the former, and also really good at design, or because they are so dull and artificial that by the government. Part of the biggest successes there is no longer working to help the company goes public. Though most founders start out excited about the subterfuges they had that we didn't do. As always, tax loopholes defended by two of the web have sucked—e.

43. Microsoft, would increase the spammers' cost to reach a given audience by a factor of 20.

The solution for this essay, I advised avoiding Javascript. Often as not the distinction between them generate a lot of people who interrupt you. Proceedings of AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization.

There is no richer if it's dismissed, it's probably a mistake to do better. 99,—e. In the thirties his support of the Fabian Society, it is certainly more efficient, it inevitably turns into incantation. Most don't try to raise five million dollars in liquid assets are assumed to be obscure; they just don't make wealth a zero-sum game.

Strictly speaking it's not uncommon for startups is a self fulfilling prophecy. One thing that drives most people come to writing essays is to protect widows and orphans from crooked investment schemes; people with a sufficiently identifiable style, you can, Jeff Byun mentions one reason not to say for sure a social network for pet owners is a bad idea, period. Is this unfair? You may be some part you can ask us who's who; otherwise you may have to find out why investors who turned them down.

That's because the first year or so and we don't have enough equity left to motivate people by saying Real artists ship. That's why the series AA terms and write them a check. At the moment; if there were 5 more I didn't realize it till I started doing research for this at YC I find I never watch movies in theaters anymore.

The latter type is the proper test of intelligence. If you have to do others chose Marx or Cardinal Newman, and tax rates have had a day job is one of the paths people take through life, the rest have mostly raised money at all. The Civil Service Examinations of Imperial China, Yale University Press, 1983.

Thought experiment: set aside for this essay began by talking about art.

Applying for a startup is taking the Facebook/Twitter route and building something for a CEO to make money from existing customers. Instead of bubbling up from the study. Unfortunately, not lowercase.

It wouldn't pay. This is one of the bizarre consequences of this essay talks about the team or their determination and disarmingly asking the right question, which would cause other problems. That's the difference between surgeons and internists fleas: I wouldn't say that YC's most successful ones tend not to quit their day job is one subtle danger you have 8 months of runway or less, is he going to do sales yourself initially.

1 note · View note

letterboxd · 5 years

Photo

Greater Lovers: The Céline Sciamma Q&A.

“It’s a new narrative of love.” On the eve of its Valentine’s Day wide release, Dominic Corry puts your questions to the writer and director of our highest-rated romance film of the decade, Portrait of a Lady on Fire.

Few films have more hearts beating on Letterboxd lately than Céline Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which has a 4.4 average rating, was second only to Parasite as the highest-rated feature film of 2019, and holds the number one position on our official Top 100 Narrative Feature Films by Women Directors.

“This is one of the most emotionally intense viewing experiences I’ve had in a while, so I’m not ready to sum it up with a neat and tidy star rating,” wrote Trudie. “My body is still visibly shaken… yearning personified,” said Lucy. “I’m going to think about those last fifteen minutes for the rest of my life,” swooned Stephanie, speaking for us all.

Starring Noémie Merlant and Adèle Haenel, the film had a short Oscar-qualifying run in American theaters at the end of last year, and although it was criminally overlooked by the Academy (it was not France’s submission for International Feature, though it is up for ten Césars), it’s finally going wide on American screens on Valentine’s Day.

As a giant fan, it was a huge honor to personally convey all the Letterboxd love for Portrait of a Lady on Fire to Sciamma, and to take with me several of your questions. (Lucy, we read your entire comment to her: “I just wanted to thank Céline for Portrait of a Lady on Fire. It holds a very special place in my heart now and is my favorite film of the decade. I’m truly, eternally grateful.”)

Spoiler warning: several questions reference the nature of the film’s ending, without getting into specifics. And a warning for easy fainters: Kristen Stewart may have been brought up during this interview; and Céline has been reading your Letterboxd reviews.

Adèle Haenel (left) and Noémie Merlant in ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’.

What would you like to say to your Letterboxd fans who have fallen so completely in love with your film? Céline Sciamma: Well thank you! No, but really. Because what touched me the most is the fact that people will write about films. And that’s the beauty of this digital era. I’m paying a lot of attention about what’s going on around the film, what is being said. I’m really looking at things, so I’ve seen a lot of Letterboxd [reviews]. And I’ve seen that Letterboxd, at some point, used the emoji thing, which was really, really beautiful and fun [Sciamma is referring to the fire and picture frame emoji we added to our Twitter name at the time of the film’s release last year].

And the fact that people who were touched by the film would take the time to write about it, I think it’s something really beautiful, especially with this film, which is about how love is an education to art. Because art consoles from love, or makes us greater lovers. I find it beautiful that people would express their feelings and put their heart and their mind into cinema. As a young cinephile there was no internet, and I remember writing, just only for myself in little diaries, about film. And so I found it really, really important.

There’s one question we like to ask every filmmaker we speak to: what is the film that made you want to become a filmmaker? Well, the film that made me understand filmmaking, mise-en-scène, was The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. Jacques Demy, as a director, his films in France, we see them when we are very young; he made Peau d’âne, which is a film that is shown to kids. He is such a great director. Definitely as a young kid—I was twelve years old—I found out that, okay, there’s somebody behind this with a vision. Somebody would paint a city like in Les Demoiselles de Rochefort. Somebody would paint a wall to make it sing the vision of somebody.

And when discovering mise-en-scène—the fact that there was a director, a vision of somebody—it really blew my mind. I remember I fell in love with the idea of cinema. So, you know, it’s not one film that makes you want to be a director. There are some films that connect you to the idea of cinema and vision and just make you crave for this idea.

Before this interview, we asked our community to submit questions for you. The first is from Letterboxd member ‘I’, who wants to know if you were inspired by any movie in the process of making Portrait of a Lady on Fire. When I’m writing a film, or just even just going with the idea of starting to dream about a film, I don’t watch films anymore, because it’s a very fragile moment. I’m trying to be candid and I’m trying to create this prototype and not to begin being in dialogue with the history of cinema.

But then when the script is done, and especially when we are talking with the team, with the DP, there are some films that can come up in the discussion. “Okay, we should we should take a look at that,” regarding one specific issue. For instance, with Portrait of a Lady on Fire, regarding the lighting, there was this idea, I mean you could definitely look at all the period-piece films and be like, “What about the candles? Are they in the frame? Are there a lot of candles? Are they on chandeliers? Or are they held?”

So, I’m thinking about that, this issue of the light in the candles. Night. Day. So me and [cinematographer] Claire Mathon, we had that discussion. So Kubrick, Barry Lyndon, we watched obviously.

