#very scary to publish real attempts at analysis like this

[the-desolated-quill]

Watchmen - Movie blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. if you haven’t seen this movie yet, you may want to before reading this review)

A movie adaptation of Watchmen had been in development in some form or another since the graphic novel was first published back in 1987. Over the course of its two decade development cycle, being passed from filmmaker to filmmaker who each had their own vision of what a Watchmen movie should be, fans objected to the idea of a movie adaptation, describing Watchmen as ‘unfilmmable.’ Alan Moore himself condemned the effort to adapt his work, saying that Watchmen does things that can only be done in a comic book. But where there’s a will, there’s a way, and in 2009, Watchmen finally came to the big screen, directed by Zack Snyder.

I confess it took me a lot longer to write this review than I intended and that’s largely because I wasn’t sure how best to approach it. Snyder clearly has a lot of love and respect for the source material and tried his best to honour it as best he could. Snyder himself even said that he considers the film to be an advert for the book, hoping to get newcomers interested in the material. So how should I be looking at this film? As an adaptation or as an artistic tribute? More to the point, which of the three versions of the film should I be reviewing? The original theatrical cut, the director’s cut or the ultimate cut? Which best reflects Snyder’s artistic vision?

After much pondering, I decided to go with the director’s cut. The theatrical release was clearly done to make studio execs happy by keeping the runtime under three hours, but it comes at the cost of major plot points and character moments being chucked away. The ultimate cut however comes in at a whopping four hours and is arguably the most accurate to the source material as it also contains the animated Tales Of The Black Freighter scenes. However these scenes break the narrative flow of the film and were clearly not intended to be part of the final product, being inserted only to appease the fans. The director’s cut feels most like Snyder’s vision, clocking in at three and half hours and following the graphic novel fairly closely whilst leaving room for artistic licence.

Now as some of you may know, while I’m not exactly what you would call a fan of Zack Snyder’s work, I do have something of a begrudging respect for him due to his willingness to take creative risks and attempt to tell more complex, thought provoking narratives that don’t necessarily adhere to the blockbuster formula. Films like Watchmen and Batman Vs Superman prove to me that the man clearly has a lot of good ideas and a drive to really make an audience think about what they’re watching and question certain things about the characters. The problem is that he never seems to know how best to convey those ideas on screen. In my review of Batman Vs Superman, I likened him to a fire hose. Extremely powerful, but unless you’ve got someone holding onto the thing with both hands and pointing it in the right direction, it’s just going to go all over the place. I admire Snyder’s dedication and thought process, but I think the fact that his most successful film, Man Of Steel, also happens to be the one he had the least creative influence on speaks volumes. When he’s got someone to work with and bounce ideas off of, he can be a creative force to be reckoned with. Left to his own devices however, and his films tend to go off the rails very quickly.

Watchmen is very much Snyder’s passion project. You can tell a lot of care and effort went into this. The accuracy of the costumes, staging and set designs speak for themselves. However there is an underlying problem with Snyder trying to painstakingly recreate the graphic novel on film. While I don’t agree with the purists who say that Watchmen is ‘unfilmmable’, I do agree with Alan Moore’s statement that there are certain aspects of the graphic novel that can only work in a graphic novel. A key example of this is its structure. Watchmen has the luxury of telling its non-linear narrative over twelve issues in creative and unorthodox ways. A structure that’s incredibly hard to translate into any other medium. A twelve episode TV mini-series might come close, but a movie, even a three hour movie, is going to struggle due to the sheer density of the material and the unconventional structure. Whereas the structure of the graphic novel allowed Alan Moore to dedicate whole chapters to the origin stories of Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach and filling in the gaps of this alternate history, the structure of a movie doesn’t really allow for that. And yet Snyder tries really hard to follow the structure of the book even though it simply doesn’t work on film, which results in the movie coming to a screeching halt as the numerous flashbacks and origin stories disrupt the flow of the narrative, causing it to stop and start constantly at random intervals, like someone kangarooing in a rundown car.

Just as Watchmen the graphic novel played around with the common tropes and framing devices of comics, Watchmen the movie needed to play around with the common tropes and framing devices of comic book movies. To Snyder’s credit, there are moments where he does do that. The most notable being the first five minutes where we see the entire history of the world of Watchmen during the opening credits while ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’ is played in the background. This is legitimately good. It depicts the rise and fall of the superhero in a way only a movie can. I wish Snyder did more stuff like this rather than restricting himself to just recreating panels from the graphic novel.

Which is not to say I think the film is bad. On the contrary, I think it’s pretty damn good. There’s a lot of things to like about this movie. The biggest, shiniest gold star has to go to Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. While the movie itself was divisive at the time, Haley’s portrayal of Rorschach was universally praised as he did an excellent job bringing this extreme right wing bigot to life. He has become to Rorschach what Ryan Reynolds is to Deadpool or what Mark Hamill is to the Joker. He is the character (rather tragically. LOL). To the point where it’s actually scary how similar Haley looks to Walter Kovacs from the graphic novel. The resemblance is uncanny.

Another standout performance is Jeffery Dean Morgan as the Comedian. Just as depraved and unsavoury as the comic version, but Morgan is also able to inject some real charm and pathos into the character. You believe that Sally Jupiter would have consensual sex with him despite everything he did to her before. But his best scene I think was his scene with Moloch (played by Matt Frewer) where the Comedian expresses regret for all the terrible things he did. It’s a genuinely emotional and impactful scene and Morgan manages to wring some sympathy out of the audience even though the character doesn’t really deserve it. But that’s what makes Rorschach and the Comedian such great characters. Yes they’re both depraved individuals, but they’re also fully realised and three dimensional. They feel like real people, which is what makes their actions and morals all the more shocking.

Then there’s Doctor Manhattan, who in my opinion stands as a unique technical achievement in film. The number of departments that had to work together to bring him to life is staggering. Visual effects, a body double, lighting, sound, it’s a truly impressive collaborative effort, all tied together by Billy Crudup’s exceptional performance. He arguably had the hardest job out of the whole cast. How do you portray an all powerful, emotionless, quantum entity without him coming across as a robot? Crudup manages this by portraying Manhattan as being less emotionless and more emotionally numb, which makes his rare displays of emotion, such as his shock and anger during the TV interview, stand out all the more. It’s a great depiction that I don’t think is given the credit it so richly deserves.

Which leads into something else about the movie, which will no doubt be extremely controversial, but I’m going to say it anyway. I much prefer the ending in the film to the ending in the book.

Hear me out.

In my review of the final issue of Watchmen, I said I didn’t like the squid because of its utter randomness. The plot of the movie however works so much better both from a narrative and thematic perspective. Ozymandias framing Doctor Manhattan makes a hell of a lot more sense than the squid. For one thing, it doesn’t dump a massive amount of new info on us all at once. It’s merely an extension of previously known facts. We know Ozymandias framed Manhattan for giving people cancer to get him off world. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine the world could also buy that Manhattan would retaliate after being ostracised. We also see Adrian and Manhattan working together to create perpetual energy generators, which turn out to be bombs. It marries up perfectly with the history of Watchmen as well as providing an explanation for why there’s an intrinsic field generator in Adrian’s Antarctic base. It also provides a better explanation for why Manhattan leaves Earth at the end despite gaining a newfound respect for humanity. But what I love most of all is how it links to Watchmen’s central themes. 

Thanks to the existence of Doctor Manhattan, America has become the most powerful nation in the world to the point where its disrupted the global balance of power. This has led to the escalation of the Cold War with Russia as well as other countries like Vietnam being at the mercy of the United States. It also allowed Nixon to stay in office long after his two terms had expired. The reason the squid from the book is so unsatisfying as a conclusion is because you don’t buy that anyone would be willing to help America after the New York attack. In fact it would be more likely that Russia and other countries might take advantage of America’s vulnerability. Manhattan’s global attack however not only gives the whole world motivation to work together, it also puts America in a position where they have no choice but to ask for help because it was they that effectively created this mess in the first place. So seeing President Nixon pleading for a global alliance feels incredibly satisfying because we’re seeing a corrupt individual hoist by his own petard and trying to save his own skin, even if it comes at the cost of his power. America is now like a wounded animal, and while world peace is ultimately achieved, the US is now a shadow of its former self. It fits in so perfectly with the overall story of Watchmen, frankly I’m amazed Alan Moore didn’t come up with this himself.

It’s not perfect however. Since the whole genetic engineering stuff no longer exists, it makes the existence of Adrian’s pet lynx Bubastis rather perplexing. Also the whole tachyons screwing with Doctor Manhattan’s omniscience thing still doesn’t make a pixel of sense. But the biggest flaw is in Adrian Veidt’s characterisation. For one thing, Matthew Goode’s performance isn’t remotely subtle. He practically screams ‘bad guy’ the moment he appears on screen. He has none of the charm or charisma that the source material’s Ozymandias had. But it’s worse than that because Snyder seems to be going out of his way to uncomplicate and de-politicise the story and characters. There’s no mention of Adrian’s liberalism or his disdain for Nixon and right wing politics. The film never explores his obsession with displaying his own power and superiority over right wing superheroes like Rorschach and the Comedian. He’s just the generic bad guy. And I do mean bad guy. Whereas the graphic novel left everything up to the reader to decide who was morally in the right, the film takes a very firm stance on who the audience should be siding with. Don’t believe me? Just look at how Rorschach’s death is presented to us.

It’s very clear while watching the film that Zack Snyder is a big Rorschach fan. He gets the most screen time and there’s a lot of effort dedicated to his portrayal and depiction. And that’s fine. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. As I’ve mentioned before in previous blogs, Rorschach is my favourite character too. However it’s important not to lose sight of who the character is and what he’s supposed to represent, otherwise you run the risk of romanticising him, which is exactly what the film ends up doing. Rorschach’s death in the graphic novel wasn’t some heroic sacrifice. It was a realisation that he has no place in the world that Ozymandias has created, as well as revealing the hypocrisy of the character. In the extra material provided in The Abyss Gazes Also, we learn that, as a child, Walter supported President Truman’s use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and yet, in his adult life, he opposes Adrian’s plan. Why? What’s the difference? Well the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t American. They were Japanese. The enemy. In Rorschach’s mind, they deserved to die, whereas the people in New York didn’t. It signifies the flawed nature of Rorschach’s black and white view of the world as well as displaying the racist double standards of the character. Without the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Rorschach’s death becomes skewed. This is what ends up happening in the movie. Rorschach removes his mask and makes a bold declaration to Doctor Manhattan, the music swells as he is disintegrated, defiant to the last, and his best friend Nite Owl screams in anguish and despair.

In fact the film takes it one step further by having Nite Owl punch Adrian repeatedly in the face and accuse him of deforming humanity, which completely contradicts the point of Dan Dreiberg as a character. He’s no longer the pathetic centrist who requires a superhero identity to feel any sort of power or validation. He’s now the everyman representing the views of the audience, which just feels utterly wrong.

This links in with arguably the film’s biggest problem of all. The way it portrays superheroes in general. The use of slow motion, cinematography and fight choreography frames the superheroes and vigilantes of Watchmen as being powerful, impressive individuals, when really the exact opposite should be conveyed. The costumes give the characters a feeling of power, but that power is an illusion. Nite Owl is really an impotent failure. Rorschach is an angry bigot lashing out at the world. The Comedian is a depraved old man who has let his morals fall by the way side so he can indulge in his own perverse fantasies. They’re not people to be idealised. They’re to be at pitied at best and reviled at worst. So seeing them jump through windows and beating up several thugs single handed through various forms of martial arts ultimately confuses the message, as does the use of gratuitous gore and violence. Are we supposed to be shocked by these individuals or in awe? 

Costumes too have a similar problem. Nite Owl and Ozymandias’ costumes have been updated so they look more imposing, which kind of defeats the purpose of them. The point is they look silly to us, the outside observers, but they make the characters feel powerful. That juxtaposition is lost in the film. And then there’s the Silk Spectre. In the graphic novel, both Sally and Laurie represent the changing attitudes of women in comics and in society. Both Silk Spectres are sexually objectified, but whereas Sally accepts it as part of the reality of being a woman, Laurie resists it, seeing it as demeaning. The only reason she wore her revealing costume in A Brother To Dragons was because she knew that Dan found it sexually attractive and she wanted to indulge his power fantasy. None of this is touched upon in the film, other than one passing mention of the Silk Spectre porn magazine near the beginning of the film. There’s not even any mention of how impractical her costume is, like the graphic novel does. Yes the film changes her look drastically, but it’s still just as impractical and could have been used to make a point on how women are perceived in comic book films, but it never seems to hinder her in anyway. It’s never even brought up, which is ridiculous. Zack Snyder’s reinterpretation of Silk Spectre is clearly meant to inject some form of girl power into the proceedings, as she’s presented as being just as impressive and kick-ass as the others, when the whole point of her character was to expose the misogyny of the comics industry at the time and how they cater to the male gaze. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the graphic novel did it perfectly, but it did it a hell of a lot better than this.

Die hard fans have described the film over the years as shallow and ‘style over substance.’ I don’t think that’s entirely fair. It’s clear that Zack Snyder has a huge respect for the graphic novel and wanted to do it justice. Overall the film has a lot of good ideas and is generally well made. However, as much as Snyder seems to love Watchmen, it does seem like he only has a surface level understanding of it, hence why the attention and effort seems to be going into the visuals and the faithfulness to Alan Moore’s attention to detail rather than the Watchmen’s story and themes. While the film at times makes some good points about power, corruption and morality, it doesn’t go nearly as far as the source material does and seems to shy away from really getting into the meat of any particular topic. Part of that I suspect is to do with marketability, not wanting to alienate casual viewers, but I think a lot of it is to do with it simply being in the wrong medium. I personally don’t think you can really do a story as complex and intricate as Watchmen’s justice in a Hollywood film. In my opinion, this really should have been a TV mini-series or something.

So on the whole, while I appreciate Snyder’s attempt at bringing the story of Watchmen to life and can see that he has the best intentions in mind, I don’t think this film holds a candle to the original source material. 

[fragiledewdrop]

High school Newspaper Shenanigans

I don't have a lot of good memories about high school, but today I found a dusty copy of what passed for a "newspaper" in my school and it brought me back to when I was 16.

The girl who had been running the school newspaper for as long as I could remember was graduating that year, so she had to prepare for the final exam and university and she did not have time to edit anymore. My friends B., C., and I, in what was probably a fit of madness, decided to try our hand at it. And so I found myself co-editor of a newspaper. I had no idea what I was getting myself into, but it would be one hell of an adventure.

The paper was called "Up!", after the Disney movie, for...some very creative reason I cannot remember. The first thing we did was change the title to "Up patriots to arms!"

