#source: america’s next top model

[incorrectquotesmcu]

Fury: Who’s the most annoying one of the Avengers?

Natasha: Everyone’s equally annoying.

Fury: [raises an eyebrow]

Natasha: ... Tony.

[hawkinsincorrect]

Chrissy: I really just want to get away from everybody right now. The others are just...at this high volume, high energy all the time. I'm so tempted to just sit in here and be away from all the noise!

[Lucas and Max fighting in the background]

Chrissy: Alright, I'm gonna stay in here with the door locked for just a couple more minutes.

[incorrect-firefly-quotes]

They're talking about Patience.

[incorrectpowerrangersquotes]

I will always remember this. Shooting with an elephant. It reminds of an ancient dinosaur. Because they are in the dinosaur family.

Zack Taylor, Power Rangers (2017)

[incorrectlooneytunesquotes]

There's one perthson eliminated every sthingle time, and that one perthson should not be me, and if it is, I need to have a talk with the judges!

Daffy Duck

[liberalsarecool]

Here's Trump's next target — according to the tyrant's playbook | by Robert Reich

Trump is following Putin’s, Xi’s, and Orban’s playbook. First, take over military and intelligence operations by purging career officers and substituting ones personally loyal to you.

Next, subdue the courts by ignoring or threatening to ignore court rulings you disagree with.

Intimidate legislators by warning that if they don’t bend to your wishes, you’ll run loyalists against them. (Make sure they also worry about what your violent supporters could do to them and their families.)

Then focus on independent sources of information: the media and the universities. Sue media that publish critical stories and block their access to news conferences and interviews.

Then go after the universities.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Last week, Trump threatened in a social media post to punish any university that permits “illegal” protests. On Friday he cancelled hundreds of millions in grants and contracts with Columbia University.

This is an extension of Republican tactics before Trump’s second term. Prior to Trump appointing her ambassador to the United Nations, former Representative Elise Stefanik (Harvard class of 2006) browbeat presidents of elite universities over their responses to student protests against Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, leading to several presidents being fired.

Senator Josh Hawley (Stanford class of 2002 and Yale Law class of 2006) called the student demonstrations signs of “moral rot” at the universities.

But antisemitism was just a pretext.

JD Vance (Yale Law 2013) has termed university professors “the enemy” and suggested using Victor Orban’s method for ending “left-wing domination of universities.”

I think his way has to be the model for us: not to eliminate universities, but to give them a choice between survival or taking a much less biased approach to teaching. [The government should be] aggressively reforming institutions … in a way to where they’re much more open to conservative ideas.”

Trump is also targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs on university campuses.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

But of all Trump’s and Republicans’ moves against higher education, the most destructive is the cancelation of research grants and contracts. The destruction is hardly confined to Columbia and other suspected left-wing bastions.

Research universities depend on funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

Trump reportedly aims to slash the budget of the National Science Foundation by up to two-thirds. And he’s instructed the National Institutes of Health to no longer honor negotiated rates for “indirect costs” on grants that it administers — money that universities use for laboratory space and research equipment.

In defiance of court orders, Trump has largely maintained a freeze on NIH funding.

As a result, many of America’s great research universities have stopped hiring and are cutting Ph.D. programs — in some cases rescinding offers to accepted students.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trump’s moves are consistent with the tyrant’s playbook, but they’re also jeopardizing America’s national security and competitiveness.

Trump speaks of putting America First, but his attack on the nation’s great research universities is ensuring that the U.S. comes in second — to China.

Although America has long been the global leader in scientific output, China is now surging ahead. Even before Trump’s cuts in research funding, China was projected to match U.S. research spending within five years.

China has already surpassed the U.S. as the top producer of highly cited papers and international patent applications. It now awards more science and engineering Ph.D.s than the U.S.

Tyrants close universities. Fascists burn books. Trump is destroying America’s most important asset — its innovative mind.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

[muppet-facts]

Muppet Fact #1370

In 2005, a mock reality show called America's Next Muppet was ordered by ABC. Described as a parody of America's Next Top Model, the show would have featured the Muppets trying to find the next new member to add to their troupe. The show was never picked up.

Source:

James, Greg. ""America's Next Muppet" mini-series in development." Muppet Central, September 5, 2005. https://muppetcentral.com/news/2005/090505.shtml.

[misfitwashere]

MAR 10

Friends,

Trump is following Putin’s, Xi’s, and Orban’s playbook. First, take over military and intelligence operations by purging career officers and substituting ones personally loyal to you.

Next, subdue the courts by ignoring or threatening to ignore court rulings you disagree with. 

Intimidate legislators by warning that if they don’t bend to your wishes, you’ll run loyalists against them. (Make sure they also worry about what your violent supporters could do to them and their families.)

Then focus on independent sources of information: the media and the universities. Sue media that publish critical stories and block their access to news conferences and interviews. 

Then go after the universities. 

Last week, Trump threatened in a social media post to punish any university that permits “illegal” protests. On Friday he cancelled hundreds of millions in grants and contracts with Columbia University. 

This is an extension of Republican tactics before Trump’s second term. Prior to Trump appointing her ambassador to the United Nations, former Representative Elise Stefanik (Harvard class of 2006) browbeat presidents of elite universities over their responses to student protests against Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, leading to several presidents being fired. 

Senator Josh Hawley (Stanford class of 2002 and Yale Law class of 2006) called the student demonstrations signs of “moral rot” at the universities. 

But antisemitism was just a pretext. 

JD Vance (Yale Law 2013) has termed university professors “the enemy” and suggested using Victor Orban’s method for ending “left-wing domination of universities.”

I think his way has to be the model for us: not to eliminate universities, but to give them a choice between survival or taking a much less biased approach to teaching. [The government should be] aggressively reforming institutions … in a way to where they’re much more open to conservative ideas.”

Trump is also targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs on university campuses. 

But of all Trump’s and Republicans’ moves against higher education, the most destructive is the cancelation of research grants and contracts. The destruction is hardly confined to Columbia and other suspected left-wing bastions. 

Research universities depend on funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. 

Trump reportedly aims to slash the budget of the National Science Foundation by up to two-thirds. And he’s instructed the National Institutes of Health to no longer honor negotiated rates for “indirect costs” on grants that it administers — money that universities use for laboratory space and research equipment.