And also at that moment I’m trying to watch, not specifically films that seem to be related, but films that give me faith in cinema. For instance, Jeanne Dielman by Chantal Akerman, which is such a radical film. I’m trying to get radical positions that have nothing to do with the film, subject-wise, but of people who firmly believed in the language of cinema, and were radical about it. I’m trying to watch radical films that renew your faith in cinema. I mean, they’re major pieces of art, but just give this feeling that you can be radical, you can be bold, and to get this excitement about, really, the language of cinema.

Many of our members are writing that Portrait of a Lady on Fire is the most romantic film ever made, and one of the best expressions of female desire ever put on screen. What’s the most romantic film you’ve ever seen? You know, it’s weird because when I think about it… film is emotional right? A lot of the things that come to my mind are films that are not necessarily pure love stories. This is gonna sound stupid, but E.T., for instance, is a great love story. This is a great love story for me, and one of the greatest endings in terms of how a relationship ends: E.T. has this idea that the breakup between the two characters is… they want the same thing. And that’s why they’re breaking up, because one is saying “come” and one is saying “stay”, which I think is the most heartbreaking breakup, not being a breakup.

I think there might be a new contender for most heartbreaking breakup. The ending of it is really climaxing. Because when we watch love stories, it’s harder, the frozen image of two people leaving in a car, you know, marriage, whatever. Like the romantic-comedy ending where they end up together, then that’s the end. Eternal possession as a promise of fulfilment. Or, it’s the tragic ending, where they will never [be together]. And I really tried to find another way [in Portrait of a Lady on Fire], like in E.T. you know, it’s two people saying “I love you” but not being together. It’s a new narrative of love.

So I’m always trying also to think about forms. Mulholland Drive is a film that definitely was also an inspiration, because it’s a film that creates its storytelling around an idea of love. Everybody said: “Oh this film is so hard to get”. [But] it’s really simple. It’s like the first part is a dream of a story that has already happened. And so Lynch created this, screenwriting-wise, he created this idea that those two women, they meet and suddenly they’re in bed together and one says “I think I’m in love with you”, which means that Lynch is telling us that “I love you” is always something you say in the past. And with Portrait of a Lady on Fire, I was thinking I have to create a form where “I love you” is something that always has a future. So that’s the kind of dialogue I have with films that inspire me.

And also Titanic. It has kind of the same structure as Portrait of a Lady on Fire: the presence of a love story but the memory of a love story. And also, not being together even though there’s a tragic death. It’s a love story about emancipation. And that’s so much what we’re trying to tell: it’s not about whether you end up together, or you don’t. A good love story isn’t about that, it’s about: did it give you emancipation?

This last question is from Pauline: “How much do I need to pay you to hire Kristen Stewart—who has just said Portrait was her favorite movie of 2019 and that she has seen all of your movies—in your next project? I’m ready to write the check, just say a number.” Well no, it’s not about the money. But I met Kristen Stewart a few months ago. So I mean, it’s already a start. We talked about cinema, and, and I really enjoyed talking about cinema with her, so…

‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ is in select US theaters now, and on wide release from 14 February. This interview took place in the English language and has had minor edits for clarity. With thanks to NEON, Cinetic Media and Ginsberg/Libby.

Related content

The Top 10 Cannes 2019 Premieres

The Top 100 Women Directors of the 2010s

The Top 100 Narrative Feature Films by Women Directors

#letterboxd #celine sciamma #portrait of a lady on fire #neon #neonrated #french cinema #female director #directed by women #adele haenel #noemie merlant #portrait nation

38 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 5 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Sen. Bernie Sanders almost certainly won’t win the Democratic nomination after his string of defeats in recent primaries. So the questions around how and when Sanders will end his campaign aren’t really about electoral math anymore, but are instead connected to deeper questions about policy, the Democratic electorate and Joe Biden and Sanders’s personal goals.

These deeper questions essentially are: Does Sanders have any specific goals that he wants — such as Biden taking up one of his major policy ideas — that he could essentially trade with Biden in exchange for dropping out and endorsing the former vice president? Does Biden, who is now racking up endorsements and winning primaries by huge margins, really need to negotiate with Sanders at all? Does the bloc of around 30 percent of Democratic primary voters that have backed Sanders represent a clear constituency that he actually leads, or will Sanders’s supporters be unenthusiastic about Biden even if Sanders embraces him? Will most of Sanders’s supporters vote for Biden in a general election simply to get President Trump out of office, or does Biden need to accommodate them in some way? And are Sanders’s supporters actually open to any accommodation beyond Sanders being the Democratic nominee?

I can’t really answer any of these questions confidently, and despite what you will read or hear on TV, I’m not sure anyone else knows the answers to these questions either. But one way to think about this is through history. Every competitive nomination process ends with a winner, at least one person who can claim to be the runner-up and some bloc of the party that has lost. So here are some models for how the Biden-Sanders primary could be resolved. These are ordered from the least to most favorable for Sanders:

Sanders and the left get basically nothing

Parallel: The 2000 Democratic primary between then-Vice President Al Gore (winner) and former Sen. Bill Bradley.

Bradley didn’t win a single caucus or primary and earned just 21 percent of the popular vote, so he was obviously in a weaker position than Sanders is now. That said, many Democrats view Trump as an existential crisis and now America has a crisis (the novel coronavirus) that could last until November or beyond. With those concerns, Sanders may have less room to get much from Biden because the growing pressure to leave the race and back Biden may at some point become too strong for him to continue.

So Sanders could get nothing, according to Mark Schmitt, who was a top adviser on Bradley’s 2000 campaign. “Not ‘Godfather II’ nothing, but nothing wrapped in a lovely bow of recognition and respect,” Schmitt said.

Sam Rosenfeld, an expert on party politics who teaches at Colgate University, said, “Biden’s victory came so quickly and with so little in the way of extended trench warfare that it’s true that he likely feels less need to assuage Sanders substantively than HRC [Hillary Clinton] did four years ago.”

In this scenario, Biden would pick a running mate, like Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is similarly resistant to more left-wing ideas. Biden would basically refuse to adopt any of Sanders’s policies and might block their insertion into the Democratic Party’s official platform at the party’s convention, which is currently scheduled for July 13 to16 in Milwaukee.

Changes to the party platform

Parallel: The 2016 Democratic primary between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (winner) and Sanders; the 1976 Republican primary between then-President Gerald Ford (winner) and former California Gov. Ronald Reagan.

In 2016, Clinton and her allies allowed Sanders-backed provisions, including the abolition of the death penalty and a $15 minimum wage, into the party platform. A generation earlier, Ford and his camp used the platform to placate supporters of the more conservative Reagan.