One of the first things we had to cover was a very important, popular, yearly student strike,which would have been fairly easy, if not for the freaking tension between the two student organizations in our city. The biggest one, the "Rete" , was basically left wing - although many people didn't know or care about their affiliations- and they constantly butted heads with the student block, a group of self proclaimed neofascists who dressed in all black, used smoke bombs during protests and were always surrounded by the police.

We decided it would be a grand idea to interview the respective leaders to get both opinions on the matter.

The president of the "Rete" came to meet us after school. The highlight of the interview was when he said that his was a "non political organization", at which point we looked at each other in disbelief and asked him:"Really?"

The answer was "Yeas, although of course many of us are registered in different parties along the whole spectrum, such as..." and he started listing all left wing parties in the country, from communists to centrists, because apparently that's what he meant by "variety". Anyway.

It was time to interview the leader of the Block. He told us to wait in a square until someone would come get us.

B. and I were getting very nervous.

A guy with a shaved head and a black leather jacket came towards us. "You the journalists? Follow me"

We followed him to the lair. I mean headquarters.

(By the way, we realized we knew this guy. He was a lamb. I had no clue what he was doing there.)

The headquarters' walls were legit covered in swastikas and pictures of Mussolini. Yikes.

The leader was also very nice. Didn't stop me wanting to throttle him when he said that poor Mussolini was just misunderstood.

I had to ACTUALLY stop B. from doing something rash. No picking fights with the fascist dudes in he fascists's lair, please.

They straight up told us, I shit you not, that they were a brotherhood and, as a very effective bonding experience, they put on music and danced in a circle while whipping each other with leather belts. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. Maybe they were, but it didn't seem so. That didn't make it into the article, but it's forever etched into my brain.

I was shaken, but the double interview turned out great. #journalism

A while later we were sitting at a school assembly in the local movie theater. Everybody was complaining about the fact that our gym's roof had collapsed the year before and nobody was doing anything about it. We were taking the bus every week to a public gym, but we had to pay for it and were Officially Not Happy About It.

It was then that B. went : "You know what would be great? If we could interview the mayor about this"

I lit up. "Oh my god! We could ask him so many things! And not just about our school, but about the Linguistic High school that had to be evacuated and about [all the other schools that were literally falling to pieces. You know, Italian things]"

But the consensus was that, while we could try, it would be almost impossible for us to get an interview. So we sighed and sat back.

C.cleared her throat. "Guys." "Yes?" "You know how the mayor is a lawyer?" ".... Yes?" "Well, my dad is a lawyer. He knows him."

We dragged her to the bathroom

"We are not leaving here until your dad gets us an appointment" (poor guy)

He did

For that same night. At the town hall. At 8 pm.

We cleared our afternoon to come up with pertinent questions and practice and freak out.

At 8 we were at the town hall.

There was a red banner on the balcony with a slogan on it, that would be there for months afterwards, because...

... that same night a group of workers had occupied the town hall to demand better pay and better working conditions

Good for them

Bad for us

We were about to leave, but they assured us the mayor would be with us shortly

We waited three whole hours

During which, obviously, an old council member came to talk to us about how, if we wanted to do some real journalism, we should investigate the presence of the Illuminati in our town

Not gonna lie, we were kinda interested at that point

Around 11, the mayor called us in

I am going to concede that he must have been tired

But he was still a slimy son of a bitch

Extremely condescending

When we brought up our problems, he told us our schools were the Province's responsibility

(the Province would of course later tell us we were the Mayor's responsibility)

It was a train wreck

But eye opening

The article we wrote was extremely passive aggressive

He told C.'s father that he really liked it

I don't know if he was impermeable to sarcasm or just a politician.

Fast forward a few months. While our math teacher was talking, a giant piece of plaster fell from the ceiling, missed her by millimeters and crashed on the floor. We went on, business as usual, but that was kinda scary. And it was not the first incident of that kind to happen in our school.

We decided to do a reportage

Armed with notebooks and a camera, we went from classroom to classroom, asking students and teachers about problems with the building.

It was like opening a can of worms.

We got everything from "Oh yes, don't you see those huge holes in the ceiling and in the floor?" to "Yes, every time it rains the classroom gets flooded" to "See this giant wooden piece of tent rod? It fell on my shoulder last week. We don’t even have tents!"

Everyone had something to complain about. The teachers. The janitors. It was scary, to be honest. Especially considering we were repeatedly told ours was the safest school structure in town (what with having been standing since the end of WWI and all)

One day, while we were trying to get on the roof to evaluate its conditions, the headmistress called us in her office.

She said that she had gotten wind of what we were doing (duh)

And she hoped that we wouldn't give a bad impression of her "to parents and important people"

Because after all her hands were tied

It was the responsibility of the Mayor and the Province

(Just who the fuck was responsible for us?)

She smiled sweetly, leaned in towards us and whispered "You'll be careful now, won't you?"

She looked at me and said my name

Hoping I'd be the responsible/most easily intimidated one

(I had beef with that woman, mmmkay? But that's a story for another day)

I smiled and I told her: "Of course. We are just taking pictures of what we see. We'll let the truth speak for itself"

We did

No commentary

Just very objective descriptions and pictures

We really felt like heroes of the free press and free speech, at the service of the people despite the threat of power. (Yes, it sounds dramatic. It's because we were teenagers)

And then there were the other, less momentous adventures:

That one time when, after days of editing, we had to fill a little blank space at the bottom of the last page and nothing fit. We were frantically searching through our notes, the articles other students had sent us, drawings, everything, and we were slowly losing hope, until B. unearthed one of my notebooks and said : "What is this? 'Requiem. In memoriam termosifoni malati, ego ista verba pronuntio..." I was horrified. "NO" I yelled. "That's just a joke. We are NOT publishing that. NO WAY!" It was really a silly thing, you see. There was a radiator in our classroom that didn't work very well. Sometimes it was scorching hot, sometimes (on the coldest days, obviously) it was icy. So my friend E. and I had decided that the radiator was "sick", and we wrote its last will, its epitaph, parodies of famous poems like "La fontana malata" (The sick fountain) by Palazzeschi or "All'amica risanata" (To the healed friend) by Foscolo (can't find translations, sorry). It was fun. B.had found my silly attempt to write a "Requiem" in...kinda dog Latin I guess? But the grammar was correct. In any case, IT WAS NOT MEANT TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY. But we were desperate, so I relented. On one condition: it had to be ANONYMOUS. And that was the best decision I ever made in my entire life, because when we distributed the newspaper I saw a bunch of Latin teachers analising the fucking thing in front of their classes. "Mmmmhhh I am not sure an accusative was the best choice here. I would have gone with a dative." Then write your own pastiche poem, Marta! One of them had even copied it on the blackboard and was trying to figure out the metric! That was the equivalent of a 3am shitpost, not fucking Catullus, people! I have never been so embarrassed in my life! At least my friends were having a field day with it. Oh, and my Latin and Greek teacher figured it out. She read it and told me : "This was you, wasn't it?" I wanted to disappear. But she said it was funny, and that was the end of it.

All the times we had to edit what other students gave us and it was WILD, you guys. The grammar alone...The choice of topics....We got quite a few articles about UFO sightings over our town, so that was a thing. (We got to see a lot of really interesting and creative stuff, though)

The times we absolutely lost our cool, because it was hard work, okay? "Federica, your Isabel Allende analysis is a bit too long. Maybe if we cut the Scheherazade comparison..." "YOU ARE NOT CUTTING THE SCHEHERAZADE COMPARISON, B." "But.." "That is the backbone of the whole thing. The structure would collapse without it." "It's only a metaphor!" "No! I won't sell myself and my principles for a chance to be published" "Guys! CALM DOWN! It's just...essentially a book report." "SHUT UP C."[........] "I think we need to eat something" "Yeah. Should I make pancakes? With chocolate chips or without, B.? "

The time we got stuck at school because it was snowing, and C. wrote a beautiful piece called "The agonizing mesmerism of snow", and our friend P.,who was a wizard with a pencil, made an earie and amazing drawing for it that almost made me cry. Coincidentally, it was the day pope Ratzinger resigned. We thought it was a joke while still at school, then later on agreed that it was the reason it had been snowing in the first place. None of us wanted to write about the pope, so we asked the guy who was always sending us articles about the occult and arcane symbols hidden in churches. It turned out great.

The time a bunch of our more "troublesome" classmates started making hilarious dirty jokes based on Catullus' double entendres and B. promised them we would publish them (anonymously) if they wrote them down. They did, and the result was a page titled "Surrealism" full of the dirtiest "poetic" stuff in existence that made everybody laugh themselves unconscious, with the exception of some teachers who somehow didn't get the jokes.

The time we interviewed our student representative (a classmate of ours), whom B. had always thought was too full of himself and needed to be brought down a notch. So we "accidentally" misspelled his name in the article. Nobody noticed except him. He was fuming and it was glorious (not my proudest moment, but what can you do)

The time another brilliant classmate wrote a piece called "The pathologic mysoginist" that absolutely enraged some of the guys in our school. I stan her to this day.

That time I wrote a long article for Woman's day about the abuse and mistreatment of women in our country and across the world. I thought it was nothing special, really, but then Maria the janitor (the sweetest lady in existence) stopped me in the corridor and teared up a bit and said that she hadn't known about a lot of the things I had discussed, but she thought it was important to talk about them and that she felt represented as a woman and that she wanted to bring the paper home to read it to her husband. It touched me so deeply I still get emotional when I think about it.

Anyway, all of this and more happened in one year. Then we, too, had to worry about university admissions and exams and we passed the burden on to "aliens and occult" guy (who was amazing too)

But I remember the passion we poured into it, the willingness to take risks, the feeling of defying authority for the "greater good". We were idealists, all of us, and so full of hope and a will to change things in every way we could. Maybe a high school newspaper means nothing in the great scheme of things, but it meant something to us. It made us brave when we didn't think we were. It made us defiant. I wonder if that part of me is still sleeping, somewhere deep inside.

[4giorno]

i have some thoughts (that i didnt already rb) now that ive caught up with the show. im gonna write them as a list bc theres a bunch of different ones and its overwhelming in the uncomfortable way lol. the thoughts are under the cut bc this got way too long

if they dont go with budd1e in the end, we’re running into this same old problem; no new relationship can compete with the emotional depth that they have. considering everything that has happened between them for 3 seasons (i do NOT have the energy to list every meaningful thing lol) and now even eddie trusting buck to raise his son if hes gone, their bond will always overshadow everything else. this is why also everything romantic that happened between buck and taylor in this episode felt very strange and superficial bc during all of this episode buck has been yelling and crying for eddie, saving his life, running around desperately and in shock bc of eddie, wishing he wouldve taken the bullet for eddie, ignoring the sniper threatening his life bc of his concern for eddie and the awfulness of his absence, dropping everything (including taylor) to be with eddie and christopher, and finally being trusted to raise chris if eddie is gone. also the parallel of the other person that got shot being bobby and how he was saved by his partner, who is his WIFE. buck and eddie will always choose each other over everyone else that isnt chris.

even if they by some miracle do go with budd1e, im still so disappointed that they did this romantic plot with buck and taylor. and the reason is that i loved their friendship. their scenes were some of my favorites, their banter was very enjoyable to watch. theyre in some ways similar people and could easily have a great friendship that included a lot of the healthy competition that they both want, even if it couldnt reach the level of emotional depth that buck has with the other ppl on the fire squad (for example bc of the massive trust issues buck was shown to still have for taylor in this episode). but now shes being put into competition with eddie and is losing badly, which i think is so unfortunate for her bc she could be a great character and a fan favorite in other ways.

one more thing abt taylor that im mad the writers did with her. shes making her moves when buck is very obviously in a bad, fucked up state (bc of the eddie related things i listed in point 1)........... like yeah buck is receptive but still the timing is awful and kind of creepy. she literally saw him when he was running around frantically making thoughtless plans and choices and, held his hands that were shaking so much he couldve dropped his phone. she shouldve known better, especially if they want us to believe that bucks assumption that she was gonna run a story abt his situation was wrong and she isnt that kind of bad person anymore. this is especially bad bc buck has been emotionally taken advantage of in the past once already (the time his therapist slept with him)

okay moving on to eddies side of things a bit. i do honestly think eddies relationship with ana was officially doomed to fail at the “just make sure youre following your heart, not christophers” scene (altho there are other things like the lack of trust, plot, screentime and emotional depth in comparison to other characters and yes, obviously especially to buck), but if they were to make them a permanent couple, this plot with making buck the next legal guardian is an extremely weird thing to include in the story and could become problematic to solve. lets assume they stay together for years and then eddie dies. the two options are buck does get christopher and ana, eddies partner who presumably has lived with chris for years, is out of the picture, or eddies will is broken/changed which would make this powerful moment in 4x14 a lot less meaningful. so......???? what do (and honestly this line of thinking would still be relevant with any other partner he may have in the future that isnt buck while chris is a kid)

okay lastly fandom related stuff. first i hope when theyre complaining ppl arent holding some idiots who attack oliver, who is an actor and cant affect the story, for baiting as the same idea as people being critical of the storys narrative failings......... and i hope they dont think you shouldnt criticize the failings bc some ppl are idiots........ 

okay i hope i wrote this in a way that accurately describes my thoughts. and i hope its clear that i dont want to bash taylor and ana, but im trying to genuinely analyze the narrative and consider past associations to see what the characters need. also im writing this when only s4 is out so truly i cant express my final opinion on these issues yet bc i dont know how the show will continue and turn out in the end.

[rhetorician-meeks-blog]

*Kanye’s Narrative*

Photo source: https://variety.com/2016/music/news/kanye-west-grammys-rant-twitter-1201713892/

Palczewski claims that “Narratives have great power to create understanding and knowledge,” but only when that power is articulated correctly. I will be examining the questions: What narratives does this artifact tell? What truths does it promote, limit, or ignore? Overall, is this narrative positive or negative for society?

In order to properly interrogate these questions, I will be using one of Kanye West’s public speeches/rants on Twitter. Feeling major negative feedback from recent public events, Kanye West’s narrative to his Twitter followers includes telling his audience to be whomever they want, he paints a picture of media being robotic propaganda, but is overall a positive narrative to introduce to society.

Prior to Kanye West posting this video of himself on Twitter, West had been dealing with mental illness in previous months to this narrative. However, he felt that his diagnosis was wrong. Shortly after, Kanye was featured on SNL and received negative feedback because of his support for Trump. This speech that West gives seems like an attempt to get his power back from media.In the video, West uses rhetoric to try to get his audience to not only understand how feels, but to emphasize that he is allowed to feel that way. West approaches this several different ways.