In defiance of court orders, Trump has largely maintained a freeze on NIH funding.

As a result, many of America’s great research universities have stopped hiring and are cutting Ph.D. programs — in some cases rescinding offers to accepted students. 

Trump’s moves are consistent with the tyrant’s playbook, but they’re also jeopardizing America’s national security and competitiveness.

Trump speaks of putting America First, but his attack on the nation’s great research universities is ensuring that the U.S. comes in second — to China. 

Although America has long been the global leader in scientific output, China is now surging ahead. Even before Trump’s cuts in research funding, China was projected to match U.S. research spending within five years. 

China has already surpassed the U.S. as the top producer of highly cited papers and international patent applications. It now awards more science and engineering Ph.D.s than the U.S.

Tyrants close universities. Fascists burn books. Trump is destroying America’s most important asset — its innovative mind.

[fans4wga]

drew gooden has a pretty good video abt tha writers strike , " The Future of TV is Bleak " . it doesnt go super in depth but i encourage ppl to watch it , and also to show it to ppl who dont support writers

Thank you for sending this in! Mod Ani here. While this video is a decent primer (link here if anyone wants to watch), Drew unfortunately perpetuates some common misconceptions, so here’s some more sourced info if you want to read more.

I’m not calling Drew a liar at all—in fact I’m really glad Youtubers are calling attention to the strike and supporting the WGA publicly. But he said he remembers the strike himself, and to be fair, he was at maximum 14 years old during the strike. His memory might be faulty or he might have misinterpreted sources or found flawed sources in the first place. Anyway, in the spirit of fact-checking…

Did the 2007 WGA strike tank shows?

At the 0:44 mark and later around 1:40, Drew claims the 2007 strike tanked a lot of shows. While a very common misconception, this is mostly untrue! Many of the shows that got canceled/"got worse" were already on a downwards trend before the strike. “Heroes” got bad reviews before the strike; meanwhile, “Lost” and “Pushing Daisies” both got renewed despite the strike, so you can’t really blame the strike for its changes or cancellation. See this Twitter thread for a comprehensive debunking of shows people think "got worse" during the 2007 strike, written by someone who covered it (writer Emily St. James @/emilystjams.)

To sum up her thread: “The 2007-08 strike didn't uniformly impact shows. For the most part, the shows on good trajectories stayed on them and vice versa.”

This is an especially pernicious mistruth because it has the potential to turn audiences against the WGA strike; fans are being led to think that the strike will only mean bad news for their shows. But the opposite is true: shows will in fact get better if writers have fair wages and aren’t overworked.

Later in the same Twitter thread linked above, Emily St. James says: “By far the most deleterious effect on young shows at that time was that a bunch of shows that might have gotten time to build more of an audience suddenly had to deal with long hiatuses. Many were canceled. Most never re-found their viewers.”

Yes, that’s what happened with fan-favorite Pushing Daisies (RIP). But this is already happening with no need for a strike intervention with Lockwood & Co., HBO’s canceled Batgirl, First Kill, Willow, Warrior Nun, The Bastard Son and the Devil Himself, 1899, and more. Popular shows are getting canceled after 1-2 seasons, for no good reason—or getting wiped from the streaming service entirely. The worst has already happened for many shows.

…Drew’s absolutely right about Quantum of Solace, though. They were basically working with a rough draft script for the film, which, of course, bad idea.

Did the 2007 WGA strike cause the reality TV boom?

At the 0:58 mark, Drew claims that the 2007 strike led to the reality TV boom and “altered the landscape of television.” While it’s true to an extent that studios filled their programming with reality TV during both the 2007 and 2023 strikes, the reality TV boom definitively predates the 2007 strike.

Again, this is a particularly pernicious mistruth because it could potentially turn people against the WGA and blame them for a trend they dislike. In truth, the reality TV boom that shifted the landscape started in the early 2000s with the enormous success of such shows as Survivor (2000), America’s Next Top Model (2003), The Apprentice (2004), The Biggest Loser (2004), Dancing with the Stars (2005), and more all predating the 2007 strike. This is all years before the strike was even a glimmer in a writer’s eye.

Lots of people have made jokes about the 2007 strike causing Donald Trump’s presidency because The Apprentice was popular during the strike. I tend to think this is a pretty silly correlation—who’s to say he wouldn’t have gotten a gig like that despite the strike?

What is the WGA fighting for now?

At the 4:00 mark Drew claims that the WGA is fighting “to be paid residuals for streaming shows rather than just a day rate.” I see what he’s getting at, but as phrased, this is a nonsensical statement. He means “flat rate”—a pre-determined rate the studios currently pay to writers regardless of how many people watch it. The writers—and I’m quoting this directly from the WGA demands posted by WGA member Adam Conover—want to “establish a viewership-based residual—in addition to existing fixed residual—to reward programs with greater viewership.” (Link to the WGA demands here.) This would make streaming residuals more like network residuals, but it would also require streamers to have transparency about how many people are watching, which they’ve been very nervous about publishing.

Drew also confuses the term “production companies” with the term “studios”, though this is a minor nitpick. The WGA is fighting the studios. A production company like ILM visual effects works with a studio like Paramount (studios are also called “motion picture companies”, because we’re old-timey) to make a movie. Some studios ARE production companies (Studio Ghibli does their own production), but not all production companies are studios. Okay, film school over, next point. (Link to read more about studios vs. production companies vs. publishers)

At the 4:06 mark Drew claims writers are fighting to keep AI out of the writers room entirely. This is just a slight misconception! The WGA is fighting to keep AI from replacing them, but in the current WGA demands, individual writers would still be able to use AI as a tool at their own discretion, but AI couldn’t be used as “literary material” and writers couldn’t be forced to rewrite an AI-generated script. Individual WGA members are not a monolith; some are hardline anti-AI, and some want to see if they can make AI work for them. (Mod Ani is on the anti-AI side of things, just to make my own bias here clear.)