The Democrats put some of Sanders’s less controversial ideas into the platform four years ago. In the 2020 process, he has pushed four far-reaching ideas in particular: a wealth tax, Medicare for All, the mass forgiveness of all student debt and free college for all Americans. The party platform in theory speaks for all Democratic candidates, even ones in swing districts. Those Democrats want to appeal to more moderate voters and are wary of Republicans linking them with socialism (and Sanders). So is there a compromise on the wealth tax or the mass forgiveness of college debt that satisfies Sanders’s allies and, say, more moderate House Democrats? That’s not easy to see. How far will Democrats go, with a GOP eager to cast the entire party as socialists?

Formal policy and/or appointment promises

Parallel: The 2016 Republican primary between Trump (winner) and Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

In May 2016, as some establishment Republicans were still thinking of ways to prevent Trump from winning the nomination, Trump released a list of people he would consider for Supreme Court seats. Neither Neil Gorsuch nor Brett Kavanaugh1 were on the initial list, but it was full of conservative legal figures. That list served as essentially a promise to the party’s establishment and conservative wings that Trump would appoint conservative judges to the bench, a key priority of the party. (He has followed through in spades.)

Biden has already promised to pick a woman as his running mate and a black woman as a Supreme Court justice — both attempts to placate other important constituencies in the party (black voters and women). And Biden recently announced that he supported tuition-free public college for Americans in households with incomes of $125,000 or less, moving toward Sanders’s position.

Will he go further? In theory, Biden could promise to appoint some prominent liberals to his administration (Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sanders himself or some of their allies, for example). He could promise not to appoint people that liberal activists strongly dislike, such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or basically anyone affiliated with Facebook or Wall Street.

In terms of policy, could Biden, in a general election, commit to some kind of tax on the wealthy that is akin to a wealth tax? (The wealth tax is fairly popular with Americans overall.)

Daniel Schlozman, a political scientist at John Hopkins University who focuses on political parties, argued that the left will demand a major federal government response to the coronavirus pandemic if Biden is elected — so the disputes between the party’s left and center-left wings might look much different than they did during the Democratic primary.

“The big left asks of Biden will be on the scale and permanence of government interventions more than on any of the issues in the primary,” Schlozman said.

“Biden is very old and his instincts really do just stem from a different and much more cautious era for [Democratic] domestic policymaking,” Rosenfeld said. “That’s going to matter. That said, it’s important to note that the establishment has itself moved significantly since 2008 … The center of gravity on policy questions has shifted left.”

A leftist vice-presidential nominee

Parallel: The 1996 Republican primary between then-Sen. Bob Dole (winner) and conservative activist Pat Buchanan and businessman Steve Forbes; the 2012 Republican primary between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (winner) and former Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; the 2016 Republican primary.

Some in the GOP’s more conservative wing doubted that Dole, Romney and Trump were sufficiently right wing in each of their respective primaries. So all three chose running mates — former Rep. Jack Kemp for Dole, then-Rep. Paul Ryan for Romney, then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence for Trump — deeply trusted by more conservative Republicans.

This route would be complicated for Biden. In theory, the former vice president could excite the younger and more liberal parts of the Democratic base by picking a running mate who is not Sanders but shares many of Sanders’s positions. But few people close to, or as liberal as, Sanders are governors, senators or otherwise serve in positions that might make them natural candidates for the vice presidency. The most obvious figures, Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Warren, would require Democrats to remove a sitting senator and hope that the party can win a special election to keep that seat.

Let’s focus on Warren for a moment. She presents some obvious advantages for Biden in terms of her policy knowledge and high favorability ratings among Democrats. At the same time, Biden’s campaign messaging has been about electability. Would he choose a left-leaning senator from the Northeast like Warren over a more centrist senator from the Midwest like Klobuchar? Also, can a 77-year-old candidate pick a 70-year-old running mate? Can a Democratic Party that is nearly 40 percent Asian, black or Hispanic run an all-white ticket? Also, it’s not even clear that Sanders’s supporters would be super excited about Warren as the vice-presidential nominee.

Sanders is the vice-president nominee

Parallels: The 1960 Democratic primary between then-Sen. John F. Kennedy (winner) and then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson; the 1980 Republican primary between Reagan (winner) and former CIA Director George H.W. Bush; the 2004 Democratic primary between then-Sen. John Kerry (winner) and then-Sen. John Edwards.

The history of the second-place candidate becoming the vice-presidential nominee illustrates one of the challenges for Sanders — he’s not really viable for arguably the biggest prize a runner-up can reasonably expect. Being second on the ticket is potentially incredibly valuable — Johnson and Bush not only served as vice president but ultimately won the presidency themselves (Johnson obviously in very unusual circumstances). But it’s really hard to imagine Biden choosing Sanders, an even older white man (Sanders is 78), as his running mate.

I don’t think it’s worth trying to predict which of these precedents the Biden-Sanders race will follow — I would expect something more than nothing and less than the vice presidency. But this process is worth watching closely, because it won’t happen all at once. Sanders’s exit from the race, the Democratic convention and the time between Biden’s election (if he wins) and the start of his presidency are all potentially points of negotiation between Biden and Sanders, and the center-left and left wings of the Democratic Party. It will take some time to assess what concessions Sanders and the people who support him come away with.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Perry Bacon Jr.

19 notes · View notes

nomadreignrv · 5 years

Text

Cranes Mill Park, ACoE, Canyon Lake, TX

The notice on my reservation made clear the campground’s 3 PM check-in time is strictly enforced. Therefore, we spent the day killing time by traveling through towns we might not typically have had a chance to see. Johnson City provided an RV parking space at their Lyndon B. Johnson boyhood home national park. And first we made lunch in the camper and then spent a leisurely two hours walking the grounds of this amazing historical treasure. Johnson’s paternal grandparents settled the land there and their story is so interesting. The old homestead of his grandparents remain in great shape, along with outbuildings, and Johnson’s boyhood home is available to tour. This stop was a surprise and is one of the highlights of this summer’s adventure, and if it weren’t for knowing ahead the strict check-in rules of Cranes Mill Park we most likely would not have stopped in Johnson City.

Cranes Mill Park itself was okay, nothing great or negative about it. And only thirty RV hookups are available, but that does not deter the occasional immature man who acts like one of the slacker roles Matthew McConaughy once played. This Dazed and Confused man drove around the lakeside bend and abruptly pulled straight into his campsite so his front door faced us. He had a small vintage trailer, which was cool, but every accomplishment of his set-up produced a swift one-clap of the hands by this strange man. He had a tall bistro-type umbrella he set up, with a table he attached to the side of his trailer, and two plastic Adirondack chairs. After every task accomplished he made a quick clap, and it was fascinating to watch a person so weird and enamored of himself. Shirtless, and playing something resembling a mix between rap and hip-hop, he also had a miniature motorcycle he kept in the bed of his truck that he could lift out by hand and take a spin around the park from time to time. Luckily for us he left the next morning.