While narratives are not referential, they are based off of one’s telling of events. Kanye attempts to tell multiple narratives that are regarded are rhetoric because of the bias or perspectives he tells of the event. One of the first truths that Kanye’s narrative attempts to declare is the truth that the media is controlling our minds. In fact, Kanye not states that the media controls his mind and made him out to be someone he was not. He begins his narrative with examples of wrongness in the news media,stating that the media was wrong about the 2016 election. He then moves to apply those events to his specific instance. For example, one of the lines of his speech says that media posts “to make me look like I’m crazy to you. I am not crazy” (as cited in Meara, 2018). In this specific instance, West uses narrative to show his followers that he is not “crazy” no matter what any doctor, person, or media says. He uses examples of media being wrong to further prove they are wrong about him. West’s logic is that the media may say false things about you, but we have to look past that and just love. This brings us into another truth told through West’s narrative: we should love ourselves for who we are. This could also be seen as the end point to Kanye’s narrative about the media. Kanye West emphasizes the importance of ignoring what others say so we can be ourselves. In an attempt to emotionally engage his audience, he makes arguments using deeply touching phrases and sayings such as “the beauty you have is inside you. It’s not based on how many records you sell” (as cited in Meara, 2018). Every audience loves a good story about the protagonist who overcomes his rival’s opinions of him, and that is exactly what Kanye West gave them. He attempts to pull at their heart-strings by using deeply profound sayings.

One of the most crucial aspects to Kanye’s narrative being successful rhetoric is his persistence that the media that consumes our lives in the United States. In fact, West actually begins his taped speech with the words “I just want to talk about mind control” (Meara 2018). He then goes on to use the phrases “mind control” and “programmed robot” repeatedly throughout his video. West’s narrative is that the media has control of our mind and everyday lives. Palczewski also discusses this narrative of the media when they state “Newspapers, news shows, Internet sites are filled with narratives about the issues and personalities of the day,” referring to celebrities on the latter. The news media forms their own narrative of Kanye and his life, and the rest of the world is influenced by those news sites. Kanye is trying to go against this narrative. He uses these heavily connotative words regularly because they will stick in the minds of his audience. Mind control is scary to the average person, while programmed robots are sought to be the opposite of human autonomy. West also does this through saying things such as the media is “trying to control you based off of incentivising you” through determining status through how many ‘likes’ or ‘followers’ one has. Along with the implication of control, West also claims that people (he never specificies who) attempt to destroy creativity on a regular occurance. According to Kanye’s narrative, people try to hold him back from “posting something that is like positive on Instagram,” because they want him,“to not express [him]self” (Meara 2018). This also supports Kanye’s claim about the media’s narrative of him. Even when he tries to show “our heart and our spirit,” Kanye’s posts can be removed by any social media platform if it does not go with the “big agenda” (Meara 2018). Kanye’s narrative tells of a controlling, news-dominated United States that steps on one’s creativity. Through the narration of these events, his goal is for his audience to see the broader perspective of social media, and try to direct his audience’s attention to the control social/news media has over the United States. Kanye’s narrative is an attempt to open people’s eyes to the control and agenda the media (in any form ) has over most of the population. When assessing whether West’s narrative is a positive or negative narrative for society, there are many factors that come into play. As quoted in the first sentence of this analysis, narratives have the potential to have a big impact on society. According to Palczeski, “narratives can and should be judged on several levels: aesthetics, authorial intent, empirical truth, and social truth” (129). Kanye lacks aesthetic in his narrative, mainly because he is sharing experiences that are related rather than telling a specific story that has characters and a plot. Authorial truth evaluates “whether the rhetoric intends to make factual claims” (Palczewski). This is a hard judgement to make, especially because it revolves around something that is so large and institutionalized in America (social media platforms). However, Kanye’s narrative seems to be mostly events, reactions, and opinions. But when speaking about empirical truth, all of the events in Kanye’s narrative “reports the events as accurately as possible” (Palczewski). The last judgement to consider is social truth. Whether or not this is an objective reality and that society has all come to this moment/event/realization together. This is the driving force behind Kanye’s narrative. He wants people to see how media has progressed so negatively in our lives. Evidence leads that Kanye West’s narrative does not harm or hurt society in any way, but he does try to help society positively realize this. Kanye’s words are not full of hate or lies, but instead he gives his followers insight that could lead to a more positive future.

One of the biggest disadvantages of analyzing narratives is knowing what is actually the truth. Many people cannot even define what is true, so how are we supposed to know what is and isn’t truthful? This is one question that will prevent any ‘real’ truth from being known. We have to base that truth off of evidence like documentation or fossils in a sense. On the other hand, the advantage of assessing West’s narrative in this manner is that it allows us to see the direct viewpoint of Kanye. Essentially, we see his reactions and hear his thoughts and feelings. This is an opportunity that the media often takes away from him. It is easier to have a deep understanding of a problem when an audience hears two perspectives. In the United States, we are constantly hearing about Kanye West’s life. But did we ever stop to consider that the instances we hear about are only one side of the story? This is why analyzing rhetoric as narratives helps fill the gaps of truth that the media intentionally left out.

John Rodden can also speak to the advantages of narratives. Rodden states that instead of the physically provable pieces of evidence we normally see, we see a “more full-bodied and even impassioned” story that is “rational, but also emotive and ethical” (2008). Rodden brings to the table a very feasible argument. As (normal functioning) humans, we can all use our senses to help us see, hear, smell, feel, or taste things so that there is tangible evidence. But what evidence fails to consider is the other half of humanity. That other half is filled with emotions and mental feelings and reactions. Since every person (again, assumably normal) experiences emotions daily, it should not be used as a disadvantage to rhetoric as narratives.

Narratives play a powerful role when studying rhetoricism. Presumably, any credible narrative contains empirical and social truths that are told through the narrator’s perspective on those events. Since it is a personal recalling of the events/experience, it is easy to introduce bias into the story subconsciously, so we typically discount narratives. However, narratives are crucial to getting the full scope of things. When negative feedback came back to Kanye more than once, he decided to tell his narrative. Kanye West’s narrative to his Twitter followers includes painting the picture of media as robotic propaganda, and embracing themselves for whoever they may be. Overall, this is a positive narrative that would have positive effects on society.

References:

Meara, P. (2018, October 14). Kanye West Goes On Another Rant To Declare He's Not Crazy. Retrieved from https://www.bet.com/music/2018/10/13/kanye-west-rant.html

Palczewski, C. H., Ice, R., Fritch, J. (2012). Narratives. In Rhetoric in civic life (pp. 117-146). State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc.

Rodden, J. (2008). How Do Stories Convince Us? Notes Towards a Rhetoric of Narrative. College Literature, 35(1), 148–173. Retrieved from http://fulla.augustana.edu:2056/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=28047161&site=ehost-live

[nightmareonfilmstreet]

[Recap] HBO’s SHARP OBJECTS Episode One: Vanish

It was not long ago that the world was gifted with the twisted tale of the beautiful, yet cunning sociopath housewife, Amy Elliot of Gillian Flynn’s murder mystery Gone Girl. Her second published novel and David Fincher’s (Seven, Fight Club) 2014 film adaptation starring Ben Affleck (Justice League, The Accountant) and Rosamund Pike (Jack Reacher, Pride & Prejudice) stirred up quite a discussion among readers and viewers giving us something with more flavor to chew on than most crime dramas have before. Flynn is not afraid to creep into the dark places of our minds (see what I did there?) and skillfully forces us to follow along. It is now that her first published (and easily darkest) novel Sharp Objects, is being given the on-screen treatment by Blumhouse Productions and Entertainment One.

The premiere of the first episode this past Sunday evening, exclusively on HBO, drew fans back into Flynn’s intriguing world of murder, secrets, sex, and lies. Proving that not only is her storytelling back in an all new way, but that it was always there from the beginning.

Sharp Objects, a psychological thriller if there ever was one, focuses on an observant, but emotionally troubled reporter Camille Preaker, lured back to her Missouri hometown of Wind Gap, and her own treacherous past, to cover the story of a potential serial killing leaving one young girl dead and one girl missing all within the span of about nine months.

Though it sounds like a typical plot line with a guess-who-the-killer-is hook, much like Wind Gap itself, there is so much more to Sharp Objects beneath the surface.

Let’s start with a recap, shall we?

    Sharp Objects Recap: Episode 1

Properly named Vanish, the first episode of this limited series does well to set us up with our main character, Camille, played by Amy Adams (Arrival, American Hustle), and the reasoning behind her hometown return. It presents the plot that will drive the next seven episodes: Camille will report on the murder of one child, Ann, and the disappearance of another, Natalie. We are acquainted with the setting, the seemingly reticent town of Wind Gap. Everything in between introduces us to the suspicious ensemble of secondary characters, those of which include the affluent Adora and Alan Crellin – Camille’s mother and step-father, their capricious 13-year old daughter Amma, the local badge Chief Vickery,  Adora’s obnoxious but lovable estranged friend Jackie, John Keene – the dreamy, but brooding brother of Natalie, and the handsome out-of-town detective Richard Willis.

We see Camille hesitant to return home, pushed only to return in order to please her editor. Proven especially with her chilling family’s welcoming being anything but warm. Upon arrival in Wind Gap, Camille is met with a resistant Chief Vickery as he judicially vies to protect the town and all the secrets it harvests from public exposure.

Camille pokes and prods her way around town running into essential characters including some very mature preteen girls hanging around the search party.  Jackie, who’s recently had a minor “falling out” with her mother, and the new detective in town who seems hesitant to share anything with Camille aside from a drink… for now.

The relationship she has with her perfect mother, Adora, played by the talented Patricia Clarkson (The Green Mile), is obviously tense and effected by some important event that is soon to reveal itself as the woman chooses to remain completely indifferent to who her daughter is and what she does for a living. Within a few lines of dialogue its easy to see her mother is not all there mentally and is dangerously obsessed with what people think and say about her. The people of Wind Gap are not privy to those who are different, but there will be much more to say about that throughout the series. Her stepsister, Amma, a puzzle all her own, seems to play both the wild street tart by day and the innocent china doll of the Crellin home by night. Camille learns the proper girl building a miniature house in the living room that her mother dotes on just so happens to be one of the cheeky preteens she observed on roller skates smoking a joint outside of the search party.

She can barely last a full ten minutes in the large family mansion before running out the front door as her memories, literally, chase her. Like anyone facing the company of wretched family, the artificial etiquette of neighbors, and the sugar-coated town she once ran from on top of a grizzly child murder and disappearance, Camille overindulges in booze and, not without distraction, trying her best to stick to her professional purpose as best as she can. She struggles against being absorbed by this toxic town, but that may prove to be a difficult task when she is being quickly outnumbered by her demons. She reverts to the local dive bar, seemingly familiar territory, to temporarily escape.

    Camille is able to interview Ann’s father in an attempt to keep her story relevant and pull the pieces together to find Natalie. The grief-stricken father offers up little information other than that Ann was different from the other girls her age, something Camille can empathize with being an outsider her whole life as well. His demeanor is predictably off-kilter.

When Camille crosses paths with the preteens again, who are now accompanied by Natalie’s handsome older brother, pillaging the town’s memorial for mementos. The tension is broken by screams of true fear coming from the local diner.

Natalie’s body is found propped up against a window between the diner and another building, in broad daylight. They all rush to the scene, but it is clear the poor girl is dead. As much as Adora and the locals want to push the bad thought aside, Wind Gap will have to face reality and come to terms with the ghastly gut-punch that is a real life serial killer in their midst. A child murderer.

Our episode concludes with Camille slipping herself into a hot bath, for the first time exposing her bare body to us covered in striking scars. Dozens of words are etched into her skin from neck to ankle, Vanish being predominant before the end credits appear.

  Analysis

Aside from increasing the pace and working Camille’s homecoming into one episode for time’s sake, it looks like Sharp Objects will align pretty closely to the novel. Readers are sure to appreciate this, if it remains consistent, as Flynn’s story is an enigma in need of no changes.

The story unfolds exquisitely and harshly all at once, like a knife piercing skin. Initially, you’re numb to the blade, but once that blood starts moving you can’t help but feel the rush of pain.

Amy Adams steps into the part of a stressed, introverted, complicated loner with such ease it is almost impossible to remember that she once played the role of a merry, vibrant singing princess in Enchanted. Her performance is everything we can expect from the actress and more. Somehow she shows the anxious movements and heavy baggage Camille hauls around with her physically making the character real, like someone you grew up with and bumped into at the local grocery store 15 years later. It’s obvious she is beautiful as it’s noted Camille was always a looker, but over time and some serious self-torment she has hardened and that shows in her appearance. That is the Amy Adams we are seeing here. Still beautiful, but rough. She has that look of disconnect at first and slowly we can see her acclimating now that she’s returned to the place she once called home. Even her slight Missouri accent, and the way it strengthens over time of reverted subjection to the locals, is enough to show off her fierce acting chops. She is absolutely fantastic.

    I truly enjoyed the flashback scenes and semi-dream sequences and the way they drift in and out of Camille’s consciousness. My own sister, who knows nothing about film, even commented on liking the way the memories came into play cutting off reality into silence and pure thought processing. Is that not what happens when we think of something in our own minds while carrying on a conversation with other people? When we walk into a familiar room, do we not think of what took place there, ghosts appearing right before our eyes, all the while remaining in present time? Viewers may be a little confused by the ins and outs of this flashback technique, but in all good time it will make sense and prove necessary. The way her childhood thoughts manifest themselves leading one scene into another is truly eerie and gives Sharp Objects the scary little edge we crave. The unknown is supreme here, almost like a character itself. There is no exposition to this story, we are along with Camille in figuring things out when it comes to these murders as well as recalling the dark thoughts and memories she’s worked to hard to push aside.

  “The unknown is supreme here, almost like a character itself.”

  Director Jean-Marc Vallee (Big Little Lies) does a fantastic job bringing this strange, yet common word to life. His plays on color and light truly set the mood for the shady histories set in Wind Gap and the ugliness our characters hide. Everything from the ominous music to the delicate china is meticulously perfected, setting a tantalizing tone that we can only hope lasts us through to the end. Vallee’s flair for the feminine and the frightening in a real world setting is untouchable.

Viewers should be aware that Sharp Objects is deep in hidden subject matter and begs us to question our relationships with others as with ourselves. It’s a story I relate to personally so I am extremely ready to share my thoughts and will be happily at the forefront to travel into Wind Gap with you, exploring this interesting territory and all the seedy secrets laid within its rich farmland over the next few weeks. In my opinion, as an initial episode setting up a lot of ground only a first-person narrated novel can establish, Vanish was a success.

Stay tuned as we’ll see what Camille digs up next Sunday for Sharp Object’s second episode, Dirt – on HBO.