The current WGA stance is, “How do you make sure this is a tool used by writers, like spellcheck and Wikipedia, and not a tool used to replace writers?” (John August, a WGA member and also part of the negotiating committee, wrote that and has some blog posts about it.) I think this part of Drew’s video is in line with a lot of popular anti-AI sentiment, and I do not personally disagree, but anyone talking about the WGA has got to put aside personal biases and report what the WGA is actually doing, not what we want the WGA to do. All in all, this is still a strong position for the WGA, considering the WGA is on the frontline of any business agreement about AI! The main struggle is to make sure it doesn’t replace human labor.

Drew also contradicts himself at 4:43 by saying the previous strike wasn’t about streaming services, when earlier in the same video he said correctly that the 2007 strike was all about gaining residuals for streaming services in the first place. So, uh, fact-checking himself?

Again a small nitpick, “There’s no financial upside for doing a good job” (5:45 mark) is also not quite true. The financial upside is getting a Season 2 renewal. Yes, increased transparency and viewership-based residuals would mean high-performing film/TV shows get paid more. But there’s definite financial upside to getting a renewal!

Production companies/studios shortening employees is absolutely not about “not having to put your name in the credits” (6:14). Everyone in the writers’ room gets their name in the credits. The issue, of course, is that studios are trying to have shorter writers’ rooms so they pay the writers for fewer weeks of work. WGA members not being credited isn’t a negotiating point at all, so not sure where this is coming from.

Miscellaneous things Drew is absolutely correct on and I will reiterate here

Drew’s absolutely correct on how scripts evolve during filming. That’s why writers are so necessary on set! Studios are cutting costs by getting rid of writers earlier in the production timeline, and a consequence of this is that writers aren’t getting the mentorship/training of being on-set for the show’s actual production. This is necessary training to become a producer/showrunner that writers nowadays simply are not getting.

He’s also absolutely right about how little money writers actually make in Hollywood, despite the films and shows they make producing so much more value for the studios. Residuals are lower than ever, writers’ rooms are shorter than ever, and many WGA members work a lot of side hustles to just be able to afford LA rent. So the discourse surrounding “rich spoiled writers” is just totally incorrect and maddening!

Drew is also absolutely correct about the entertainment industry simply being the first place AI is threatening jobs. Without legal challenges, AI will disrupt other industries soon, and the WGA is on the frontline of battling that.

Just for some clarification, around the 12:20 mark, Drew is talking about the common complaint about prequels/sequels/franchises/spin-offs. This is a real industry problem! Writers desperately want to write original stuff (remember the creator of Powerpuff Girls saying he pitched 16 originals to Netflix, with no luck, before doing a reboot?) It’s 100% the studios' fault; no writer wants this industry landscape.

Also at 13:40 mark, Drew makes a very good point that AI is only a small part of the strike, and it’s kind of been blown out of proportion because AI is trending in the news and popular in the discourse. Even the WGA probably wasn’t expecting this to get so much air-time. It’s still a part of the strike, of course, but keep in mind that pay and staffing are more major negotiating points at the moment.

Conclusion!

To sum up, Drew makes some good points, but muddles some too. I’d highly recommend going straight to WGA members instead of Youtuber middlemen… but in the meantime we’re here to fact-check. :)

[onenettvchannel]

#OneNETnewsInvestigates: Former American TV personality and veteran supermodel 'Tyra Banks' caught binging on McDonald's Cheeseburgers that shocks its unhealthy fast-food habit

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA -- Ex-television star and host of America's Next Top Model 'Tyra Lynne Banks', was recently caught red-handed for her fast-food binging habits that left Aussie netizens and fans in a state of shock and dismay. The veteran supermodel, who has been living in 'Sydney, Australia' for more than a year, was recently spotted at the Australian McDonald's drive-thru, which raised feminine eyebrows about her poor eating habits.

At the age of 51 today, she has maintained a low-key life, operating her new business venture in the ice cream company called "Smize & Dream". Having experienced the glamorous life, Tyra has moved to a relaxed life in Australia, socializing with locals as much as she can and enjoying simple things in general.

But it was her recent trip to a local McDonald's drive-thru in Sydney that caught everyone's attention online. Tyra was spotted in a white Honda Accord rental car, wearing casual wear, a black tank top and track pants with "Smize & Dream" written on them. Her blonde hair was tied back under a black headband without using their make-up. She was in the car park enjoying a classic cheeseburger for AUD5 (PHP184) deep in thought. Enjoying the best seller on the menu.

Photos of Tyra Banks, the ultimate beauty and health icon eating fast-food have sent the internet into a frenzy about unhealthy eating habits. Social media was on fire with backlash as fans were outraged, asking if Tyra's relaxed attitude and food choice were a sign of stress or emotionally dejected. Others came to her defense saying she has the right to eat whatever she wants without any judgment points.

Tyra's relocation to Australia was a drastic change from her previous life in the United States. She has embraced the Indigenous culture in good faith, frequently spotted foreign shopping retailers at now-defunct KMart, Target and currently common local supermarkets like 'Coles' and 'Woolworths'. Tyra has relished the easy-going Australian way of life, spending her days walking around the mall, going to the movies, and treating herself to soothing foot massages.

Despite the recent fast-food debacle, Tyra is still committed to her business world. Her ice cream business "Smize & Dream", is opening its very first store in Darling Harbour around mid-2025. Tyra has worked diligently in the background establishing her brand in Australia while making sure that she is getting enough time with her family and personal life.

The cheeseburger scandal may have caused a few raised eyebrows, but it also goes to prove a simple point: even supermodels are human and deserve the occasional indulgence. As Tyra Banks sets up shop in Australia, fans will be well aware of her in every move.

PHOTO COURTESY: Backgrid via VidaPress BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY: Tegna

SOURCE: *https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/740599/tyra-banks-reveals-shes-been-secretly-living-in-sydney-for-over-a-year-details/ *https://www.mamamia.com.au/tyra-banks-australia/ *https://www.boredpanda.com/tyra-banks-stuns-workers-at-mcdonalds-with-makeup-free-look/ *https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/13462316/tyra-banks-mcdonalds-sweats-son-sydney/ *https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14362041/Tyra-Banks-cheeseburger-McDonalds-car-park.html and *https://www.frugalfeeds.com.au/mcdonalds-menu-prices-australia/

-- OneNETnews Online Publication Team

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.7.1 But do classes actually exist?