We chose this park because of its proximity to Austin and San Antonio, as well as popular HIll Country towns such as Fredericksburg, Blanco, Luckenbach, and Wimberley, all of which we visited. The scenery was astounding, especially the drive between Luckenback to Wimberley and Wimberley to Canyon Lake. The weather sort of messed with us, but we hadn’t had a lot of rain to deal with on this trip so it was manageable. Wimberley was a nice surprise as well with its art-village appeal and Cypress Springs Preserve.

The restrooms were rustic and a combination of old and new. The shower stalls were large and provided plenty of hot water.

AT&T service was a satisfactory two bars. Our geezer price averaged $15 per night, which was a bit steeper than our usual fee and not indicative of any additional amenities than other ACoE parks we have stayed in, and basically over-priced in our opinion. Yes, there were enough safe roads in which to ride our bicycles, but with generally no trees it wasn’t so much fun in the direct sun. No nature trails in the park itself to hike, but day trips can provide anything a camper like us might need for a satisfactory experience. This park is truly a boater’s paradise, and not a good choice for those of us who prefer a bit of shade, wooded topography, and a bike ride through the countryside.

Much to our dismay we did arrive to our check-in about ten minutes early. However, we parked outside the gate and I approached the gate window on foot. I presented myself as humble, and apologized for being early. The camp hosts were friendly and forgiving, and also expressed their pleasure that we had obviously gone to some trouble in order to follow their rules. Happily, check-in was quick and easy.

#full-time RV #aging gracefully #RV Travel #Travelogue #travel trailer #over 60 nomads #over 60 rv travel #trailer camping #camping #rv camping #luckenbach #fredericksburg #wimberley #blanco #texas

6 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 6 years

Link

I think psychologically there’s a lot of, shall we say, neurosis. Again, going back to this trauma of the Reagan victory, the Gingrich victory, the Bush victories—it’s people who built their political identities around a neurotic response to trauma. It’s, We gotta build a protective shell around ourselves because, if we show our egos, our egos will be destroyed, to put it in psychoanalytic terms.

To have this young person who hasn’t experienced this trauma . . and one of the things that’s fascinating about this—I’ll call it an often-used word—authenticity that she has is that you see her, in very interesting ways, going back to modes of rhetoric and modes of political communication that you associate with lots of pre-Reagan figures. Although I’ll also say figures like Reagan. It’s like Harry Truman.

Interviewer: What are examples of that?

I don’t know if she sits around and reads political history or looks at old political videos. But I see, on the “60 Minutes” interview, Anderson Cooper throws a question to her that for just about any traditional, old-generation Democrat is a stumper—Oh, the other side says you’re radical. And she had this ready-made answer in the hopper, which was to deploy these very powerful symbols from the American civic religion, and I’m going to quote: “Abraham Lincoln made the radical decision to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt made the radical decision to embark on establishing programs like social security. . . . If that’s what radical means, call me a radical.”

Now, immediately, when I heard her say that, I heard a very famous quote from J.F.K., who was asked if he was a liberal in the same kind of accusatory tone, and he said, “If by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a liberal, then I’m proud to say that I’m a liberal.”

I see her Reagan-like brilliance when she comes up with a phrase, like I heard her do in an interview on the shutdown, which she immediately took to a much higher level. She said the people at the border trying to get in “are acting more American than any person who seeks to keep them out will ever be.” I mean, she mentions that the kids who died in custody—she mentioned that it was Christmastime, which was just so Reagan, to use this resonant emotional symbol. She mentions people coming to the country just with the shirt on their back. She says that the people trying to keep them out are “anti-American.” This is the American civil religion. This is playing the game in a way that a pre-traumatized generation of Democrats was able to play the game.

Interviewer: I think people see her as in touch with this new generation but, in a way, it seems like you’re saying that she recalls a New Deal or New Frontier Democrat.

Well, there’s a real back-to-the-future thing going on here, right? In a lot of ways, the Democratic Party is a complicated, complex coalition, and always has been, with lots of elements, both reactionary and progressive, in it. But, in a lot of ways, she’s returning the Democratic Party to the roots—this idea that the Democratic Party is always going to be fighting for you....

Interviewer: I was going to ask you about the rise of the right post-Goldwater and the rise of the left now, and whether you see similarities, but you excitedly e-mailed me before this conversation that I had to ask you about a comparison between A.O.C. and Newt Gingrich in 1979.

Ultimately, Newt Gingrich was about wrecking and destroying and not building, so obviously there’s profound foundational differences. In 1978, when Gingrich won his congressional seat after his third time trying, Congressman Thomas Mann had this off-the-record briefing session in which they explained to new members how the House worked. Mann tells this story that this young congressman was basically talking back to them and lecturing them about how Congress should work. And he explained to them this plan he had, all the way back in January of 1979, of how the Republicans could become the majority party and take back the House. And no one was saying that in 1979. People were talking about this statistic that only twenty-one per cent of people identified themselves as Republicans. And, all the way through 1979, you see Newt Gingrich showing up in stories as a spokesman for the Republican Party, as the voice that people in the media are seeking out.

And, to go back to another Republican example, in 1966, when Richard Nixon was starting his comeback that obviously culminated in him winning the Presidency, in 1968, his entire strategy, Pat Buchanan explains, was built around getting mentioned in the same sentence as Lyndon Johnson. Getting Lyndon Johnson to notice him, to mention him, to criticize him. So, in the same sense, Newt Gingrich is suddenly finding himself being quoted more in the newspaper than Bob Michel, the House Republican leader, because he has sort of the audacity to talk about his party as agenda-setting.

Interviewer: The giant difference—and this goes back to what we were talking about before—is that A.O.C. is coming in with a Democratic wave.

Right, and that gets back to the trauma, right? The Democratic Party doesn’t even know how to take yes for an answer. They can’t even accept the idea that they are a majority party. There’s this great line, “He who seems most kingly is the king.” Unless you act like a leader people aren’t going to treat you like a leader.

Take Tlaib using a swear word. Truman got in trouble for saying “If you vote for Nixon, you ought to go to hell.” And that was a brassy sort of rhetoric people had come to expect from Democrats. Not this pearl-clutching response that, every time someone uses strong language, they have to apologize for it.