    The post [Recap] HBO’s SHARP OBJECTS Episode One: Vanish appeared first on Nightmare on Film Street - Horror Movie Podcast, News and Reviews.

from WordPress https://nofspodcast.com/recap-hbos-sharp-objects-episode-one-vanish/ via IFTTT

[michaelandy101-blog]

34 of the Greatest Workplace Pranks & Sensible Jokes to Use at Work

New Post has been published on http://tiptopreview.com/34-of-the-best-office-pranks-practical-jokes-to-use-at-work/

34 of the Greatest Workplace Pranks & Sensible Jokes to Use at Work

In the event you’ve watched the TV present “The Office” as religiously as I’ve, the traditional “stapler in Jell-O” trick absolutely sounds acquainted. It is just about what the title describes: Merely make a batch of Jell-O, however be sure that your colleague’s stapler is hidden contained in the mould.

It is a traditional prank. However what different, much less typical pranks are on the market so as to add some kicks to an in any other case common day on the workplace?

We requested our pals and combed the web for extra examples of among the funniest workplace pranks, and pulled collectively this listing to function inspiration on your personal work pranks.

Each firm has a narrative about that humorous workplace prank of yore. Whether or not you are performing some early April Idiot’s Day analysis, or simply feeling a bit tricksy, it is time to get a prank of your individual within the books. Listed here are some concepts.

Humorous Workplace Pranks to Pull on Your Coworkers

1. Caramel Onions

When Halloween is across the nook, these caramel onions are not any match for different tips (or treats). Dip every onion in caramel — perhaps some pink meals coloring first, if it is advisable to additional disguise them — and stick popsicle sticks down the middle. Your colleagues will not know the distinction, however they’ll surprise why these caramel apples are making them cry a lot…

Supply: Instructables

2. Nicolas Cage Bathroom Seat

Talking of Halloween, here is what nightmares are actually manufactured from. Nicolas Cage is straightforward to come back by within the meme neighborhood lately. Print an image of him at his most, nicely, enthusiastic — and permit him to greet everybody who takes a rest room break.

Supply: Pinterest

three. Fish Drawer

There’s one thing fishy about this workplace prank… Simply make sure to embody fish meals; consultants recommend you need to feed this prank twice a day.

Supply: Reddit

four. Pants within the Stall

Often, if you see toes beneath the stall, you simply have to attend your flip. On this case, you is likely to be ready perpetually. Set this man up in your workplace toilet and see how lengthy it takes for folks to start out speaking. We simply hope no person referred to as the paramedics on this poor, empty go well with.

Supply: BuzzFeed

5. Febreze for Days

Tighten the zip-tie, throw it, and run on your life. Or, go away it in your coworker’s workplace after they’re on break. They’re certain to return to a potent workspace.

Supply: Emlii

6. Vehicular Sticky Notes

That is the proper use for these sticky notes that maintain piling up — particularly in the event that they’re all for somebody who simply will not end his or her duties. The prank beneath is a superb method to remind them earlier than they take off for the day.

Supply: Reddit

7. Misspelling Macro

By no means ask your work buddy to unlock your iPhone for you, or they will make you seem like the worst speller of all time if you go to sort a textual content or e-mail. Settings > Common > Keyboard > Add new shortcut will make this prank a actuality in opposition to your most detail-oriented colleague.

Supply: Gottabemobile

eight. Foghorn Entrance

Have not you ever wished to get a room’s consideration the second you stroll via the door? Nicely, the prank beneath will even get the particular person getting into to face up straight. That is actually a technique to ensure everybody’s alert earlier than a gathering.

Supply: Reddit

9. Ballooned Convention

Hey, at the least it is not glitter? This prank works two methods: You’ll be able to both shock the subsequent workforce who reserves this room, or have a day-long assembly in right here with out anybody realizing your online business. You’ll in fact have some static electrical energy if you exit the room.

Supply: Reddit

10. Desk Trolls

For trolls, by trolls. Fortunately, you should purchase many of those trolls in bulk. Click here should you’re severe about trolling your coworker’s workstation — simply bear in mind you’ll have to purchase a couple of pack of trolls to make this stunt value it.

Supply: CollegeHumor

11. Water Works

Oh look, a finances journey to the seaside. This prank offers a complete new assembly to the time period, “staycation.” Shock your coworker when he/she comes again from a seaside getaway with, nicely, one other seaside getaway. The draw back is it will be nothing like the place they have been. The upside is they will not want a towel.

Supply: Imgur

12. Anti-Gravity Desk

“That’s it — you’re suspended.” Simply be sure that the one that arrives within the morning to a floating desk does not attempt to sit down…

Supply: Daily Mail

13. Nailed the Cake

Hey everybody, there’s cake up for grabs within the kitchen! The prank, nonetheless, is written in frosting. It is a good gesture to somebody who loves the expression, “needle in a haystack.” Comfortable searching.

Supply: Reddit

14. Psychedelic Supervision

“I don’t know, I feel like my boss is always watching me,” your coworker may say. Change their notion of micromanagement when this colourful prank. Immediately a “quick checkin” does not appear all that unhealthy.

Supply: Imgur

15. Voice Toast

Easy, but sensible. Change the phrases of breakfast ever so barely, and the kitchen turns into probably the most complicated room within the workplace. This little be aware pranks your complete workplace — a real masterpiece of prank-dom.

Supply: Tumblr

16. Work From Dwelling

As Ron Burgundy from Anchorman says, “I’m not even mad. I’m just impressed.” Assist your coworker who loves taking his/her work house, take their house to work as a substitute. As you’ll be able to inform, you may want to remain late the night time earlier than to get this prank excellent.

Supply: Reddit

17. You have Been ‘Felined’

This might really make your cat-loving coworker’s day. Or, it may make for the best prank of all time in opposition to the coworker who’s violently allergic to cats (that’s, so long as they don’t seem to be allergic to images of cats, too).

Supply: Reddit

18. The Seedboard

Work along with your IT division to fertilize this prank completely. Quickly sufficient, its person will surprise why their keyboard is rising. We recommend concentrating on somebody who sits near the window — some pranks simply want some daylight. “You said you wanted to spend more time with nature,” you may say in your protection.

Supply: BoredPanda

19. Wholesome Creme

Who stated you could not be useful whereas additionally being a prankster? “The bad news is we’re out of donuts. The good news is you have all these nutritious alternatives to help your immune system cope with the lack of donuts.”

20. The Ceilings Have Eyes

You could possibly freak out simply wanting on the photograph of this horrifying prank. It is likely to be a bit an excessive amount of on your jumpiest colleague, however for the one that cannot cease speaking about scary motion pictures, it is simply the revenge you deserve. (Trace: paper mache, white paint, and a black wig. Completed.)

Supply: Tumblr

21. Chair Scare

Just like the Entrance Foghorn (prank #eight, above), this prank will in all probability scare extra than simply the one that sits down. In fact, it will be a lesson to anybody who, I suppose, tries to sit down too low at their desk.

Supply: Reddit

Humorous Pranks to Pull on Your Boss

22. No Stalling

For the worker who by no means has sufficient time. Or, for the coworker who takes approach too many toilet breaks in the course of the day. Prank them with their very personal throne the subsequent time nature calls.

Supply: 22words

23. Glitter Bomb

About that complete, “At least it’s not glitter” factor in prank #9? Nicely, this prank cannot make that promise. For the coworkers who do not but know the permanence of getting glitter on your self, this prank is bound to set them straight.

24. Substitute Employee

Generally, you are unsure the way to ask for one more break day. For these days the place you merely cannot come into work, however haven’t got the center to name out once more, the doll who seems similar to you is the proper substitute. Or, simply put ’em at your colleague’s desk and provides them a much-needed id disaster.

25. Crushed It

If you lastly find out about your colleague’s movie star crush, be sure that they know the way a lot you care.

  #officeprank

A publish shared by Alice Lei (@alicerabbit1) on Aug 1, 2015 at four:04pm PDT

26. World’s ‘Greatest’ Boss

When phrases simply aren’t sufficient to specific your sentiment, give your supervisor the proper method to say “thank you” each time they go to take a sip of espresso.

27. Cup o’ Spiders

“Hey chief, I found a spider on your desk, but don’t worry, it’s been handled.” This prank does not need to have an precise spider in it — the thriller, alone, is all it is advisable to prank your worker.

28. That is a Wrap

For the boss who has all the pieces, it is the reward that retains on giving.

Supply: Giphy

Distant Pranks for Digital Groups

The above pranks are superior, however what about pranks which are inclusive for distant workers or groups which are 100% digital? These pranks are perfect for the digital workplace:

29. Flash Mob

Right here at HubSpot, we love flash mobs. That is why Head of search engine marketing Aja Frost and Weblog Supervisor Christina Perricone jumped on the likelihood of organizing a digital flash mob for one among our quarterly conferences.

It is a excellent prank for a big gathering however requires a little bit of prep — from selecting a track, deciding on the dancers, and educating the choreography. Nevertheless, the tip result’s value it for the shocked and delighted expressions on coworkers’ faces alone.

30. Digital Background Shenanigans

There’s a variety of pranking potential utilizing the virtual background feature in Zoom and different video conferencing platforms. For instance, one Twitter person creates a digital background with the surprising look of a doppelgänger… or perhaps a time warp?

So, I made a customized Zoom background for my subsequent assembly the place I convey myself a cup of tea. pic.twitter.com/DJBxrH5Cqv

— Graham/Jaws 19 (@Jaws19present) May 7, 2020

31. Leap Scare

One method to take the digital background prank to a different degree is by impersonating a horror film director and counting on one of many oldest scary film tips within the e-book: the sudden bounce scare. The video beneath walks via the steps for executing this prank efficiently:

Simply just remember to know who you are presenting to. The improper viewers might not respect the humor on this one!

32. You are Not on Mute

We have all heard the horror tales of customers who thought they have been on mute and went on to say one thing embarrassing. One prank could be to stage this example and make your coworkers suppose that you simply suppose you are on mute. You could possibly enlist somebody in your family to say actually embarrassing or fully outrageous, the objective being to see how lengthy your coworkers will watch in horror earlier than letting you recognize you are on mute.

33. Stolen Id

In case you have a office chat system, a easy and efficient prank is to “steal” somebody’s id by altering your show title and film to match theirs. The extra coworkers you get to comply with go well with, the simpler, hilarious, and chaotic this prank turns into. Better of all, it is easy to reverse on the finish of the day: Simply revert again to your unique show title and photograph.

34. Suppose Exterior the Field

With video conferencing apps, we’re restricted to our personal little sq. of digital actual property… or are we? This Twitter person subverts expectation by dumping water on a coworker in one other sq., stunning all the opposite assembly attendees:

I pulled off my very own lil #AprilFools prank as we speak in our each day digital assembly 😂☔️ pic.twitter.com/RjGW2RhgRT

— Phang (@PhilaUnionPhang) April 1, 2020

All you need to do is use somebody who can be in on the joke with you.

Pranking might be extraordinarily good for morale and firm tradition. In any case, why not have a bit enjoyable to interrupt up the workday?

Editor’s be aware: This publish was initially printed in October 2018 and has been up to date for comprehensiveness.

Source link

[headhearthandsengagement]

She Said, He Said—Article #2 on Why Volunteer Recognition Is Still Stuck in the 20th Century “What’s Holding You Back From 21st Century Recognition Strategy?”

Linda Llewellyn of Celebrate Volunteers (www.CelebrateVolunteers.com) and Barry Altland of Head, Heart and Hands Engagement Collective (http://HHHEngagement.com) team together to address one of the biggest “misses” in the Volunteer Engagement profession today—Recognition.  Through a series of blog articles, Linda and Barry will tackle the what, why and how that has led the profession to this leadership shortfall, and what we can collectively do about it to get this Recognition train back on the tracks.  Read the series to support your own professional development as a Leader of Volunteer Engagement (LoVE)!  

 Link to Blog Article #1 – ““So, What’s This Blog Series All About, Anyway?”  

 Blog Article #2 - “What’s Holding You Back From 21st Century Recognition Strategy?”    

 Recognition is a critical component to your volunteers’ engagement, and the impact volunteers generate for your Volunteer-Supported Organization (VSO). Innovative volunteer Recognition practices are key to achieving high-quality results.  Knowing that, why are you still doing the same old, tired thing for volunteer Recognition when it’s not producing the results your organization desires?

 That’s What She Said . . .

 You could be crazy.  Insanity is often characterized by the saying, “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”  But I believe that LoVEs are not insane . . . well maybe . . . but rather, fearful.   

Making a significant change in your volunteer practices is scary, especially when attempting something new and innovative.  As this series of articles explores the “reasons” given by LoVEs why they do not change their volunteer Recognition patterns, I believe that fear is the underlying problem. 

What’s there to be afraid of?  A lot, right?   

The most obvious fear is the Fear of Change.  Change means that something will be different.  Different means there is an unknown.   The unknown causes many to be anxious, apprehensive, and cautious, resulting in stagnation.  A stagnant volunteer Recognition practice may be “nice,” but it is not resulting in highly satisfied, engaged and sustained volunteers. The unknown is where opportunity and potential exist.   

The Fear of Change is often linked to a Fear of Risk.  Risk by its very nature is uncertain.  Because it is uncertain, a loss, or something bad happening, is at the heart of this fear.  What is often overlooked is, uncertainty can also result in a gain, or something good happening.  Risk is just as likely to have a positive outcome.

The Fear of Risk is often linked to a Fear of Judgment.  The concern of what your volunteers, decision-makers, colleagues, the Board of Directors, and community will think about a change in your volunteer Recognition practices is scary.  Imagine, instead, what they will think when your courage to change your volunteer Recognition strategy brings unprecedented outcomes for all involved!

The Fear of Judgment, Risk and Change all have one common fear—the Fear of Ability.  You may worry if you have what it takes to accomplish something better.  Do you have the skills, the resources and the courage to make an innovative change to your volunteer Recognition efforts?  

From my experience, LoVEs are some of the most creative, resourceful and heroic individuals I have ever met.  I think you’ve got this.  More than you think you may.    

Conquering your fears enables you to bring new life to your volunteer Recognition work. You can achieve greater results.  You can generate greater volunteer passion and engagement. Maybe even inspire potential financial giving.  Your organization can have the volunteer program you always imagined.  You can bring deep fulfillment to your volunteers, and greater impact for your organization and its causes and beneficiaries.  You can reach greater accomplishment for yourself. But only . . . only IF you conquer your fears. 

So stop being a scaredy-cat. Squash all your fears.  Change. Risk.  Judgment.  Ability. All four of them.  Become a fearless LoVE Superhero!

 That’s What He Said . . .

 Oh yeah, Linda, those fears you mention are real.  No doubt. Yet I look at this abomination of tired volunteer Recognition practices by LoVEs across the nation and around the world as a serious leadership performance shortcoming.  And to address that, I pull an excerpt directly from the book, Engaging the Head, Heart and Hands a Volunteer.  The words are below:   

“The framework for diagnosing performance problems of paid professionals has been available to leaders for nearly fifty years.  Dr. Robert F. Mager and Peter Pipe first developed and published the Performance Analysis Flow Diagram in 1970.  This simple model offers a systematic process for troubleshooting performance problems.  The flowchart has served as a guiding source for the work of human performance technologists and leaders across the globe.  