So do classes actually exist, or are anarchists making them up? The fact that we even need to consider this question points to the pervasive propaganda efforts by the ruling class to suppress class consciousness, which will be discussed further on. First, however, let’s examine some statistics, taking the USA as an example. We have done so because the state has the reputation of being a land of opportunity and capitalism. Moreover, class is seldom talked about there (although its business class is very class conscious). Moreover, when countries have followed the US model of freer capitalism (for example, the UK), a similar explosion of inequality develops along side increased poverty rates and concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

There are two ways of looking into class, by income and by wealth. Of the two, the distribution of wealth is the most important to understanding the class structure as this represents your assets, what you own rather than what you earn in a year. Given that wealth is the source of income, this represents the impact and power of private property and the class system it represents. After all, while all employed workers have an income (i.e. a wage), their actual wealth usually amounts to their personal items and their house (if they are lucky). As such, their wealth generates little or no income, unlike the owners of resources like companies, land and patents. Unsurprisingly, wealth insulates its holders from personal economic crises, like unemployment and sickness, as well as gives its holders social and political power. It, and its perks, can also be passed down the generations. Equally unsurprisingly, the distribution of wealth is much more unequal than the distribution of income.

At the start of the 1990s, the share of total US income was as follows: one third went to the top 10% of the population, the next 30% gets another third and the bottom 60% gets the last third. Dividing the wealth into thirds, we find that the top 1% owns a third, the next 9% owns a third, and bottom 90% owns the rest. [David Schweickart, After Capitalism, p. 92] Over the 1990s, the inequalities in US society have continued to increase. In 1980, the richest fifth of Americans had incomes about ten times those of the poorest fifth. A decade later, they has twelve times. By 2001, they had incomes over fourteen times greater. [Doug Henwood, After the New Economy, p. 79] Looking at the figures for private family wealth, we find that in 1976 the wealthiest one percent of Americans owned 19% of it, the next 9% owned 30% and the bottom 90% of the population owned 51%. By 1995 the top 1% owned 40%, more than owned by the bottom 92% of the US population combined — the next 9% had 31% while the bottom 90% had only 29% of total (see Edward N. Wolff, Top Heavy: A Study of Increasing Inequality in America for details).

So in terms of wealth ownership, we see a system in which a very small minority own the means of life. In 1992 the richest 1% of households — about 2 million adults — owned 39% of the stock owned by individuals. The top 10%, owned over 81%. In other words, the bottom 90% of the population had a smaller share (23%) of investable capital of all kinds than the richest 1/2% (29%). Stock ownership was even more densely concentrated, with the richest 5% holding 95% of all shares. [Doug Henwood, Wall Street: Class racket] Three years later, “the richest 1% of households … owned 42% of the stock owned by individuals, and 56% of the bonds … the top 10% together owned nearly 90% of both.” Given that around 50% of all corporate stock is owned by households, this means that 1% of the population “owns a quarter of the productive capital and future profits of corporate America; the top 10% nearly half.” [Doug Henwood, Wall Street, pp. 66–7] Unsurprisingly, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than half of corporate profits ultimately accrue to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, while only about 8 percent go to the bottom 60 percent.

Henwood summarises the situation by noting that “the richest tenth of the population has a bit over three-quarters of all the wealth in this society, and the bottom half has almost none — but it has lots of debt.” Most middle-income people have most of their (limited) wealth in their homes and if we look at non-residential wealth we find a “very, very concentrated” situation. The “bottom half of the population claimed about 20% of all income in 2001 — but only 2% of non-residential wealth. The richest 5% of the population claimed about 23% of income, a bit more than the entire bottom half. But it owned almost two-thirds — 65% — of the wealth.” [After the New Economy, p. 122]

In terms of income, the period since 1970 has also been marked by increasing inequalities and concentration:

“According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez — confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office — between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent.” [Paul Krugman, “The Death of Horatio Alger”, The Nation, January 5, 2004]

Doug Henwood provides some more details on income [Op. Cit., p. 90]:

Changes in income, 1977–1999 real income growth 1977–99

Share of total income

1977

1999

Change

poorest 20%

-9%

5.7%

4.2%

-1.5%

second 20%

+1

11.5

9.7

-1.8

middle 20%

+8

16.4

14.7

-1.7

fourth 20%

+14

22.8

21.3

-1.5

top 20%

+43

44.2

50.4

+6.2

top 1%

+115

7.3

12.9

+5.6

By far the biggest gainers from the wealth concentration since the 1980s have been the super-rich. The closer you get to the top, the bigger the gains. In other words, it is not simply that the top 20 percent of families have had bigger percentage gains than the rest. Rather, the top 5 percent have done better than the next 15, the top 1 percent better than the next 4 per cent, and so on.

As such, if someone argues that while the share of national income going to the top 10 percent of earners has increased that it does not matter because anyone with an income over $81,000 is in that top 10 percent they are missing the point. The lower end of the top ten per cent were not the big winners over the last 30 years. Most of the gains in the share in that top ten percent went to the top 1 percent (who earn at least $230,000). Of these gains, 60 percent went to the top 0.1 percent (who earn more than $790,000). And of these gains, almost half went to the top 0.01 percent (a mere 13,000 people who had an income of at least $3.6 million and an average income of $17 million). [Paul Krugman, “For Richer”, New York Times, 20/10/02]

All this proves that classes do in fact exist, with wealth and power concentrating at the top of society, in the hands of the few.

To put this inequality of income into some perspective, the average full-time Wal-Mart employee was paid only about $17,000 a year in 2004. Benefits are few, with less than half the company’s workers covered by its health care plan. In the same year Wal-Mart’s chief executive, Scott Lee Jr., was paid $17.5 million. In other words, every two weeks he was paid about as much as his average employee would earn after a lifetime working for him.

Since the 1970s, most Americans have had only modest salary increases (if that). The average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation) went from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. That is a mere 10 percent increase over nearly 30 years. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.‘s went from $1.3 million — 39 times the pay of an average worker — to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers.