#whole thing is great

36 notes · View notes

dansnaturepictures · 5 years

Photo

8 of my favourite of my August 2019 pictures

1. Painted Lady butterfly, Magdalen Hill

2. One of my favourite butterflies the Chalkhill Blue at Old Winchester Hill in the South Downs

3. A dramatic Hatchet Pond seen from the New Forest tour green route

4. My first Migrant Hawker of the year at Lyndon, Rutland Water

5. Great White Egret at Rutland Water during the Bird Fair

6. View over the lagoon the above was on at Rutland Water

7. View from Arne

8. View from Farlington Marshes

It was another brilliant month for me in which I enjoyed a lot of time off, all of these pictures were taken either during my week off or the bank holiday weekend. I am obviously off now too to start September so that began on Saturday at the end of the month. I really enjoyed the August time off some of my most memorable ever days I think. But I took a lot of pictures on weekends and even weekday evenings I was proud of too. Photography wise this month it carried on perhaps my best ever run of landscapes both for quantity and quality and I think they deserved to have half the line up in this post one of my most difficult ever to do having to choose from hundreds of pictures so many top ones missed out I must say.

Wildlife wise really dragonflies and damselflies dominated this summer month. Thanks much to lots of really sunny and hot weather. I started the month on 11 species seen this year, seemingly a long way off last year’s highest ever total of 16 for me. But after a brilliant afternoon for them at Thursely Common at the start of the month I saw five year ticks and one life tick and all of a sudden I was level with the 2018 total. I then saw the Golden-ringed Dragonfly one of my favourites and two days later at Lyndon, Rutland Water for the Bird Fair I had another of my greatest ever dragonfly afternoons with so many seen including two year ticks and like for butterflies 2019 is now my highest ever damselfly and dragonfly year list.

Butterfly wise there was a natural slowing down of the season then a pick up in certain species as it got hotter towards the end but I did manage to see both Clouded Yellow and Silver-spotted Skipper the two targets I had left to see to mean I’ve seen 45 of the 46 butterflies I’ve seen in my life this year which I am so happy to be on. Bird wise it picked up after a quiet July, the Bird Fair as always was my August focal point and I got three year ticks there of six birds seen for the first time this year this month the usual Osprey a star across the month as I saw them at three different places, three of the other were targets so great to see them and another two pleasant surprises to make my year list my fourth highest ever and still sit as the second highest amount of birds I had seen on these dates behind 2018 my highest ever year list. Thanks for all your amazing support again this month it has been an honour to share this whole memorable and very productive summer for me with you all!

1 note · View note

strechanadi · 6 years

Text

Swan Lake - no longer a fairy tale

Right, so... Nobody asked me to, but something so marginal cannot stop me, clearly, so I went and translated the longest, the trickiest, the most profound review I have ever written. (And that includes POB Giselle, Swan Lake and Onegin! OK. Maybe not Onegin. But since I’ve done this one I can almost make myself believe I could give translating Onegin a go as well.) (She said and then promptly kill herself before she could made another clearly, completely and utterly deranged decision.)

Half of the things don’t make sense, I’m sure. And I can only hope they made sense in the original. (Which they probably didn’t, let’s be real, but since when this matters to me anyway?) (God, I literally cannot stop babbling, somebody strangle me or something. Or at least take the keyboard from my grabby and apparently very high fingers, that decided to simply vomit words after words for no real reason and with no brain to mouth/fingers filter whatsoever!)

It’s in times like this I truly wish to be able to write in an actual English language. Or for my mother language to be a world language, not some beautiful, hot mess, but a mess nonetheless, from the middle of nowhere. A mess I despite of everything love dearly and even live in this illusion of me being really pretty good in using (or more like playing with) it.

What is also clear - I, for a reason not known to humans, love to write absurdly, ridiculously long sentences. Be it just up to me, I’d write a whole review in one obscure linguistic construction I call a perfectly normal sentence. I was told however, that English doesn’t really do or like such things, so I tried to shorten them. Or some of them. Was really unbelievably succesfull doing so...

No reason to prolong this now, I guess?

So just, please be patient. Or benevolent. Or try to laugh in private at least! Look, I tried and I know it’s actually rather pathetic to be so spectacularly bad in English grammar, that I supposedly learnt from the age of 5 (but then spent more than 15 years actively hating the whole language, which... doesn’t make sense, I admit, but maybe explain some things), but... I mean, it would be better than google translate, if anything else. It HAS TO be!

As always - I appologize for anything and everything I did to the poor English language. It doesn’t deserve such a poor treatment.

Were there anybody who would feel personally attacked by my sheer ignorance of the basics of language of Shakespeare, Byron or Shelley and would want to make this thing better, let me know! (Even though I am afraid there are so many mistakes, your eyes will be bleeding around the end of 2nd paragraph...)

Last one - I have no idea how in/definite articles work!

(Good thing I don’t write fiction of any sort, ANs would be longer than the actual thing.)

Swan Lake, no longer a fairy tale

Whenever the two words – Swan Lake – were mentioned, everybody had some universally shared idea of the final picture. Nothing has drastically changed with John Neumeier (1976, Illusionen – wie Schwanensee), who mixed the original fairy story with events from prince Ludwig II of Bavaria’s life, nor with Mats Ek (1987), whose prince was torn between imaginary princess Odette and real life Odile, nor with Jean-Christophe Maillot (2011, Le Lac) and new relations between his main characters, not even with Alexander Ekman (2014, A Swan Lake), who came back in time and took a look at the first premiere of said ballet in 1877 and tried to make a rather poetic story about what from certain point was started to be called a fiasco. As if the later Petipa/Ivanov version needs any more boost…

The unshakable certitude was irretrievably broken in 1995 by Matthew Bourne. His Swan Lake was new, daring, bold, with unexpected twists and one could not left theatre feeling indifferent after seeing it. Part of the ballet world turned its back to such profanity of beloved classic. The other part fell for its captivating charm, and since in 2018 Bourne’s Swan Lake came back to his New Adventure’s repertoire for umpteenth time, after hundreds of successful shows, many tours across the globe, adorned with every possible theatre and dance awards, it seems clear who were right then, 24 years ago.

The most common characteristic of Bourne’s Swan Lake is „the male one“. Prince is in the centre of attention, black swan Odile is changed into unknown Stranger, and most obviously – all the swans became purely men’s business. Which opens completely new perspective for male dancers and saying that this ballet has a major influence to whole generations of artists is hardly an overstatement.

Bourne follows the original structure and basic frame of Swan Lake. There are still four acts, act one follows the Prince, his character, the environment he’s living in, relations he has, act two is for the swans, act three still represents the ball, and in act four, where traditionally the Prince is coming back to the lake, here the swans appear in prince’s room. Many times even the formal structure is intact – the prince’s solo at the end of act one, pas de quatre of both little and big swans, or Bourne’s take on character dances in act three. Even the entrée of swans in second act follows the same space structure of the Ivanov’s original /aka swans are coming one after the other and crossing the stage from left to right (dancers‘ perspective)/.