Wait. Who? What?

That is exactly the point.  The resource developed by Mager and Pipe is an example of brilliance of which most people have never heard.  This tool could be and should be used by every person who leads others in a for-profit environment (and non-profits, too!).  But it’s not.”   

With great honor to Mager and Pipe, here is the deal.  There are only one of three reasons, or a combination of these three reasons, why you, the LoVE, have not progressed in your strategic Recognition repertoire:  

- The Don’t Know Factor

- The Can’t Do Factor

- The Don’t Care Factor

Need I explain these in any greater detail?  I shall not condescend.   

And, it is now up to you to figure out which one of these is working against you as you attempt to step into the 21st century with your Recognition efforts.   

Not an easy thing to do.  Self-awareness and introspection are not for the faint of heart.  To place yourself under the microscope.  To look within to gain a greater understanding of what makes you tick . . . and what inhibits your growth . . . takes courage. Some serious conviction, yo’.   

Maybe now is the time to remove the blinders to see the possibilities for your future.  And the future of your volunteers.  Don’t Know? Can’t Do?  Don’t Care?  A combination?  Which one is you?     

Perpetual self-analysis.  An honest look inside.  It is simply what a leader does.  

 About the Writers . . .

 Celebrate Volunteers, founded by Linda Llewellyn, provides a showcase for non-profits, schools, civic and religious organizations and corporate employee groups to thank, appreciate and recognize their volunteers by sharing the story of who they are and the impact of their service. We provide a spotlight of honor where volunteers shine.  To learn more, visit www.CelebrateVolunteers.com.  

 Head, Heart and Hands Engagement Collective was inspired by a simple notion:  Leaders of Volunteer Engagement need help.  They benefit from guidance.  They deserve support.  They require resources.  They must be provided professional development to be prepared to create meaningful, fulfilling experiences for volunteers who serve alongside their organization.  And, Barry Altland applies his nearly thirty years of leadership development expertise to offer that, and more, to LoVEs.  See it all at http://HHHEngagement.com.    

[terabitweb]

Original Post from Rapid7 Author: Wei Chen

Introduction

I remember the first time I attempted to exploit a memory corruption vulnerability. It was a stack buffer overflow example I tried to follow in this book called “Hacking: The Art of Exploitation.” I fought for weeks, and I failed. It wasn’t until months later that I tried a different example on the internet and finally popped a shell. I was so thrilled I got it to work.

More than 10 years later, I have some memory corruption exploits under my belt, from small-third-party applications to high-profile products such as Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, Mozilla, and IBM. However, memory corruption for me is still quite a challenge, despite having a soft spot for it. And I don’t think I’m the only person to feel this way.

LiveOverflow, who is most well known for his hacking videos on YouTube, shares the same feeling about approaching browser exploitation in the early stage, saying:

I know the theory. It’s just a scary topic, and I don’t even know where to start.

My impression is that many people certainly feel this way about heap corruptions, which are indeed difficult because they are unpredictable in nature, and the mitigations are always evolving. About every couple of years, some major security improvement would be introduced, likely terminating a vulnerability class or an exploitation technique. Although a Black Hat talk may follow explaining that, those talks are probably overwhelming for the most part. People may get a grasp of the theory, it still remains a scary topic, and they still don’t even know where to start.

As LiveOverflow points out, there is a lot of value in explaining how you mastered something, more than just publishing an exploit. Being a former Corelan member, I know that some of the best exploit tutorials from Corelan started off this way, with Peter Van Eeckhoutte and his team researching the topic, documenting the process, and in the end, sharing that with the public. By doing so, you encourage the community to engage on the topic, and one day, someone is going to advance and share something new in return.

Learning by creating

Learning a vulnerability from a real application can be difficult because the codebase may be complex. Often, you may get away with examining a good crash, get EIP, add some shellcode, and get a working exploit, but you may not fully understand the actual problem as quickly. If the developers didn’t spend just a few days building the codebase, there certainly isn’t any magic to absorb so much internal knowledge about it in such a short amount of time.

One way that guarantees I will learn about a vulnerability is by figuring out how to create it and mess with it. That’s what we’ll do today. Since heap corruption is such a scary topic, let’s start with a heap overflow on Windows 10.

Heap overflow example

This is a basic example of a heap overflow. Clearly, it is trying to pass a size of 64 bytes to a smaller heap buffer that is only 32 bytes.

#include int main(int args, char** argv) { void* heap = (void*) malloc(32); memset(heap, 'A', 64); printf("%sn", heap); free(heap); heap = NULL; return 0; }

In a debugger, you will be presented with an error of 0xc0000374, indicating a heap corruption exception that is due to a failed inspection on the heap, resulting in a call to RtlpLogHeapFailure. A modern system is really good at protecting its heaps nowadays, and every time you see this function call is pretty much a sign that you have been defeated. Exploitability depends more on how much control you have on the application, and there is no silver bullet on the OS level like in previous years.

Client-side applications (such as a browser, PDF, Flash, etc.) tend to be excellent targets due to the support of scripting languages. It’s very likely you have indirect control of an array, a HeapAlloc, a HeapFree, a vector, strings, etc., which are all good tools you need to instrument a heap corruption—except you have to find them.

A difficult first step to success

In C/C++ applications, a programming error may create opportunities like allowing the program to read the wrong memory, writing to the wrong place, or even executing the wrong code. Normally, we just call these conditions crashes, and there is actually an industry out there of people totally obsessed with finding and controlling them. By taking over the “bad” memory the program isn’t supposed to read, we have witnessed Heartbleed. If the program writes to it, you have a buffer overflow. If you can combine all of them on a remote Windows machine, that’s just as bad as EternalBlue.

Whatever your exploit is, an important first step usually involves setting up the right environment in memory to land that attack. Kind of like in social engineering, you have this thing called pretexting. Well, in exploit writing, we have various names: Feng shui, massaging, grooming, etc. Every program loves a good massage, right?

Windows 7 vs. Windows 10

The Windows 10 internals seem significantly different from their predecessors. You might have noticed some recent high-profile exploits that were all done against older systems. For example, Google Chrome’s FileReader Use After Free was documented to work best on Windows 7, the BlueKeep RDP flaw was mostly proven in public to work on Windows XP, and Zerodium confirmed RCE on Windows 7.

Predicable heap allocations is an important trait for heap grooming, so I wrote a test below for both systems. Basically, it creates multiple objects and tracks where they are. There is also a Summerize() method that tells me all the offsets found between two objects and the most common offset.

void SprayTest() { OffsetTracker offsetTracker; LPVOID* objects = new LPVOID[OBJECT_COUNT]; for (int i = 0; i 0) { int offset = (int) objects[i] - (int) objects[i-1]; offsetTracker.Register(offset); printf("Object at 0x%08x. Offset to previous = 0x%08xn", (int) obj, offset); } else { printf("Object at 0x%08xn", (int) obj); } } printf("n"); offsetTracker.Summerize();

The results for Windows 7:

Basically, my test tool is suggesting that 97.8% of the time, my heap allocations look like this consecutively:

[ Object ][ 0x30 of Bytes ][ Object ]

For the exact same code, Windows 10 behaves very differently:

Wow, only 6%. That means if I had an exploit, I wouldn’t have any reliable layout to work with, and my best choice would make me fail 94% of the time. I might as well not write an exploit for it.

The right way to groom

As it turns out, Windows 10 requires a different way to groom, and it is slightly more complicated than before. After having multiple discussions with Peter from Corelan, the conclusion is that we shouldn’t bother using low-fragmentation heap, because that is what messing with our results.

Front- vs. back-end allocator

Low fragmentation heap is a way to allow the system to allocate memory in certain predetermined sizes. It means when the application asks for an allocation, the system returns the minimum available chunk that fits. This sounds really nice, except on Windows 10, it also tends to avoid giving you a chunk that has the same size as its neighbor. You can check whether a heap is being handled by LFH using the following in WinDBG:

dt _HEAP [Heap Address]

There is a field named FrontEndHeapType at offset 0x0d6. If the value is 0, it means the heap is handled by the backend allocator. 1 means LOOKASIDE. And 2 means LFH. Another way to check if a chunk belongs to LFH is:

!heap -x [Chunk Address]

The backend allocator is actually the default choice, and it takes at least 18 allocations to enable LFH. Also, those allocations don’t have to be consecutive—they just need to be the same size. For example:

#include #include #define CHUNK_SIZE 0x300 int main(int args, char** argv) { int i; LPVOID chunk; HANDLE defaultHeap = GetProcessHeap(); for (i = 0; i

The code above produced the following results:

The two loops do the same thing in code. The first iterates 18 times, and the second is five times. By observing those addresses, there are some interesting facts:

In the first loop:

Index 0 and index 1 have a huge gap of 0x1310 bytes.

Starting index 2 to index 16, that gap is consistently 0x308 bytes.

Index 16 and index 17 get a huge gap again with 0x3238 bytes.

In the second loop:

Index 0 is where LFH kicks in.

Each gap is random, usually far away from each other.

It appears the sweet spot where we have most control is between index 2 to 16 in the first loop, before LFH is triggered.

The beauty of overtaking

A feature of the Windows heap manager is that it knows how to reuse a freed chunk. In theory, if you free a chunk and allocate another for the exact same size, there is a good chance it will take over the freed space. Taking advantage of this, you could write an exploit without heap spraying. I can't say exactly who was the first person to apply this technique, but Peter Vreugdenhil from Exodus was certainly one of the first to talk about it publicly. See: HAPPY NEW YEAR ANALYSIS OF CVE-2012-4792.

To verify this, let's write another C code:

#include #include #define CHUNK_SIZE 0x300 int main(int args, char** argv) { int i; LPVOID chunk; HANDLE defaultHeap = GetProcessHeap(); // Trigger LFH for (i = 0; i

On Windows 7, it seems this technique is legit (both addresses are the same):

For the exact same code, the outcome is quite different on Windows 10:

However, our hope is not lost. An interesting behavior by the Windows heap manager is that apparently for efficiency purposes, it can split a large free chunk in order to service smaller chunks the application requests. That means the smaller chunks may coalesce (merge), making them adjacent from each other. To achieve that, the overall steps kind of play out like the following.

1. Allocate chunks not handled by LFH

Try to pick a size that is not used by the application, which tends to be a larger size. In our example, let's say our size choice is 0x300.

Allocate no more than 18 chunks, probably a minimum of five.

2. Pick a chunk that you want to free

The ideal candidate is obviously not the first chunk or the 18th chunk.

The chunk you choose should have the same offset between its previous one and also the next one. So, that means you want to make sure you have this layout before you free the middle one:

[ Chunk 1 ][ Chunk 2 ][ Chunk 3 ]

3. Make a hole

By freeing the middle chunk, you technically create a hole that looks like this:

[ Chunk 1 ][ Free chunk ][ Chunk 3 ]

4. Create smaller allocations for a coalescing miracle

Usually, the ideal chunks are actually objects from the application. An ideal one, for example, is some kind of object with a size header you could modify. The structure of a BSTR fits perfectly for this scenario:

[ 4 bytes (length prefix) ][ WCHAR* +

[scifigeneration]

From breaking glass to chest bursting, the scientists' review of Alien: Covenant

by Michael Milford and Juxi Leitner

What’s going to happen next in Alien: Covenant? Twentieth Century Fox

Alien: Covenant is the sequel to the 2012 film Prometheus, and follows the crew of the ship Covenant as they set out to colonise an uncharted paradise.

Of course, things are not as they seem and they’re soon fighting for their lives in the most terrifying of situations.

The film introduces an almost all new cast with a few well-known faces, such as the wonderfully creepy Michael Fassbender. While touching on a new topic with a different tone, the film has the familiar Alien flair and DNA attached to it.

It’s horrifying, visceral and a worthy new entry in the canon that began way back in 1979 with director Ridley Scott’s nightmare vision featuring the heroine Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver. Covenant also features a strong female lead, Daniels, portrayed by Katherine Waterston.

Alien: Covenant.

As proper science fiction films, the Alien movies have always been filled with scientific and mathematical concepts. Here we’ll dive into some of the ones encountered in Alien: Covenant, which echo themes present in the earlier films as well.

As per usual, a high-level “just for fun” analysis must make major assumptions and simplifications to do the maths, so you’ve been warned!

Is that glass going to hold?

Film characters often seem to find themselves in situations where there’s only a flimsy pane of glass between them and some horrifying monstrosity (remember Jurassic Park?).

Covenant does not disappoint. In fact, glass seems to play a major part in almost every scene (from the sleeper pods to the lander).

In one memorable scene, when the crew is being evacuated from the planet, an alien tries to crack through the glass of the spacecraft as it takes off.

(Twentieth Century Fox)

We can do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on how tough that glass would have to be to stop the alien coming through it. We’re going to work off glass pressure ratings – the amount of pressure they’re rated to withstand.

Let’s say the alien’s head (the main battering ram in this clip) weighs 100kg. We can guesstimate how fast it’s moving. The clip plays at 25 frames per second, and the head appears to move about 0.5 metres in that one-frame interval.

(Twentieth Century Fox)

Speed = distance / time

= 0.5m / (1s / 25)

= 0.5m / 0.04s

= 12.5m/s

That gives us the impact speed. We can turn that into a momentum value by multiplying it by mass.

Momentum = mass × speed

= 100kg × 12.5m/s

= 1,250kgm/s

We also need the time it takes for the head to stop. We can guesstimate that at 0.001 seconds, similar to a baseball bat hitting a ball. Now we have everything we need to work out the impact force, and consequently the pressure the alien exerts on the glass.

Impact force = change in momentum / time interval

= 1,250kgm/s / 0.001s

= 1,250,000kgm/s2

To convert a force into a pressure, we need the area the force is applied over. It looks like it’s only the tip of the alien’s head, maybe a 10cm × 10cm area, or 0.01 m2.

Pressure = force / area

= 1,250,000kgm/s2 / 0.01m2

= 125,000,000kg/ms2

= 125,000,000 Pascals (P)

Since 1 pound-force per square inch (PSI) is the same as 6,894.76 Pascals, so:

Pressure = 18,130 PSI

Tough tempered glass is known to break at somewhere in the 10,000 to 24,000 PSI range, so it looks like it could be touch and go for the crew if there’s a big angry alien banging away at the glass trying to get through.

And as depicted in the film, not all glass is created equally to withstand an attack, especially inside the spacecraft.

My crewmates are driving me crazy

If you’re going to be spending years with your crew mates, not only on the ship but in the new colony you’re founding, you want to get on with them.