Yet even here, we are likely to miss the real picture. The average salary is misleading as this does not reflect the distribution of wealth. For example, in the UK in the early 1990s, two-thirds of workers earned the average wage or below and only a third above. To talk about the “average” income, therefore, is to disguise remarkable variation. In the US, adjusting for inflation, average family income — total income divided by the number of families — grew 28% between 1979 and 1997. The median family income — the income of a family in the middle (i.e. the income where half of families earn more and half less) grew by only 10%. The median is a better indicator of how typical American families are doing as the distribution of income is so top heavy in the USA (i.e. the average income is considerably higher than the median). It should also be noted that the incomes of the bottom fifth of families actually fell slightly. In other words, the benefits of economic growth over nearly two decades have not trickled down to ordinary families. Median family income has risen only about 0.5% per year. Even worse, “just about all of that increase was due to wives working longer hours, with little or no gain in real wages.” [Paul Krugman, “For Richer”, Op. Cit.]

So if America does have higher average or per capita income than other advanced countries, it is simply because the rich are richer. This means that a high average income level can be misleading if a large amount of national income is concentrated in relatively few hands. This means that large numbers of Americans are worse off economically than their counterparts in other advanced countries. Thus Europeans have, in general, shorter working weeks and longer holidays than Americans. They may have a lower average income than the United States but they do not have the same inequalities. This means that the median European family has a standard of living roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family — wages may even be higher.

As Doug Henwood notes, ”[i]nternational measures put the United States in a disgraceful light… The soundbite version of the LIS [Luxembourg Income Study] data is this: for a country th[at] rich, [it] ha[s] a lot of poor people.” Henwood looked at both relative and absolute measures of income and poverty using the cross-border comparisons of income distribution provided by the LIS and discovered that ”[f]or a country that thinks itself universally middle class [i.e. middle income], the United States has the second-smallest middle class of the nineteen countries for which good LIS data exists.” Only Russia, a country in near-total collapse was worse (40.9% of the population were middle income compared to 46.2% in the USA. Households were classed as poor if their incomes were under 50 percent of the national medium; near-poor, between 50 and 62.5 percent; middle, between 62.5 and 150 percent; and well-to-do, over 150 percent. The USA rates for poor (19.1%), near-poor (8.1%) and middle (46.2%) were worse than European countries like Germany (11.1%, 6.5% and 64%), France (13%, 7.2% and 60.4%) and Belgium (5.5%, 8.0% and 72.4%) as well as Canada (11.6%, 8.2% and 60%) and Australia (14.8%, 10% and 52.5%).

The reasons for this? Henwood states that the “reasons are clear — weak unions and a weak welfare state. The social-democratic states — the ones that interfere most with market incomes — have the largest [middles classes]. The US poverty rate is nearly twice the average of the other eighteen.” Needless to say, “middle class” as defined by income is a very blunt term (as Henwood states). It says nothing about property ownership or social power, for example, but income is often taken in the capitalist press as the defining aspect of “class” and so is useful to analyse in order to refute the claims that the free-market promotes general well-being (i.e. a larger “middle class”). That the most free-market nation has the worse poverty rates and the smallest “middle class” indicates well the anarchist claim that capitalism, left to its own devices, will benefit the strong (the ruling class) over the weak (the working class) via “free exchanges” on the “free” market (as we argue in section C.7, only during periods of full employment — and/or wide scale working class solidarity and militancy — does the balance of forces change in favour of working class people. Little wonder, then, that periods of full employment also see falling inequality — see James K. Galbraith’s Created Unequal for more details on the correlation of unemployment and inequality).

Of course, it could be objected that this relative measure of poverty and income ignores the fact that US incomes are among the highest in the world, meaning that the US poor may be pretty well off by foreign standards. Henwood refutes this claim, noting that “even on absolute measures, the US performance is embarrassing. LIS researcher Lane Kenworthy estimated poverty rates for fifteen countries using the US poverty line as the benchmark… Though the United States has the highest average income, it’s far from having the lowest poverty rate.” Only Italy, Britain and Australia had higher levels of absolute poverty (and Australia exceeded the US value by 0.2%, 11.9% compared to 11.7%). Thus, in both absolute and relative terms, the USA compares badly with European countries. [Doug Henwood, “Booming, Borrowing, and Consuming: The US Economy in 1999”, pp.120–33, Monthly Review, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 129–31]

In summary, therefore, taking the USA as being the most capitalist nation in the developed world, we discover a class system in which a very small minority own the bulk of the means of life and get most of the income. Compared to other Western countries, the class inequalities are greater and the society is more polarised. Moreover, over the last 20–30 years those inequalities have increased spectacularly. The ruling elite have become richer and wealth has flooded upwards rather than trickled down.

The cause of the increase in wealth and income polarisation is not hard to find. It is due to the increased economic and political power of the capitalist class and the weakened position of working class people. As anarchists have long argued, any “free contract” between the powerful and the powerless will benefit the former far more than the latter. This means that if the working class’s economic and social power is weakened then we will be in a bad position to retain a given share of the wealth we produce but is owned by our bosses and accumulates in the hands of the few.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, there has been an increase in the share of total income going to capital (i.e., interest, dividends, and rent) and a decrease in the amount going to labour (wages, salaries, and benefits). Moreover, an increasing part of the share to labour is accruing to high-level management (in electronics, for example, top executives used to paid themselves 42 times the average worker in 1991, a mere 5 years later it was 220 times as much).

Since the start of the 1980s, unemployment and globalisation has weakened the economic and social power of the working class. Due to the decline in the unions and general labour militancy, wages at the bottom have stagnated (real pay for most US workers is lower in 2005 than it was in 1973!). This, combined with “trickle-down��� economic policies of tax cuts for the wealthy, tax raises for the working classes, the maintaining of a “natural” law of unemployment (which weakens unions and workers power) and cutbacks in social programs, has seriously eroded living standards for all but the upper strata — a process that is clearly leading toward social breakdown, with effects that will be discussed later (see section D.9).

Little wonder Proudhon argued that the law of supply and demand was a “deceitful law … suitable only for assuring the victory of the strong over the weak, of those who own property over those who own nothing.” [quoted by Alan Ritter, The Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 121]

[beardedmrbean]

Hey you know that color hat with a fan on it boys wear like in cartoons? Does anyone knows where that trope came from and why? Is it from the 50’s or something?