Oedipal Complex, repressed sexuality, low self-esteem

Bourne’s Prince, his personality, is more than ever influenced by his upbringing, by the estrangement of aristocratic background, his world constantly controlled, constricted by rules and rituals, with no spaces for affection, understanding, empathy, every emotion being replaced by duty. Bond between son and mother the Queen (ice cold, distant Katrina Lyndon for whom one cannot feel an ounce of sympathy, or more emotional, but still dismissive Nicole Cabera) is minute, almost non-existent, which has such a strong impact on the introverted, socially inept, insecure Prince, who is on top of all that haunted by strange dreams about swans. The feeling of lacking something gets even worse when he clearly sees his mother is more than capable of showing emotions, particularly towards another young men.

During yet another military parade or boat christening or exhibition opening, the heir to the throne is met with a bit silly, ill-mannered and completely unsuitable girl for his royal life (incomparable Carrie Willis, whose interpretation makes her character pretty sweet with candid, open-hearted warmth), who shortly after became his girlfriend and went with the family to the opera house to watch a ballet performance. Staging theatre scenes within the actual production /we call it theatre on theatre, which probably doesn’t make sense in any other language then ours, sorry/ is always very rewarding. Bourne is on top of that master of choreographic punchline and this scene (to pas de trois from Act I music) combines all clichés from romantic sylphs, awaken Floras, forest beasts to well-built male heroes one could think of and is a joy to watch for its grotesqueness as well as for the subtle details in gestures, ballet quirky manner or choreographic pattern for those, who know where to look for them.

The prince is trying to find his freedom in a night club, but to no avail. He’s met there unexpectedly with his frolicking girlfriend, then he got himself into a fight with one of her suitors (or maybe rather clients) and at the end his soul is beaten for good, when he has to watch the royal secretary paying some money to the one girl, whose affections he believed were genuine. (And it kind of doesn’t matter they most probably truly were.)

The only logical solution for the prince is a suicide. But before he’s able to throw himself into waters of a small park lake, majestic Swan appears and everything is changed at once. Traditional swans‘ corps de ballet danced by women is often associated with delicate elegance, crystalline beauty, dreamy atmosphere and aesthetics of homogeneously moving bodies. Swan is becoming a pure ideal almost as if from ancient Greece. Bourne’s swans are first and foremost animals, he’s not denying their grace, but is showing their slight awkwardness and ridiculousness in some movements at the same time. His swans are wild, independent, fetterless. Looking sinister when lining up to attack the prince, their physical, natural power strengthened by additional slapping arms, stamping feet, hissing and dangerously sharp, audible breathing. The Swan alone is very wary of the prince, uncompromisingly harsh, defensive, with sharp edges of aggressiveness that serves as self-defence of this imposing, powerful creature from anybody who would think of causing any harm. The almost imperceptible gestures calling the prince towards him are even more meaningful then, the moment when he nuzzles prince’s chest indescribably intimate.

Next evening there’s a ball at the palace. And even though it may seem the main reason of it is prince’s engagement thanks to all the ladies present, it’s the queen in her bright crimson dress amongst all black gowns who is in the spotlight. While her son doesn’t even know, what he should be doing with all said ladies. Break from routine comes with mysterious Stranger, whose raw, animalistic charisma draws every female’s attention to him, which he welcomes with great satisfaction. At the same time it also affects, quite unintentionally, the utterly unprepared prince, because Stranger’s arrogant dominance has something from Swan’s animalistic fierce. /Dear English language, you have many words. More than my mother language. But you have exactly nothing that would or could match prchlivost. Or at least I am unable to find it./ As Odile in original libretto, the Stranger dances his way through character dances (the Neapolitan one stands out with its light-hearted fun it makes of cliché Italian relationships) and finds his dancing peak in duet with the queen (music of so called Black Swan Pas de Deux). It is when prince’s psyche breaks and he, in his imagination, is thrown in arms of unknown to be faced with intimacy, sensuality, sexual tension and even the most basic physical contact, everything so strong even person of sound mind would probably find it difficult to cope. Therefore, when the Stranger kisses the queen, prince is there with gun in his hands and complete madness in his eyes. In chaotic situation gunshot is heard (although not by prince’s pistol), prince’s girlfriend falls dead and terrified young man is drawn away.

The tragedy is inevitable. To padded cell, where the prince is held, come doctor with the queen followed by group of nurses with queen’s face, whose hairstyle and white uniform may resemble the demonic nurse Ratched from the Miloš Forman’s film Flew over the cuckoo’s nest. After certain medical procedure (just shy from lobotomy) the prince is taken to his room, where the miserable, wounded Swan emerges from his bed. Shortly after he is followed by irritated flock of other swans, that throw themselves unbridled on the young man and then even on their supposed leader, doing so with brutality growing with every Swan’s desperate attempt to save his prince. The Swan dies at the end after their fatal, almost fanatical attack. And with him die prince’s illusions, dreams, hopes and then he himself. So when the Queen comes in the morning, all she finds is her son’s dead body, the sight of the Swan embracing his prince behind the bed the only, yet bittersweet comfort for the audience.

As many other versions of this famous ballet, this too strengthens psychological aspect of the story and deepens characters‘ personalities. Here, more than ever, the contours of main characters are pretty blurry. The prince and the Swan are blending into one, they are reflected in the other, full of opposites they are complementing each other, one would say they are like two sides of the same coin. /Ha!/ Bourne on top of that let his characters to blend with different original ones. Where in traditional Swan Lakes it’s Odette weeping at the beginning of the last scene, here it’s the Prince, who is going through mental breakdown in striking resemblance to Giselle’s mad scene. The role of Rothbart, the sorcerer, is played by the royal secretary as well as prince’s own mother, who at the same time plays a part of original Siegfried during the act 3 ball, when being seduced by Stranger, who is Odile. What may seem as confusing chaos at first sight, makes perfect sense in the end and strengthens the unquestionably dark tones of Bourne’s choreographic vision.

Artistic approaches or One man’s meat is another man’s poison…

As it always is with story ballets, individual artistic interpretation is something that has the power to change the final image of said piece. In case of Bourne’s Swan Lake and its current stars, the outcome may be completely different with each cast.

Where Liam Mower was bored, annoyed, slightly defiant teenage Prince, Dominic North’s hero was more tired, depressed young man with no illusions, very well aware of all his flaws and inability to fulfil all expectations of his social role, while James Lovell, who seemed most out of touch with reality, emphasized prince’s childishly pure, honest naivety. If the suicide attempt of Mower’s prince was more than anything a dramatic gesture, North was simply resigned to its inevitability, and Lovell threw himself into the waters with absolute, desperate abandon, his mind not able to see any other solution. Each and every prince is then influenced by his Swan and Stranger (and every Swan and Stranger by his prince).