Please come play with me Walter (Michael Fassbender). Twentieth Century Fox

In Alien: Covenant, there are more pressing survival issues than social dynamics, but for real-life scenarios like space travel to Mars, this is a major challenge.

We can examine the probability of personality conflict for different size groups.

Let’s say there’s a 5% chance of anyone having a major personality conflict with any other person.

If there are just two of you, then the likelihood of neither of you hating each other is:

Harmony likelihood = chance you like them × chance they like you

= (1 - chance you hate them) × ((1 - chance you hate them)

= (1 - 0.05) × (1 - 0.05)

= 0.9025 or 90.25%

What a happy extended family. Twentieth Century Fox

That’s not bad odds. But what if there are 20 of you? Then:

Harmony likelihood = chance you like the other 19 people × chance the 2nd person likes the other 19 people × … chance the 20th person likes the other 19 people

= (chance someone likes the other 19 people)20

= (0.9519)20

= 0.377420

= 3.4 × 10-9

That’s a 0.00000034% chance!

Disharmony in numbers (Michael Milford)

So grab any random group of 20 people with those individual characteristics, and there’s only a tiny chance there won’t be some significant conflict potential there.

That’s why there’s so much psychological profiling for missions to Mars.

Things can get out of hand pretty quickly. Twentieth Century Fox

That’s not indigestion

One of the most iconic film scenes of all time has to be the young alien’s chestburster explosion out of poor John Hurt’s character Kane in 1979’s Alien.

In Covenant a few more alien lifeforms are bursting out of humans, and the chest does not seem to be their only option.

Our rib cage is incredibly strong: is this why they chose other regions of the body to exit? Is the chest even remotely feasible?

(Twentieth Century Fox)

We can examine two possibilites: a brute force, bash your way out technique, or a more elegant cut your way out. We’ll draw on science from cardiac surgery, chimpanzees and boxing.

Packing a punch. 123rf.com/Yuriy Klochan/Marcel Schauer/Ostill, Author provided

Power saw approach

If the alien is able to use its sharp teeth, it might be able to partially cut its way through the rib cage before bursting out.

The process usually takes a few seconds. Some of this could be the alien pre-cutting, which might explain the blood splattering.

A typical sternum saw might have a peak power output of 250 watts. A human cyclist operating at peak power might reach more than 1,400 watts for a very short period of time.

But the alien is a much meaner animal than we are. Chimpanzees are about twice as strong as a human per weight, and we can say that the alien might be twice as strong again. Let’s assume the young alien weighs 5kg.

Chestburster peak power output = human power output × alien enhancement factor × chestburster weight / human weight

= 1,400W × 4 × 5kg / 80kg

= 350W

So if the chestburster could apply its incredible power as efficiently to cutting its way out as a cardiac surgeon does with a saw, this approach is feasible.

Bash your way out

This requires the brute force of shoving a large bluntish object through the rib cage.

We can compare to the punching force of a boxer. A quick blow with an impact force of 3,300 Newtons has a 25% chance of cracking an average person’s rib. A study of Olympic boxers found a peak force of about 4,700 Newtons.

Can the chestburster apply this much force? Let’s say the chestburster is 4 times more impactful than a human by body weight; it might then have the ability to exert a peak impact force of 4,700 × 4 × 5kg / 80kg = 1,175 Newtons.

This force is unlikely to break open the rib cage in one go, so repeated attempts may be necessary. This might explain why the alien finds other ways to make an appearance from its host.

The verdict

Alien: Covenant hits a different note from the other films in the Alien franchise. It explores more philosophical topics, along the lines of Prometheus, such as where we came from, what makes us human and what does not.

Propped up by stunning visuals and music it packs a lot of action scenes (some more realistic than others) but at its core is still a scary film that drops us in an incredible but terrifying future.

On the science side, Covenant presents fascinating new twists on the science fiction concepts presented in the series so far. Allowing for a generous dose of Hollywood entertainment, we think the movie does a good job, exposing us to new scientific concepts in a horrifying way.

Michael Milford is an Associate professor at Queensland University of Technology. Juxi Leitner is a Research Fellow in Robotics & AI at Queensland University of Technology.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

[livinglavidalibro-blog]

A Thousand Splendid Suns

Wow, this book is a wild ride. So many emotions, so much going on, so little time. And I really mean so little time because you will not be able to put it down, so you’ll really finish it fast. 9/10 one of the best books I’ve read.

DETAILS 2007 novel by Khaled Hosseini

SUMMARY Mariam grew up outside of the town of Herat, Afghanistan, with her mother. Her father, Jalil, was a wealthy businessman who lived in Herat and came to visit her once a week. Her mother had been a maid in her father’s house and when she became pregnant, she was fired by one of Jalil’s wives. Mariam loved and idolized her father, though her mother warned her he was ashamed of her because she was an illegitimate child. One day, Mariam walks to his house, only to be turned away – she realizes her mother was right, but when she arrives home, she finds her mother has killed herself in response to Mariam’s disappearance. Jalil then quickly married Mariam off to a much older man named Rasheed and she moves to his home in Kabul. At first he is nice, but soon he turns abusive and controlling. For a few years they attempt to have a child but eventually give up. Shortly after Mariam moves to Kabul, their neighbor gives birth to a daughter. The young girl is named Laila and she grows up in a very liberal household; she and her best friend Tariq fall in love when they are teenagers, but when the war begins, he and his family leave Afghanistan. Laila is hurt in a bombing, which kills her parents, and subsequently taken in by Mariam and Rasheed, whom she agrees to marry after discovering she is pregnant with Tariq’s child. At first Rasheed is nice to her, but after she gives birth to a daughter instead of a son, he becomes abusive to her as well. Mariam and Laila slowly develop a close friendship, and Mariam becomes like a mother to Laila, helping her raise her daughter and the son she later gives birth to. As the war drags on, Laila and Mariam try to escape, only to fail and face worse abuse at home. Laila’s daughter is sent to an orphanage because they cannot afford to feed everyone. Eventually, Tariq reappears and he and Laila fall back in love. Rasheed finds out and beats Laila and Mariam both – in the heat of the moment, Laila strikes him and kills him. Mariam takes the blame for it, and helps plan to get Laila and the children out of Afghanistan with Tariq. Mariam is executed, while Laila and Tariq take the children and live in Pakistan and save up money. One year later, they return, as Laila wants to help rebuild her country and be closer to the place she and Mariam lived, and the place where Mariam died.

ANALYSIS This novels focuses a great deal on parent-child relationships. As a young girl, Mariam is desperate for her father’s love and idolizes him, only to realize that her mother is right and he is ashamed of her. During her childhood, Laila has a loving father but her mother can be distant and favors Laila’s older brothers. As adults, both women are heavily influenced by the relationships they had with their parents. Mariam is always obedient, even to her abusive husband, because she feels guilty for leaving her house to go to her father’s house, a direct defiance of her mother’s orders, which resulted in her realizing her father was ashamed of her and her mother killing herself. Laila on the other hand chooses not to leave with Tariq when he and his family flee the country, because she knows her mother will never go, meaning her father will not go. She does not want to abandon her father, the only good parent she ever knew, and so she refuses Tariq’s offer and stays in Afghanistan. When she has children of her own, she is fiercely protective of them; Mariam sees Laila as her own child and becomes equally as protective of her; both careful to make better parents than their own were to them.

           In addition to the importance of parent-child relationship, this story emphasizes that people can have power even when others underestimate them or assume they are helpless or oppressed. This theme of agency is displayed in the protagonists of the story. A Thousand Splendid Suns details the lives of two women living in Afghanistan between the 1980s and early 2000s. The women were married to the same man, who was generations older than them, they underwent regular beatings by him, and they both wore a burka because their husband (and eventually, the law) made them. It was published in the US in 2007, in the midst of the war with Afghanistan, a time when some of the most popular pro-war rhetoric was that women in the Middle East were severely oppressed and powerless. Mariam and Laila were indeed oppressed and abused, absolutely, but Hosseini uses their story, however, to prove that people are not always as powerless as they seem – and that power comes in different forms. Both Mariam and Laila are undoubtedly strong women, despite their circumstances. They suffer through years of abuse and yet they refuse to give up. When their plan to escape fails, they recognize the flaws in that plan and rethink their strategy – instead of trying again and putting themselves, and more importantly, the children, at risk of more abuse as a result, they focus on relying on each other for strength and protection – for themselves and for the children. And when it comes down to it, Laila has the strength to do what she has to to protect herself and her children: she kills Rasheed. And Mariam is strong enough to take the blame for it and suffer a painful public death, after years of abuse, for a crime she did not even commit, in order to protect her loved ones. While at first glance, it appears that these women were stuck in a situation without any agency, as we read the book we learn that they are in a situation that they know they cannot escape from with help, so instead, they suffer through it, sacrificing their own well-being and health to protect each other and the children. In the end, they prove to be incredibly brave and strong. And this strength and agency is Hosseini’s way of showing us – us being western, specifically US based – readers, that strength comes in different forms and people deal with difficult situations in a variety of ways and sometimes the strongest people are the ones who may seem weakest at first.

           This theme is explored throughout the entire novel with Mariam and Laila, but it is also highlighted, albeit in a briefer anecdote, with the character of Tariq. Tariq lost one of his legs at a very young age to a landmine and as a result has a prosthesis. This, of course, would make anyone assume he would be weaker, slower, and less physically capable than most people. But that is not the case at all. Tariq is strong and very fit. And he is not strong in spite of his prosthetic leg – no, the thing that most people would think makes him weaker is actually a source of power for him. As a young boy, he often would take of the leg and use it in fights to defend himself and Laila when people were picking on them. Once again, Hosseini is highlighting the fact that power and agency come in different forms for different people and just because people look like they are in a tough situation does not mean that they are powerless or totally lacking control over their lives. Sometimes they are just demonstrating a different kind of strength. This is an especially powerful message given the fact that the book was published at a time when many people in the United States were picturing Afghanis as citizens with no power who needed the help and guidance of the US – not only in driving out the Taliban, who were undoubtedly an unjust governing force – but also in rebuilding their lives and government and economy. Hosseini is making the point that the US should not look at Afghanis as a group of incapable and powerless people, but rather as strong people in a bad situation who would be just as capable of moving on after the war as any other group of people would be, and that the US should not look down on them.

THOUGHTS This is an incredible book and I really think Hosseini is one of the most talented writers I have read. I really could not put this book down and I fell in love with the characters. I am a sucker for selfless, loving characters who sacrifice themselves for the people they love (see: Sydney Carton, Boo Radley) and so naturally I love Mariam’s character and I also love that you get to see her continued impact on Laila’s life even after she dies. It really didn’t feel like I was reading a book, it felt like I was witnessing the lives of these women in real life. It was touching and sweet and emotional and stressful and scary and just a whole crazy mix of emotions and I was sad when it was over because it was so amazing to read. There is so much that happens in only a few hundred pages, but it never felt like it was rushed or there was too much going on that it wasn’t believable. This book broke my heart and destroyed my faith in humanity, but then quickly rebuilt my faith in humanity and let me witness incredible love. It is such, such, such a good book. A little bit emotionally exhausting but still, such a good book.

[the-desolated-quill]

Look On My Works, Ye Mighty... - Watchmen blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. if you haven’t read this comic yet, you may want to before reading this review)

Adrian Veidt, aka Ozymandias, is the character we probably know the least about, and some could argue that leaving it until the penultimate chapter to fill in the gaps is leaving it a little late, but as was the case with Doctor Manhattan and Rorschach, it was important that we got to see the character and his impact on the world of Watchmen before we got the full story. Plus I imagine Alan Moore was very hesitant to give us too many details about Veidt in case he ran the risk of revealing his hand too early and spoiling the twist. Look On My Works, Ye Mighty offers many answers to the burning questions throughout the graphic novel whilst offering us a chilling insight into the last remaining superhero archetype that had been unexplored until now. The ‘liberal’ capitalist.

Up until now, we know precisely three things about Veidt. He’s rich, he’s clever and he’s an innovator. It was his subsidiary companies that utilised Manhattan’s superpowers as an alternate energy source, making America eco-friendly and revolutionising technology at the time. He’s also the one superhero in the novel that the general public actually seem to like. Most likely because of his willingness to reveal his secret identity before the Keene Act was passed outlawing superheroes and using his vast wealth and influence to try and help the world instead of merely donning a costume and beating people up. However he’s not popular among other superheroes, most notably Rorschach and the Comedian. With Rorschach, the reasoning is obvious. He’s right wing and homophobic, so naturally he’s at odds with Adrian from the get go. With the Comedian, it’s his cynical nihilism that prevents him from seeing Adrian as anything other than a naive fool with delusions of grandeur. And the dislike is mutual. Adrian openly dislikes Rorschach and, in this very issue, he condemns the Comedian for being Richard Nixon’s lap dog, accusing him of being behind the assassination of JFK and working to keep Nixon in power beyond his term limits (whether this is actually true or simply the conspiratorial ramblings of a bitter liberal is left intentionally unclear). So it’s very ironic indeed that it was the Comedian that gave Adrian the inspiration to fake an alien invasion in the first place.

Now I have a lot to say about the whole alien squid thing, but I’m going to save that for the last review. For now I simply want to focus on Ozymandias himself and the reasons and motivations behind his actions.

So first things first, what’s with the Egyptian imagery? Well Ozymandias is actually the given name for the historical figure known as Alexander the Great, whom Adrian feels a strong kinship towards. It also ties into Adrian’s personality and goals. Obviously there’s the obscene wealth and ridiculously self indulgent architecture, but also the ancient belief that the pharaohs of Ancient Egypt were intermediaries between the gods and mortals. This is important because it gives us an insight into how Adrian views himself and the world around him. Because of his intellect and his wealth, he views himself as being above humanity and only he knows how best to fix the world. However, in the process, he reduces ordinary people to mere statistics. Killing millions of people in one city will bring about world peace and prosperity for the other billions of people around the globe. This line of thinking is called utilitarianism, which basically means that the ends justify the means. Now of course all the characters in Watchmen display elements of utilitarian thinking, but Adrian takes it a step further, applying his own morality to a global scale. It’s scary on a number of levels, but what makes it so frightening for me is what the character of Ozymandias says about other capitalist superheroes like Batman, Green Arrow and Iron Man.

Rich white men becoming costumed vigilantes is nothing new of course. Batman was one of the first comic book superheroes ever conceived after all. But very rarely do we get to see or explore the political and social implications of a superhero being a member of the one percent. If you think about it, ultra rich men putting on costumes and beating up often working class criminals is quite disturbing. Especially when you consider the kinds of things the mega rich get away with in the real world. Money gives you influence and influence gives you power. Costumed crime fighting is in itself an exercise of power over those deemed immoral, but for the capitalist superhero it’s also power over the impoverished and dispossessed. Class privilege in action. This is something that’s hardly ever touched upon in comics. Okay Iron Man comes the closest at points as he was initially created to critique industrialists and war profiteers, and the Civil War storyline paints him in a very ugly light as the Superhuman Registration Act imposed by the government reveals a strong wealth and class divide within the superhero community, but other than that the conversation is usually swept under the rug. 