The name “propeller-head” is used nowadays for a technophile, sometimes disparagingly, for an enthusiast of technology and (according to the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary) especially of computers. In images, the modern geek may be satirized with a cap having one or two toy propellers mounted to spin horizontally above the top of the hat.

So, was this flamboyant hat originated in the flower-powered hippie era of the 1960s? Well, no - decades earlier, in fact. It is generally accepted to have been first improvised in Cadillac, Michigan, using a beanie (a visorless cap) in 1947, made by Ray Faraday Nelson. It quickly became an icon for science fiction fans to identify themselves, and a national fad.

In a published interview1, Nelson described how “In the summer of 1947, I was holding a regional science fiction convention in my front room and it culminated with myself and some Michigan fans dressing up in some improvised costumes to take joke photographs, simulating the covers of science fiction magazines. The headgear which I designed for the space hero was the first propeller beanie. It was made out of pieces of plastic, bit of coat-hanger wire, some beads, a propeller from a model airplane, and staples to hold it together.” Shortly thereafter, it was worn by George Young of Detroit at a world convention, where it was an enormous hit.

Nelson thereafter frequently drew cartoons for fanzines portraying science fiction fans wearing propeller beanies. In 1948, Artist Guy Pène du Bois (1884-1958) painted a “Boy with a propeller beanie” hovering some feet up in the air above what looks like perhaps a sandy beach.

Shortly, it was further popularized by a television program, Time For Beany (video). The show was hugely popular with children, and even adults. The title character was a propeller beanie-wearing puppet named Beany whose sock-puppet friend called Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpent was voiced and controlled by an unknown Stan Freeberg!) Starting in 1949, it ran five times a week for five years. It was hugely popular with children, and even some adults (including Albert Einstein, according to a Stan Freeberg reminiscence) (video). That idea of Bruce Sedley on KTLA in Los Angeles, California, was produced by Disney animator, Bob Clampett, who soon followed up with a syndicated, animated cartoon series of Beany and Cecil, in which Beany's propeller enabled him to fly (video).

Nelson went on to become a professional writer of novels and short stories. He made no profit from the fad of sales of beanie hats that followed from his idea.

In the summer of 1947, while still in high school, science fiction fanzine artist Ray Nelson, per his claim, invented the propeller beanie as part of a "space man" costume on a lark with some friends. He later drew it in his cartoons as emblematic shorthand for science fiction fandom. The hat became a fad, seen in media such as "Time for Beanie", and was sold widely by many manufacturers over the next decade.[11]

The propeller beanie increased in popular use through comics and eventually made its way onto the character of Beany Boy of Beany and Cecil. Today, computer savvy and other technically proficient people are sometimes pejoratively called propellerheads because of the one-time popularity of the propeller beanie.

In 1996, student hackers placed a giant propeller beanie on the Great Dome at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The scaled-up propeller rotated as the wind drove it like a windmill.

Propeller beanie drew laughs from Belgian workmen as they unpacked display shipments to show “How America Lives” for the U.S. exhibit at the Brussels Fair, as shown in Life magazine (31 Mar 1958). (source)

______________________________ there's a good amount of this I didn't know, the article at the top goes on further and further too if you're interested I just hit the opening point of who's claimed to have originated it and why, which the wiki article has too.

[blurban-form]

New post: Push-button Toilets

In “Bingo”, we see Mum is having to fix the toilet. The lid of the rear/tank part is off and Mum is fiddling with the toilet’s innards. This is a flush toilet with a button on the top. This is a more recent design than the lever-on-the-front style, which is over 100 years old in terms of the technology.

Here’s another view of the same toilet from the “Easter” episode, clearly showing the button on the top.

I read online that the commercially-viable dual-flush (two-button) toilet is an Australian innovation, dating back to 1982, but also that the idea dates back to Japan in the 1960s. It was developed to save water during drought conditions while retaining the capability to operate with a regular (using more water) flush when needed.

In North America, in most places, like where I live, both the push-button and the older-style lever-flush are still widely available. In some jurisdictions there are restrictions on what kind can be used in new construction, mandating the lower-flow types to reduce water consumption.

Here’s two screenshots showing toilets available at my local Home Depot in Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

And an example of a one-button flush toilet from Bunnings’ website in Australia. (Bunnings is the Australian home improvement superstore that Hammerbarn in “Bluey” is based on.)

Looking at Bunnings’ website, it looks like push-button is the only style of flush toilet used in Australia but both one- and two-button models are available.

A dual flush toilet gives the user the option of flushing either a low amount of water using the small button (e.g. 0.8 - 1.1 gallons per flush (GPF)) or a greater amount of water using the large button (e.g. 1.3 - 1.6 gallons per flush). The lower amount of water is used when flushing liquid waste. A greater amount of water is necessary for flushing down solid waste.

Contrast this water usage with older toilets: Prior to 1994, toilets used more water than today's toilets: from 3.5 GPF to as much as 7 GPF.

In 2019, President Trump said Americans didn’t like low-flow toilets. He claimed that this new technology is forcing Americans to have to flush their toilets "10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once". That’s probably an overstatement.

It appears I could keep writing about toilets… It appears there’s a lot of variation in them around the world. For instance, it appears that many countries have less water in the toilet bowl than is common in North America. It is also the case that in some countries toilet paper doesn’t go down the toilet but instead into a bin.

It appears that push-button toilets aren’t strictly a Commonwealth thing, as they are used in non-Commonwealth countries, but it’s complicated. There are also other types of toilet besides push-button and lever!

But I’ll save that for the next post!

Links/sources

[fruit-snacker]

would LOVE to hear about your object show idea thingy

Omg! Putting this under a cut cuz this got long(sorry :3)

Okay! So it's basic premise is that its more based on irl reality competitions for its challenges (like an episode themed around survivor another based on America's next top model) my host is yarn who is a standard kinda host character but its also clear that she's very excited to be here (but also that she's very exhausted by it (shes always wanted to host a reality show but its more work than she expected)). she got to this point because she has a rare ability to near infinitely produce yarn (if you pull yarn out of her head she doesn't unravel like most yarn and string objects in this world (there is a reason for this but it will be the main mystery :3)). Long story short, the near infinite source of yarn was very attractive to textile mills, which allowed her to amass a good amount of wealth that she used to fund her reality show.