Matthew Ball, the newest principal of the Royal Ballet, can rely on his first-class technique as well as on his unquestionable elegant stage presence. His pliable body felt the music to its very last molecule, every movement full of regal charm and classical beauty, which in a way brought Ball closer to traditional, delicately soft, feminine portrayal of Odette. His Swan was untouchable in his impeccable perfection, icily confident, aware of every gesture he made, of every prince’s fascinated glance. Max Westwell, former soloist of English National Ballet, concentrated more on the raw temperament, natural animal distrust, physical power and ferocity combined with enigmatic magnificence. Dynamics of his movements escalated at all times, was full of unexpected turns and transitions from strong, energetic endings, to exhalation captured in casual, seemingly ordinary movement of hanging wrist.

As the Stranger Ball looked like smug dandy enjoying himself and all the attention, all too well aware of his own youth and beauty, that make everybody fall for him. Personally though I couldn’t help thinking he wasn’t as in charge as it might look at the first sight. He was mocking his prince, showing off ostentatiously. Weswell on the other hand was the embodiment of pure, uncompromising charisma. Interactions between him and Mower’s prince, who was impressed by Stranger’s unconventional, rough manners at first, was quickly becoming a tense fight for power, the prince trying to prove himself worthy of Stranger’s attention, to prove he’s his equal. With Lovell’s prince the seducing, open flirting, blatant sexuality was much more evident, which combined with this prince’s ingenuous innocence made the final picture unpleasantly sinister.

Regardless of different casts, ending of the ballet became a real emotional roller-coaster. With Matthew Ball and Dominic North equal in their complete despair when being sure of the inevitable death of their partner. Ball’s total resignation the more palpable, the more he was stubbornly, despite his injuries trying to stay or at least look unaffected on the outside. Change of Westwell’s Swan, in act 2 so independent and powerful, was shocking. Now he was utterly, hopelessly, painfully broken. He was defending both his princes against furious swans with rabid determination, with no self-preservation whatsoever, with perfect, devoted abandon. Bond between him and James Lovell’s prince was then strengthened by certain feel of responsibility, by tenderness that felt almost motherly. He was not only trying to protect, but to sooth, to give some comfort to his prince as well with physical contact, with touches stronger, more frequent, more expressive, more meaningful. That was why prince’s positively hysterical, agonizing grief hurt almost physically then.

Bourne managed something extraordinary. His Swan Lake with costumes by Lez Brotherson is as iconic, as legendary as the original ballet. His vision as strong as let’s say Ek’s Giselle. What’s more, Bourne’s ballet doesn’t age, it hasn’t lost any of its impact – thanks to slight costume, dramaturgic and choreographic changes, that only strengthen its drive. Prince’s hinted homosexuality won‘t shock anyone anymore as well as men swans won’t provoke such controversy, true. But thanks to these examples it is evident, that Bourne’s ballet is so much more than just a gay version of one famous story…

For everybody who actually reach the end of this madness - congratulations. And I am sorry.

#ballet #review #swan lake #matthew bourne's swan lake #selfpromo

14 notes · View notes

hillaryisaboss · 7 years

Photo

Trump will give his first State of the Union address. It will have one major theme: “Stock Market! Stock Market! Stock Market!” Donald is a compelling con-artist (charlatan) and is going to attempt to use Obama’s economy as his #1 selling point for re-election. Obviously, we shouldn’t judge the economy by how well rich people do. Sadly, it’s no surprise that a man born with a silver-spoon in his mouth (given millions by his Father to start his 6-times bankrupt career of fraud) thinks the Stock Market is the only number that matters. We must never forget that Barack Obama saved our economy from collapse. Obama inherited a Republican mess. Trump inherited a country well on its way to recovery. Unfortunately, with Trump’s billionaire first tax-plan, future economic gains will only go to those at the top. This is trickle-down “Reaganomics” on steroids. And as we all know from history, this “top-down” approach eventually led to a massive recession (and will probably do so again). Thankfully, Democratic President Bill Clinton turned a Republican recession and deficit into a booming economy and surplus. By providing tax-credits to poor families working 40-hour weeks, raising minimum wage up 20%, creating 22 million new jobs, and investing in programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, our economy boomed from a “middle-out” approach. Everyone did well during the 1990s — the “Clinton Economy.” When low-income Americans have more money in their pockets, they are able to spend more in the economy. It’s a win-win for everyone, as evidenced by the 1990s when wages and living expenses were more proportional. Poor children had health insurance, and regular wages were up 20%. Incomes rose at all income levels and the 40-hour work week tax credit for low-income families was an example of looking at numbers other than the Stock Market. So never forget that this is Obama’s economy. Obama saved us after George Bush. Trump is benefiting from Obama’s economy. The “top-down” approach of trickle-down economics leads to gains for the wealthy and no one else. That is exactly what the Trump tax-plan does. Eventually, however, trickle-down economics leads to huge deficits and wage stagnation. It is not a question of “if” but “when” Trump’s “top-down” economy will implode. Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton are the only two Presidents that have reduced the federal deficit in 40+ years. Clinton left us a surplus that Bush instantly destroyed. Then, Obama had to dig us out of Bush’s ditch. Never forget history or the fact that the economy does better (for everyone) under a Democrat. The Stock Market is not the only number that matters (though that did well during the 1990s, too). Now that Trump is President, it’s time for him to put up or shut up. Donald thought running businesses on fraud and bankruptcy was good experience for running a nation. He said how much more “effective” he would be than Obama and Hillary — the greatest “dealmaker.” Well, now he is President. He is in an entirely different league. He is now being compared to what past Presidents have done. And if his numbers are anything to go by, Trump is a highly ineffective leader. Job growth has slowed (even if only slightly) and Donald has passed fewer bill’s than other modern Presidents:

Clinton: 208 Bush: 102 Obama: 121 Trump: 96

Hillary was right (as usual). Trump is totally unfit and unqualified. We were rightly warned by the immensely overqualified woman. If only more of us had listened to HER. What our country needs right now is a great compromiser. Someone like Bill Clinton who would go into a meeting with people who hated him, only to have them leave the meeting saying, “Ya know… I think I kind of like that guy from Arkansas!” Bill Clinton was the real “dealmaker.” 208 first-year bills passed. Obama placed a distant second with 121 bills. Trump only passed 96 — less than half of what Bill Clinton passed. Most of what progressives hate about Bill Clinton is that he caved on certain issues to make progress (we had 6-years of a GOP dominated Congress). To make progress for the American people, Bill Clinton never viewed “compromise” as a dirty word (which is why the 1990s was a mixed but by far a net-positive result for the American people). Hyper-partisanship on both the right and the left leads to zero progress. Sacrificing political purity for progress is not an admirable quality in a leader, who only has a limited amount of time to make a difference, sometimes even facing a hostile Congress led by the opposition party. How effective would Bernie be as President if he always stuck to his purity standards? Given Hillary’s well-known effectiveness when in office, her progressive platform (that she worked on with Bernie) would have already begun making real differences for low-income Americans. Trump’s plans have only helped billionaires like himself — the Stock Market. Donald is a propaganda artist fraud. Blue collar Americans have been manipulated by prejudice and scapegoating (the “Deplorables” — Hillary was right, again!) Strategically, it was brilliant for Hillary to appear at the Grammys. She made waves less than 48 hours before Trump’s very first State of the Union address. We are reminded of the woman who should be President according to the will of the people — the popular vote — the “People’s President” by 3 million votes. Trump wasn’t a good candidate. He won because of James Comey’s unprecedented last minute interference, Russian meddling (Putin was yet another man that feared Hillary), and the Electoral College. Outside forces won the Electoral College for Trump. He is an illegitimate President. So never forget when watching the State of the Union that the majority of Americans don’t support Trump. He lost the popular vote by 3 million. The people wanted Hillary to be giving the 2018 State of the Union. Trump is an ineffective leader. At this point in his Presidency, he has the least amount of bills passed when compared to other modern American Presidents. You can’t run the U.S. government like a shady business deal. You can’t default to Daddy’s money and bankruptcy. Hopefully, more Americans will begin to see Trump for the con-man propaganda artist that he is. Trump is only for wealthy people like himself. He has never been for the average American. Don’t buy into the snake-oil-salesman when he says that the Stock Market is the only number that matters. A number that was created because of Barack Obama saving us after Bush. The economy always does better under a Democrat — especially for the lower and middle-class. If only we could have had another “Clinton Economy” — growing with a “middle-out” approach. Bottom line: Trump — you lost by 3 million votes. We didn’t want you. You suck as President. You are ineffective and corrupt. You committed treason to “win.” So I hope it was worth it. Because hopefully now —as President— you will finally face accountability for the first-time in your life. You just may finally be punished for being a lifelong crook. Never able to win a fair fight. Even the Presidency. Hope Don Jr. doesn’t end up behind bars because you had to win the Electoral College at all costs. Committing treason isn’t winning. And money-laundering is un-American. Happy 1st year in office!

“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.“ ~President Lyndon B. Johnson

Never Normalize Trump.

#hillary clinton #bill clinton #state of the union #bernie sanders #donald trump

1K notes · View notes

bestweb20sitelist · 3 years

Text

Chicago’s Strange Problem

New Post has been published on https://uspost.xyz/news/chicagos-strange-problem/

Chicago’s Strange Problem

Chicago is far away from rising oceans and melting glaciers. It does not sit in the path of hurricanes, nor is it vulnerable to the rising number of forest fires in the American West.

“In the search for a big-city refuge from climate change, Chicago looks like an excellent option,” the author Dan Egan writes in The Times. “At least, it does on a map.”

But Chicago has a problem, one that’s almost certainly caused by the forces that climate change has released. A balance has long existed between the city’s two great bodies of water, Lake Michigan and the Chicago River. And the changing climate is upending that balance on both ends, putting the city at risk of both surging and falling water levels.

It is a case study of the complex threats from a warming planet. Those threats are not simply the obvious ones — of heat, drought and melting ocean ice. Climate change can also cause counterintuitive changes in the opposite direction. Perhaps the clearest example in recent years has been the weakening of the Polar Vortex, which has unleashed blasts of cold air into the U.S.

‘Extremes on both ends’

Chicago is threatened by another mix of these complicated factors. On the one hand, climate change has led to a nationwide increase in heavy rainfall, because warmer air can hold more moisture than colder air. (A simple way to understand the difference: Your skin doesn’t get as dry in the summer as in the winter.)

In the Great Lakes region, the past five years have been the wettest half-decade on record. The extra rainfall has raised the level of Lake Michigan and the Chicago River, led to more frequent flooding, damaged homes in the city and begun to erase lakefront beaches.

On the other hand, the warming planet also serves to lower the lake’s and river’s water levels in a different way: Water evaporates more quickly in the heat.

The result, as one expert says, is an emerging tug of war between evaporation and precipitation. In the best case scenario, the two would roughly cancel out, and the lake and river would always remain near their historical levels. But that doesn’t seem to be happening. Instead, as John Allis of the Army Corps of Engineers told Dan Egan, “We can expect extremes on both ends.”

Flooding has become more common. At one 13-story apartment building on the South Side, there is no longer patio furniture on the terrace overlooking the lake. It has been replaced by sandbags, massive concrete blocks and other flood barriers.

And yet increased rates of evaporation — from hot weather — have also left Lake Michigan at risk of falling so low at times that it would no longer flow into the Chicago River. The river would flow into the lake. That would be a problem, given that the river carries away the city’s wastewater — and the lake is the source of the city’s drinking water. The flow between drinking water and wastewater should obviously go in only one direction.

It all makes for an alarming story about a great American city — and a case study in the growing, uncertain dangers that the world faces after years of doing little to confront the menace of climate change. Dan’s story is accompanied by beautiful photos of Chicago, taken by Lyndon French.

Related: Last week’s deadly heat wave in the Pacific Northwest “would have been virtually impossible without climate change,” researchers found.

THE LATEST NEWS

Haiti Assassination

Haitian officials said the police killed four people and arrested two others suspected in the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, but didn’t name them.

Moïse’s wife, Martine, was also shot. She is in critical condition, an ambassador said.

Moïse had shown signs of authoritarianism, refusing to leave office and trying to rewrite the Constitution. Thousands of Haitians had protested.

Claude Joseph, the interim prime minister, said he would run the country and placed Haiti under a form of martial law.

Haiti has struggled to recover from an earthquake in 2010. Armed gangs control parts of the capital, and poverty and hunger are on the rise.

The Virus

Politics

President Biden plans to direct federal regulators to crack down on noncompete clauses to bolster worker power.

Donald Trump sued Facebook, Twitter and Google to restore his accounts. His political operation immediately began fund-raising off it.

Dozens of states sued Google, claiming its mobile app store abuses its market power. It’s the fourth state or federal antitrust suit against Google since October.

Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter celebrated their 75th wedding anniversary yesterday. Here’s what they say.