DC Comics are quick to point out how Batman and Green Arrow aren’t like those rich white men. Look, they’re donating money to orphanages and helping the homeless! They’re nice capitalists! We like those capitalists! As for Marvel, there’s a line even they won’t cross regarding the politics of Iron Man and other such superheroes in their canon. They’re more than happy to discuss how making weapons of mass destruction is bad, but you’ll never see them get too specific. You’ll never see them condemn the American military and the role they’ve played in the destabilisation of the Middle East, nor will you ever see them outright address the distinct possibility that Tony Stark is in fact Republican. This is why I often find the accusation of publishers and movie studios having a quote/unquote ‘political agenda’ so baffling because the truth is they have no agenda other than to make money. Marvel and DC are businesses. They’ll never risk taking a firm stance either way for fear that it will alienate a certain group of readers and lose them sales. But by dodging and skirting around the conversation, the two companies have created an archetype that feels incredibly disingenuous, which is what Watchmen seeks to expose with Ozymandias.

The question is can someone who is ultra rich and influential possibly be heroic? This is something that was briefly touched upon back in A Brother To Dragons with Nite Owl. Dan spent his dad’s inheritance on costumes and gadgets for his superhero alter ego when surely it would have been better to donate the money to charity or something if he truly wanted to help his community. But that’s not what Dan wants. Not really. He just wants to indulge in his own power fantasy. Adrian takes that one step further. He has more money than Dan. Exponentially more. And it can be argued he’s done good things for his community, such as creating renewable energy. However, just like with Dan, the reasoning behind his plot isn’t really down to wanting to help others, but rather as a way of having the ultimate power fantasy. To be seen to be saving the world.

Everything Adrian does is less to do with helping others and more to do with displaying his own power and influence. Don’t get me wrong. I believe that he believes he’s doing the right thing, but if you really scrutinise his actions, his motivations feel far more self serving than he would care to admit. Tricking the world into believing they’re being invaded by an outside force is one thing, but taking the trouble to kidnap multiple scientists, writers and artists in order to create a fake alien seems like overkill. It’s ego driven. If you think about it, a bomb would have done. But Adrian wanted something spectacular. Something memorable. Just look at his decor. He built an entire Egyptian temple and biodome in Antarctica. Why? There’s no reason other than for his own self aggrandisement. It’s a display of his power.

Then there’s his actions regarding the Comedian, Rorschach and Doctor Manhattan. He wanted to get rid of witnesses. Understandable. But why beat the Comedian up so savagely, chucking him from his penthouse window, when he could just as easily have dispatched him with a single gunshot like he did with Moloch? Could it be that silencing the Comedian was less about self preservation and more about Adrian demonstrating his superiority over Nixon’s lap dog? Same goes for Rorschach. Again, he could have just killed him. Would have been much simpler. Instead he frames him for Moloch’s murder. It’s not enough to get rid of Rorschach. He wants the satisfaction of outwitting this right wing sociopath. The manipulation of Doctor Manhattan is self explanatory. Tricking a god into leaving the planet must have been quite the ego boost. And then there’s the fake assassination attempt in Fearful Symmetry. Adrian wanted to deflect suspicion away from him, but like with the alien, he wanted something spectacular. Something memorable.

Every single thing Adrian Veidt does throughout the graphic novel has some sort of egotistical agenda behind it. Even his ultimate plot to stop World War Three and unite the world isn’t about the greater good. It’s about him overcoming his own feelings of powerlessness. Because up until now the one thing he was unable to control with all his wealth and influence was the nukes. Now he’s managed even that. He has succeeded where Alexander the Great failed. He is truly the King of kings.

While not as over the top as this, we’ve seen this kind of behaviour so many times before by members of the quote/unquote liberal elite. Bill Gates, JK Rowling, Joss Whedon, Elon Musk and many more. Wealthy people of influence who are more concerned with looking progressive than actually being progressive. They perform charitable acts not out of a genuine desire to help others, but in order to be seen to be charitable. This is Ozymandias. Like I said, I believe that he believes he’s doing the right thing, but for me I think he’s more interested in being seen to have saved the world rather than actually doing something to truly help bridge the divide between nations. In some ways, he represents superheroes as a whole within Watchmen. Men and women more concerned with the attention and power being a superhero brings than actually helping their community. And just as a superhero alter ego allows the characters to see themselves as being above others, so too does wealth allow Adrian to see himself as being above the world.

This is why it was so important to see all the supporting characters. The news vendor, the kid reading the Black Freighter, Joey and her lesbian partner, Doctor Malcolm Long and his wife, and the two police detectives. To remind us that these are real people’s lives these characters are toying around with here. And it’s genuinely unnerving seeing all these people we’ve come to know over the course of the graphic novel be completely obliterated.

[potr1774com]

To help sift through all the BS and politicization of this situation, we will sift through the data and sources to help isolate the REAL experts and the REAL reliable numbers.  That why when some nutjob trys to spit numbers to justify taking away your rights, you have better, more sound, ammunition, per-say.

But, first thing we need to get out of the way:

Are the numbers from China usable?

They fudge their economic numbers [1, 8].

They fudge their political numbers, such as government killings at protests.

They punished doctors that started speaking out about the virus [2,  4].

They tried to fudge numbers about the SARS outbreak [7].

The Diplomat, a journalism site focused on events in Asia, published a mildly fair overview of the data situation in china, and at the end states “the world should not automatically embrace the new numbers coming from the country. With a cautious note about China’s statistical unreliability in mind, we should continue to closely observe…” [2]  Even Brookings Institute, a reliable economic think-tank, doesn’t trust numbers coming out of China [1].  Even the unreliable and biased Time reported the unreliability of China’s data [5].  Then there is PBS, who takes a softer approach to criticizing the Communist Party of China, still provides ample facst as to why they can’t be trusted [7].   The Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo said during a CNBC interview [6],  “incredibly frustrating” to work with the Chinese government to obtain data on the coronavirus, “which will ultimately be the solution to both getting the vaccine and attacking this risk.”  And that is true.  Then we have the “U.S. intelligence community” and their “classified report” claiming China’s numbers are fake.  But, they are extremely hard to trust, period.  But, Bloomberg then starts to go off on this political conspiracy theory about an “attempt to divert attention from surging deaths in the U.S. and other Western countries” and then makes the sadly biased comment “There was no way for serious data faking to occur in today’s China…” [9].  Notice they added the word “serious.” So they secretly admit there was some faking but too coward to openly say it; bias.  Even the New York Times, as dishonest as they are, seems to support this CIA claim. [11].   And to expose unreliable reporting from outlets such as Bloomberg, Forbes reports: “Maybe our numbers aren’t entirely giving the full picture of the coronavirus“, China health officials said on Tuesday [March 31, 2020][10].

Now, with all these sources, some more reliable than others, we can paint a more complete picture of the reliability of the data coming out of China.  And their data, given the totality of analysis and reporting; is unreliable.

Since we CAN determine that the numbers coming out of China are unreliable, does that make them unusable?  Yes.  If you incorporate skewed data into a formula, the result is skewed.  If you add false information into a equation, the solution is incorrect.  The same logic applies to using China’s numbers when determining the truth about COVID-19.

People will argue something like “but you can still get a general idea,” but can you?  You aren’t even sure how accurate your “general idea” is when it is dependent on inaccurate information… Your “general idea” may be WAY off, but you wouldn’t know.

What about The World Health Organization?  Are they reliable?

Welp, considering THEY are allowing China to pick the people who will investigate human rights violations says it all.  That’s like putting Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin on the Human Rights Commission to help better the world… yet, that is exactly what the WHO did.

“On Jan. 19, the WHO told the world “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”

What they didn’t tell the world, but they knew all too well, is that China was engaged in a campaign of lies and cover-ups to hide the viral devastation their nation had unleashed. In fact, China had been tracking the person-to-person transmission for more than a month by the time that tweet went out.

The same goes for Bruce Aylward, a senior official at the World Health Organization who infamously hung up on a reporter asking about Taiwan’s (far more effective) handling of coronavirus. Mr. Aylward was apparently afraid of offending the Chinese regime” [12].

Even the left leaning, The Hill, reported that “Tedros [WHO Chief] apparently turned a blind eye to what happened in Wuhan and the rest of China and, after meeting with Xi in January, has helped China to play down the severity, prevalence and scope of the COVID-19 outbreak.”[13]

But listen to what the WHO says.  “We have met the [Chinese] president. We have seen the level of knowledge he has on the outbreak, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a Feb. 12 briefing. “Don’t you appreciate that kind of leadership?”  “China has done many good things to slow down the virus,” Mr. Tedros added. “There is no spinning here.”

So, there we have it, the WHO is nothing more than China’s mouth piece and lap dog.  Where they will just regurgitate China’s numbers.  Rendering them, unreliable as well.

So, what numbers can we trust?  Can we even trust the numbers being calculated by America?

Well, the CDC told all of America to include just about anyone that died as a COVID-19 death… even if it is possible they died from something else [14].  In their statement, it reads: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.”

So, what if it was the seasonal flu, which kills tens of thousands, every year?  Are they just going to assume another 20,000 deaths was COVID-19 and not what it actually may have been?!  Guess so.

So, a couple of states jump on this.  The more they report, the more money and resources they get.  New York’s death count jumped by an additional 33% just by added the deaths of those who they assumed died by COVID-19 or may have contributed.  But, they aren’t sure, they don’t know, it wasn’t confirmed.   A lot of other states are following suit.  Adding to their numbers UNCONFIRMED cases of people that MAY have died by some other means BUT counting them as though it was COVID-19.

Therefore, even America’s numbers are inflated and skewed by including deaths of people who were unconfirmed and may not have even had COVID-19.

BUT DO YOU NOTICE SOMETHING IN COMMON?

China manipulates their numbers.

The World Health Organization embraces manipulated numbers.

America inflates their numbers.

America slanders China for what the CDC officially recommends doing.

It’s almost like governments WANT scary numbers and statistical manipulation…

You make this pandemic scary enough, deadly enough, that the people are so scared they cry for help and big mommy daddy government comes to their rescue and people then start to really believe the government is their savior.

But, you don’t want it too deadly as to not kill off your loyal subjects and peasants or be unable to show how heroic the government is by controlling it and “flatten the curve.” The government wants to appear to be the hero of the people.  The champion of the common good.  Leads people to desire the protection of the government even more.

They you play politics as a distraction.  America blames China, China blames America, the WHO plays both sides.  And on and on it goes.  When BOTH desire to increase the fear and power over their people.  Or in China’s case, maintain the control and power over their people while America expands their power over the people.

Then those in government dependent careers, who are already in love with and dependent on the government, argue for more government resources, more government control over the situation, and will be the very ones who praise the expansion of government for more control in the future.

And this isn’t new in the history of world governments.  Not even new for America.

This is the greatest expansion of government control since Japanese Internment Camps of World War II.  Except, the entire population instead of one ethnic group is effected.  Remember, the justification for the internment camps was for “the greater good,” built off of fear of Imperial Japanese spies…

Now, change out “Japanese Internment Camps” with “forced quarantine” for the “common good.”  And change out “fear of spies” for “fear of COVID-19.”  So, government oppression and control remains the same in principle, just different tools and justifications for it.  If you defend and advocate for government forced quarantines for the common good, you, in principle, would defend Japanese Internment Camps…

How can you argue against Jim Crow laws, when they did the same thing in principle?  Jim Crow laws limited movement of American citizens, for, at that time, though incorrect, for the common good; “separate but equal” was the justification at that time, for the common good.  Now, thankfully, seen as racist laws, they were the same as now in principle.  But instead of imposing the same principles of governing on a select population, they are applied to the entire population, for the common good.

So at the heart of ‘why’ is this:

America, politicians and majority of its people, liberal and conservative, desire a socialist totalitarian state.  And you can’t say they don’t when they, the majority, support, defend, and advocate for socialist policies, efforts, and government actions and control…

Statistical manipulation leads to fear.

The government then swoops in and addresses those fears.

The people feel more willingly reliant on the government.

The government then assumes the responsibility for administration of goods and services for the collective, common good…

‘socialism’

noun

so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

  The local, state, and federal governments collectively decided the administration of goods and services by, itself, determining what goods and services were “essential” and “non-essential” and then ordered the closure of “non-essential” for the collective “common good.”

America, by definition, implemented through threat of force, socialist policies.  And that is by definition.  period.

At the end of the day, don’t believe everything your told, even if it is in the form of numbers and fancy charts.  Think logically, rationally, critically, and free; especially if it is coming from a politically charged government…

Some Interesting Historical Quotes to Think About:

*Facebook can flag this as “misinformation” and continue to shadow-ban like Nazis all they want, but we base this entire article of reports and sources that they feel is official news outlets.  Just see all our citations above and sources below.  If flagged and banned, it is the logical critical free-thinking they fear.

https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/a-forensic-examination-of-chinas-national-accounts/

https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/can-chinas-covid-19-statistics-be-trusted/

https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc-scen-3_pandemic-1957.htm

https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30111-9/fulltext

https://time.com/5813628/china-coronavirus-statistics-wuhan/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/06/secretary-of-state-mike-pompeo-says-china-not-forthcoming-initially-on-coronavirus-setting-prevention-efforts-back.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-accurate-are-chinas-virus-numbers

2018 study by Yingyao Hu and Jiaxiong Yao of Johns Hopkins University.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-01/china-concealed-extent-of-virus-outbreak-u-s-intelligence-says

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/03/31/china-hints-that-its-coronavirus-data-doesnt-paint-full-picture/#1d435ea42d58

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/us/politics/cia-coronavirus-china.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/11/when-covid-19-pandemic-threatened-the-world-the-un/

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/487851-china-and-the-whos-chief-hold-them-both-accountable-for-pandemic

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf

  COVID-19 Data, Sources, and Why? To help sift through all the BS and politicization of this situation, we will sift through the data and sources to help isolate the REAL experts and the REAL reliable numbers. 

[thisdaynews]

Championship 'bubble waiting to burst' with clubs posting record losses in Premier League 'gamble'

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/championship-bubble-waiting-to-burst-with-clubs-posting-record-losses-in-premier-league-gamble/

Championship 'bubble waiting to burst' with clubs posting record losses in Premier League 'gamble'

Media playback is not supported on this device

Football fans express their fears over record club losses in the EFL Championship.

The Championship is a “bubble waiting to burst” because clubs are posting record losses in a “gamble” to reach the Premier League.

Former Wigan chairman David Sharpe, who sold the club in 2018, said the situation is “frightening” – following a BBC Radio 5 Live Investigation Unit analysis of the Championship’s finances.