Theres also some plans for interviews with the eliminated contestants and in-universe behind the scenes videos (i actually currently have more staff members planned than i do contestants lol(though some might be turned into contestants because I can't imagine there would be much of a need for a costume designer in this universe))

The contestants i have are:

Blinky:

Shes one of these things

But probably a smooth version (these are those balls that start flashing when you smack them against the floor) she doesn't talk but that doesn't stop her from being expressive. she's pretty childish, and takes things more personally than they were probably meant. She gets very excited by the competition which can come off as being competitive but she moreso wants to have fun with it. I haven't decided if she's fully clumsy or if she is just a victim of situations but when she falls her light ball starts flashing for a little while (probably like a minute or so in universe)

Water bottle:

Hes one of those metal thermos style water bottles. He likes fashion and sticks stickers to himself in order to follow trends.

These are the ones with the most developed personalities but other contestant concepts im working through are: jelly (she's one of those candy fruit slices) and pine (they'd be a pinecone)

The staff characters in have so far are:

Pocket:

He's a pocket knife. He's a camera man who is very consistent and good at his job but is not good at teaching others to do his job. He has a pupil (that's his part of the bts plot) but i don't know who they are yet

Cup(also goes by glass):

She's a glass cup (think oj ii but without a particular preference towards one liquid or another). She's an editor (theres more editors but she's the one we'll see the most) she doesn't have too much of a preference for any liquid but she keeps coffee in her(she isn't actually affected by the caffeine but she keeps it so she has the right to complain about being tired without people telling her to try coffee) she's more tired than anything else and doesn't have a lot of time to be much else

Gaffer:

She's a roll of gaffer tape. She primarily works backstage making sure wires and such are taped down to prevent tripping as well as covering up brand names on objects for challenges and water bottles stickers. She's very good at keeping track of what needs to get done but in the way where she feels like what she does is easy and she stresses herself out trying to make herself "needed" (she feels like she could be replaced very easily so she tries not to say no to any new responsibilities even if it leads to her being severely overworked)

Measure:

Hes a fabric measuring tape. He's meant to be a costume designer (though i might re-work him to be a contestant since clothes aren't common enough in this world) he's kinda full of himself and considers himself "the best at fashion" even though no one knows who he is and he's a costume designer for a reality show. He is self aware enough to be really upset if you call him out on it though.

For the interviews they will take place a while (probably a few years) after the show ended and the contestants will have gone through a good amount of life since then(for example I think Blinky will have matured and have a family, and water bottle might go through a celebrity cycle leaving him kinda paranoid) the person conducting the interviews will be my objectsona which is a pack of fruit snacks named snack (lol just kinda wanted to put myself in there)

Obviously all of this is subject to change if I have better ideas or even to never come to fruition since I'm bad at doing things lol

it doesn't have a name yet cuz I'm bad at names, lol, but I'm sure I'll come up with something eventually

Thanks for letting me ramble:3

[incorrectlooneytunesquotes]

I don't know if they're called Japanese people if they are from Tokyo, or Tokyians?

Daffy Duck

[newstfionline]

Sunday, February 23, 2025

Frustrated by Trump’s threats, some Canadians canceling trips to the United States (AP) Making the trip from Vancouver to Seattle to watch baseball’s Toronto Blue Jays play the Mariners has been a tradition for Peter Mulholland and his wife, but not this year. Mulholland was already frustrated over U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of crippling tariffs on imported goods from Canada and talk about the country becoming the 51st state. The final straw came when Trump referred to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a dictator. Mulholland is one of a growing number of Canadian who are choosing not to vacation in the U.S. this year. McKenzie McMillan, a travel consultant with the Vancouver-based Travel Group, said, “We’ve seen a complete drop off in any new requests or new interest in U.S. travel. I’ve had no requests for travel to the United States for about two weeks. Talk of the 51st state seems to be where people are making a much more firm decision about not going to the U.S.” The U.S. Travel Association said Canada is the top source of international visitors to the U.S. In 2024 there were 20.4 million visits from Canada generating $20.5 billion in spending and supporting 140,000 American jobs.

Trump Plans to Use Military Sites Across the Country to Detain Undocumented Immigrants (NYT) The Trump administration is ramping up plans to detain undocumented immigrants at military sites across the United States, a significant expansion of efforts by the White House to use wartime resources to make good on the president’s promised mass deportations. President Trump’s team is developing a deportation hub at Fort Bliss, near El Paso, Texas, that could eventually hold up to 10,000 undocumented immigrants as they go through the process of being deported, according to three officials familiar with the plan. Fort Bliss would serve as a model as the administration aims to develop more detention facilities on military sites across the country—from Utah to the area near Niagara Falls—to hold potentially thousands more people and make up for a shortfall of space at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, the officials said.

Inflation expectations (Bloomberg) A week of sobering economic news for America ended with, well, more of the same. The long-term inflation expectations of US consumers rose to its highest level in almost three decades. Their reasons? Growing concern that President Donald Trump’s accumulating number of tariff threats against friend and foe alike will translate into higher prices. Consumers said they expect prices will climb at an annual rate of 3.5% over the next five to 10 years. The rate is the highest since 1995, based on data compiled by Bloomberg. And more than half of consumers in the survey expect the unemployment rate to rise over the next year, the highest since 2020. “The concern with higher inflation expectations is that it can be self-fulfilling,” said Elizabeth Renter, senior economist at NerdWallet. “What people and businesses expect to happen, often does.”

Camp helps kids impacted by Los Angeles area wildfires (CBS News) Project:Camp in Los Angeles may look like a typical kid’s camp, with everything from arts and crafts to jump rope, but there’s more at play. Every child at the camp has been impacted by the recent wildfires. Like 9-year-old Rose McCabe, whose Altadena school burned to the ground, leaving only the sign still standing. “There was a fire and our whole school burned down. And my friend Olivia’s school burned down. And my sister’s friend’s school burned down,” Rose said. She said it made her “sad,” adding, “I don’t really know what’s gonna happen. What is the new school we’re going to?” Project:Camp operates all over the country, materializing within days in communities hit by natural disasters. “Our entire program is trauma-informed, which means while these kids are running around, having a great time, there’s a latticework of trauma-informed care underneath it,” said Ozzie Barron, a co-founder and deputy director of the camp. “So the program is designed to help these kids process in ways natural to kids. They process through play. They process through talking to each other.”

Musk’s blitzkrieg is unnerving many of Trump’s senior advisers (Washington Post) Top treasury officials have complained about disruption. The secretary of state has pushed back on staff cuts. Inside the Education and Health and Human Services departments, political appointees have been informed—not consulted—about canceled grants and contracts, sometimes learning about decisions from the media. Elon Musk’s aggressive tactics to reshape the federal government have irritated and blindsided many senior officials in the Trump administration, including those tasked with running Cabinet departments being squeezed by his U.S. DOGE Service. DOGE’s blitzkrieg across the federal government has sparked deep concern among civil servants, who have been targeted for layoffs and required to implement policies they see as unwise, if not illegal. But Trump’s political appointees are quietly expressing unease with Musk as well. “Basically every Cabinet member is sick of him, but nobody feels like they’re in a position to do anything about it,” said one person who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations with several incoming secretaries or their staffs. “People are afraid to cross him even as he’s wreaking havoc on their agencies.”

Under Government Pressure, Apple Pulls Security Feature in Britain (NYT) Two years after Apple introduced an encrypted storage feature for iPhone users, the company is pulling those security protections in Britain rather than comply with a government request that it create a tool to give law enforcement organizations access to customers’ cloud data. Starting on Friday, iPhone users in Britain will begin seeing a message on their phones saying Apple can no longer offer its Advanced Data Protection feature. The capability allowed users to encrypt almost all of their iCloud data, making messages, notes, photos and iPhone backups indecipherable, even when the information was stored in cloud computing centers. Apple is removing the feature after the British government demanded the company create a back door that would allow intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials to retrieve iPhone user data from data centers around the world, according to two people familiar with the request, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the British government’s demand.

U.S. and Ukraine Appear to Move Closer to Deal for Minerals Amid Leaders’ Public Feud (NYT) The Trump administration appeared to be making progress on Friday toward a deal that would give the United States valuable mineral rights in Ukraine. The movement came after a week in which President Trump, initially rebuffed on an agreement, turned up the pressure by assailing Ukraine and suggesting he would side with Russia in seeking to end the war there. Mr. Trump boasted at the White House that he was nearing a deal that could bring up to $500 billion to the United States. “So we’re signing an agreement, hopefully in the next fairly short period of time,” he said. The signs of easing tensions only underscored how Mr. Trump has struck an overtly transactional and mercantilist stance toward resolving a conflict, started by Russia, that carries profound security implications for Europe and the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

Poland’s military might (The Week) “Centuries” after it was last one of the world’s great powers, Poland’s “winged hussars are back”, said The Economist. And not just back, said The Parliament, reporting on the country celebrating last year’s Armed Forces Day with a display that said “its military is better trained and equipped than at any other time in the country’s history”. Over the last few years, Poland has become one of the key military players in Nato, allocating 4.12% of its GDP to defence in 2024—twice the organisation’s target and more than the US. It aims to boost that to 4.7% this year. In addition, it has grown its armed forces from being the ninth-biggest in Nato in 2014 to third today, doubling the number of personnel and tripling its spending in real terms to $35 billion. Out of its European allies, only Britain, France and Germany spend more. Poland shares a border with both Belarus, a close Russian ally, and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, leaving it potentially vulnerable. A month after Moscow launched its attack, the Polish government passed the Homeland Defence Act expanding its armed forces.

China’s alarming sex imbalance (Economist) “Of course I want to get married,” says Fu, a lorry driver in Yiyang, a far-flung county in Jiangxi province. “But there are few women,” he sighs. Fu’s plight is not uncommon. By 2027 there will be 22.5m more men than women, by far the largest number of “surplus” young males ever recorded anywhere. This means one in six young Chinese men won’t be able to find a partner. This issue was brought about by the arrival in the 1980s of cheap ultrasound machines, which allowed parents across Asia to tell the sex of their unborn child. The widespread preference for sons opened the door to sex-selective abortions. The problem was made worse by China’s draconian one-child policy. Being given just one chance dramatically lowered couples’ chances of having a boy naturally, and further incentivised sex selection. Eventually, the numbers of young men and women could equalise. But that will come as little consolation for today’s rural bachelors.

Generation Hustle (Economist) Some generations come of age just as their countries rise economically. Think of America’s baby boomers, China’s millennials and perhaps India’s Generation Z. But there is another globally significant cohort that receives far less attention—Africa’s “generation hustle”. The sheer size of this group means that they will shape the world. Over 60% of people living in sub-Saharan Africa are younger than 25. By 2030 half of all new entrants to the “global labour force” will come from sub-Saharan Africa. By 2050 Africa will have more young people than anywhere else. As countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas age and shrink, Africa’s population will continue to grow and remain youthful. Understanding this generation is an urgent matter not just for Africans, but for everyone. They are likely to surprise you. Young Africans are better educated and, thanks to the internet and social media, more aware of the wider world than their parents were. They combine an individualistic, enterprising outlook with piety and a streak of social conservatism. Much of that is bound up in a turn to Pentecostalism and its prosperity gospel, which highlights prayer as a path to material success. Prosperity is what this generation lacks. They are frustrated with their shortage of opportunities. More than half of young Africans say that they want to leave their own countries and make their fortunes abroad. In rich countries, many young Africans are already making their mark. Their continent’s cinema and music are taking the world by storm. Restaurateurs have won Michelin stars in London. Entrepreneurs have enriched the startup scene in Europe and America. Done right, emigration will help host countries arrest demographic decline and fix labour shortages. Host societies will also benefit from young Africans’ enterprise, just as the diaspora will channel money, skills and ideas back to Africa.

Pope Francis is in critical condition after a long respiratory crisis (AP) Pope Francis was in critical condition Saturday after he suffered a prolonged asthmatic respiratory crisis while being treated for pneumonia and a complex lung infection, the Vatican said. The 88-year-old pope, who remains conscious, received “high flows” of oxygen to help him breathe. He also received blood transfusions after tests showed low counts of platelets, which are needed for clotting, the Vatican said in a late update. Doctors have said Francis' condition is touch-and-go, given his age, fragility and pre-existing lung disease.