The analysis, conducted with accountants Deloitte and football finance experts Vysyble, found:

Championship sides ran up a record high total of £307m in pre-tax losses in 2017-18

Despite the league also bringing in its highest-ever revenue of £749m, overall spending on player and staff wages exceeded clubs’ revenue by 11%

That gap is expected to widen to an all-time high for 2018-19

More than half of clubs are spending more on wages than they make in income.

Many teams are recording significant losses over one or two seasons in an attempt to gain promotion to the Premier League

This follows the introduction of new profit and sustainability (P&S) rules by the English Football League in 2016-17.

The EFL told the BBC it has set up a “working group” of clubs to look at possible changes that could help the long-term sustainability of clubs in future.

‘Thank God we’re out’ – what else did Sharpe say?

Sharpe said the “only reason” the Whelan family sold Wigan to the Hong Kong-based company International Entertainment Corporation was because they did not see the “scary” financial situation improving.

“The Championship is not financially sustainable, it’s a bubble waiting to burst,” he said.

“It can’t continue if the model is just having enough billionaire owners to keep funding it – that’s a strange, crazy model because there are only so many people you can attract.”

Sharpe, who took over Wigan from grandfather Dave Whelan in 2015, said the family were putting in “nearly £1m a month just to keep it going” despite having the fourth-lowest wage bill in the Championship.

He said he “would not be surprised” if in the next five years a Championship club entered administration and dropped out of the Football League like Bury did in August.

“There are Championship clubs chasing that Premier League dream and when the gamble doesn’t come off somebody has to foot the bill and if they can’t afford it, the club could end up in administration,” he said.

“It’s a real problem and it’s only going to get worse – thank God we are out.”

What did the EFL say?

The EFL told the BBC: “Club owners are fully aware of the current financial regulations in place and are cognisant of the risks that such an increase in outgoings can have on sustainability.

“Clubs, however, must be given the freedom and flexibility to strive for success within the parameters of the regulations.

“It should also be remembered that ‘operating profits’ are not the primary aim of most professional clubs, with owners opting to compete for success in what is an increasingly competitive marketplace.”

What are the new spending rules?

Figures come from published 2017-18 accounts of each club company or group structure.

New P&S rules introduced by the EFL from the 2016-17 season allow the majority of clubs £39m in losses over three seasons.

If a team has recently been relegated from the Premier League, its limits will be larger – and there are other caveats that allow some clubs to spend beyond the £39m limit.

Clubs that spend beyond their P&S limit can face sanctions, such as a transfer embargo or a points deduction, as happened to Birmingham City last season.

What about those with the highest losses?

5 Live’s analysis found that the losses detailed on the public annual accounts for five Championship clubs were approaching or exceeding £39 million in 2017-18 alone.

The three clubs – Wolves, Fulham and Cardiff – to post the highest pre-tax losses all did gain promotion to the Premier League that year.

Fulham told the BBC that, despite posting losses of £45m in one year, they would not have broken the three-year P&S limit even if they had not been promoted.

QPR say their £38m loss is partly because of a £20m fine already imposed by the EFL under previous Financial Fair Play rules, and that this would not count towards the spending limit. Wolves, Cardiff and Birmingham provided no comment.

If a club does go up they receive promotion bonuses and their P&S limit is increased to more than £100m, meaning some sides are running up big losses over one or two years in a bid to make it up to the Premier League.

But if they don’t achieve promotion, they will have to cut spending significantly in the third season – by possibly selling players or assets – to bring them under the £39m limit.

“You can lose £39m over three years in the Championship but it’s clearly not stopping clubs – a points deduction is a slap on the wrist,” said Sharpe.

The EFL said that it has “demonstrated that appropriate action will be taken in accordance with our regulations when breaches are identified”.

It added: “But it is important to acknowledge that the majority of EFL clubs are well supported by experienced owners and their boards, who are very aware of the economic challenges faced when operating a football club.”

Media playback is not supported on this device

‘It’s is a billionaires’ gamblers’ paradise’ – former Wigan chairman David Sharpe on doing business in the Championship

What about stadium sales?

There have been questions raised about some clubs – including Aston Villa and Derby – and their ground sales. Both clubs deny breaching any P&S rules.

Sheffield Wednesday were charged with misconduct by the EFL last month, after an investigation into the sale of Hillsborough to the club’s owner, which the EFL allege helped it meet P&S rules.

The Owls sold their ground to owner Dejphon Chansiri for £60m in June this year, allowing them to record a pre-tax profit of £2.6m for 2017-18, which allegedly helped the club meet P&S rules.

The EFL charge relates to “how and when” the stadium was sold and its early inclusion in the 2018 accounts. Sheffield Wednesday deny the charges, calling them “unlawful” and “stands ready, if necessary, to vigorously defend them”.

The club, which is now bringing a claim against the EFL, says it has “numerous emails, letters and other documents in which the EFL gave authorisation to the transaction, and on which authorisation the club understood it could rely”.

Lifelong Wednesday fan Chris McClure told BBC Radio 5 Live his club’s situation “shines a light on a bigger problem” within the league and its finances, and he now feels “numb” going to watch his side, with their season in limbo as they await their fate.

“I love going to see Wednesday, but now the whole enjoyment has been zapped out of it before I even enter the ground,” he added.

Are wages just too high?

Spending on wages in 2017-18 jumped by 11% from the previous year – an £83m increase, according to Deloitte.

Vysyble says more than half of clubs are spending more on wages than they make in income.

Deloitte say this gap between wages and revenue is likely widen further to what they call an “unwelcome record high” when the 2018-19 accounts are published next year.

Sharpe, who is now an agent, says that “a salary cap is the only way to solve the problem”.

He added: “People talk about a new TV deal but it will all just go back to the players ultimately and the clubs and owners that want to gamble will just give out higher wages.

“A salary cap will be hard to pass on a vote but if it doesn’t, they have a big, big problem on their hands.”

What about parachute payments?

Figures from Deloitte show that parachute payments, designed to help relegated clubs absorb big losses in revenue caused by dropping out of the top flight, are having a significant impact on the revenue inequality within the Championship.

Parachute payments made up more than a third of the Championship’s total revenue in 2017-18 – compared to just 9% when they were introduced in 2001-02 – meaning a third of the Championship’s money now comes directly from the Premier League.

The average club receiving parachute payments had a total revenue of £13m in 2001-02 against £10m for those without.

In 2017-18 those receiving parachute payments had a total revenue of £51m against £21m for those without.

The EFL said: “The Premier League does remain an important part of the financial mix across the EFL through the provision of parachute payments and contracted solidarity payments,” adding that “this assists in providing clubs with increased clarity when making long-term financial commitments.”

Additional reporting by BBC Sport’s Jack Skelton.

Read More

[ntrending]

The shakiest earthquake myths debunked

New Post has been published on https://nexcraft.co/the-shakiest-earthquake-myths-debunked/

The shakiest earthquake myths debunked

The San Andreas Fault is actually visible in the Carrizo Plain (Doc Searls/)

Back-to-back tremors shook up Southern California last week. A magnitude 6.4 quake struck Thursday morning, followed by a magnitude 7.1 event Friday night. Both occurred near the small city of Ridgecrest, located about 122 miles east-northeast of Los Angeles. While there are no reports of deaths or injuries, the U.S. Geological Survey says economic losses to the area are at least $1 billion.

The earthquakes have also raised questions among SoCal residents, some wondering if the tremors have somehow mitigated the ongoing threat posed by the precarious San Andreas Fault. The shaking also brought back many other old earthquake myths. Like many natural disasters, quakes are scary and out of our control. And since humans don’t like uncertainty, we sometimes we attempt to make sense of events like these with poorly interpreted geology. “People don’t like having their world come unglued,” says Susan Hough, a geophysicist at the USGS. “They’re looking to make sense of it.”

But the complex reality of earthquakes evades many of these beliefs. Here’s a few common myths and their corresponding realities.

Small earthquakes help prevent big ones by releasing stress

Earthquakes do release stress within the earth—that’s why this idea feels so intuitive. Fundamentally, the planet’s plated crust is shifting to release energy originating in its hot core. As plates push against each other, they occasionally slip and slide to release pent up stress. Faults are cracks in the earth in which one side has moved relative to the other. Large faults like the San Andreas occur at plate boundaries, but smaller faults—like those that caused the recent earthquakes—often form outside this border.

The two earthquakes that rocked SoCal have no bearing on the activity of faults outside of that localized zone in the eastern part of the state. “No pressure was released from the San Andreas,” says Hough, referencing the infamous fault, which runs north-south through the state where the North American and Pacific plates meet. Many Californians live in fear of the ‘Big One,’ a catastrophic shaking that appears imminent based on the fault’s historic activity. But, Hough says that the Ridgecrest faults are too far away to relieve pressure from the San Andreas Fault.

In fact, “the odds of a big earthquake are never higher than right after a big earthquake has happened,” says Hough. “You relieve stress but you’ve also shaken up the crust.”

USGS officials stated in a press release that in the week after July 6, there’s a 2 percent chance of at least one aftershock greater than magnitude 7.1. And indeed Ridgecrest has been rocked by many magnitude 5 aftershocks since the first quake, says Christine Goulet, executive director of the Southern California Earthquake Center, who was out studying the initial earthquake when the second, larger one hit.

While quakes relieve pressure along the bodies of faults, their ends haven’t moved, so now those parts are more stressed, says Hough. And then the actual shaking can rumble other faults in the area, triggering more quakes.

That’s why earthquake odds are now elevated in Southern California—and could remain so for years to come. “You can think of every earthquake as a parent that is potentially going to generate daughters,” says Hough.

So, while earthquakes could theoretically relieve stress, it just doesn’t work that way in reality. Goulet explains it another way. It takes many, many smaller quakes to release the same energy as a big one. Say you had a fault that you wanted to release the energy of a magnitude 7 earthquake from. For that to happen, you would need about 32 magnitude 6s in exactly the same place to release that energy—that’s because a magnitude 7 earthquake releases 32 times as much energy as a magnitude 6. That scenario is extremely unlikely and definitely not something to rely on.

The view from the Ferry Building looking west on Market Street, just after the 1906 earthquake that devastated San Francisco. (National Archives and Records Administration/)

Earthquakes occur during a certain time of year or part of the lunar cycle.

Hough says a common myth that she encounters is that earthquakes occur when it’s hot and dry. But there’s no evidence of that. Goulet says she hears it all the time, too, and adds that there’s no way surface temperatures can impact earthquakes, which are fueled by fault activity miles below the ground.

Nor does the moon play any substantial role. While the moon does bring us tides and can even exert some stress on the solid parts of the Earth, that force isn’t enough to bring on big quakes. Hough even investigated this very question in a study. She took all earthquakes magnitude 8 and over from the 1600s to today and ran an analysis to see if there were any meaningful patterns in what time of year they occurred or at which point in the lunar cycle. The abstract of the study, which is titled “Do Large (Magnitude ≥8) Global Earthquakes Occur on Preferred Days of the Calendar Year or Lunar Cycle?,” should win an award for academic brevity: “No.”

“It’s all consistent with random chance,” Hough adds.

Our pets can predict earthquakes

Accounts of animals acting weird before earthquakes date back to ancient times. Today, some people describe their dogs barking or their cats taking shelter in the hours leading to a tremor.

“There’s a chance that there’s some germ of truth to that,” says Hough, because pets might be able to sense the first wave of an earthquake, called a P or compressional wave, which rolls through just before the obvious movement occurs. “Sometimes dogs and some animals will react to the first wave, the compression wave—they’ll feel it and we won’t,” says Goulet.

But this ability would only kick in in the seconds before an earthquake. Hough says that there’s no scientific evidence for pets having a built-in early warning system for earthquakes. She says that in one study, scientists tested this hypothesis by looking at shelter records to see if pets were more likely to run away before an earthquake. But that didn’t hold up, and there were actually more pet escapes after earthquakes than before.

It’s probably another case of us searching for order—a way to make sense of a shocking event. We might not normally notice or care if our dogs are acting antsy, but this observation takes on a new significance after an earthquake. “Maybe Fluffy ate something she shouldn’t have,” says Hough. “You can identify all sorts of things that you think are significant that aren’t.”

California is going to fall into the sea as a result of a major earthquake

Wait, what? Hough says she’s not sure if this is real myth or a joke, but Goulet says people genuinely ask her that.

It seems this idea is based on the fact that the state is split between two tectonic plates. The central and southern coast of California lies on the Pacific Plate, while the rest of the state is part of the North American plate. But these plates are moving along the horizontal plane. Some plates do move away from each other, and other fault lines have one plate sliding beneath another, but the San Andreas fault isn’t like that. Los Angeles is scooting toward San Francisco at an average rate of about two inches a year. In 50 million years or so, the cities might meet, and who knows what that will do to NorCal/SoCal animosity if we’re still around then. But no one’s getting submerged as a result of an earthquake.

“Relax, it’s up to code”

A building that was deemed earthquake-safe decades ago might not meet the best standards today. Although cities actively identify old buildings to retrofit, there are still a lot of out-of-date structures in cities like San Francisco. “The building code evolved over time as we gained knowledge,” says Goulet. And, being up to code is also based on probability—not exceeding a two percent chance of collapse in 50 years. Those are pretty good odds, but even if your home or office doesn’t crash like a stack of pancakes it’s not necessarily safe. “You may lose all the contents [of the building], or it might have to be torn down,” says Goulet. “There’s no such thing as earthquake-proof.”

There’s a lot we don’t know about earthquakes. Predicting them is impossible now, and may be for a long time. Seismologists can only—based on past events and statistics—offer forecasts that say what the odds are of a certain magnitude earthquake occurring within a given time frame.

One thing we do know is how to be prepared, something many people in earthquake-prone regions neglect. Goulet recommends the website earthquakecountry.org for tips on preparing an emergency kit and having a plan. Even basic steps like securing bookshelves and water heaters to walls or stocking up on disaster supplies could significantly impact your well-being after a big quake. And it’s always better to over-prepare than the alternative.

Written By Ula Chrobak

[bisoroblog]

Peers Are Powerful: Using Positive Social Norms to Tackle Unhealthy Behaviors

No one ever shows up at brunch and says, “Oh my gosh, I was so sober last night!”

Risky behavior draws attention. As a result, people tend to assume that everyone else is doing it more than they really are.

But, over the last two decades, research on college campuses has shown that giving students the real facts about their peers reduces unsafe drinking. This approach is called positive social norms. It works because of a basic truth of human nature: People want to do what others are doing.

Now, that research is starting to be applied to a novel area: preventing sexual assault and harassment. From an unwanted comment on the street to groping in the hallways at school, surveys suggest more than half of young women and almost half of young men have experienced sexual harassment before age 18.

And about 8 percent of girls experience rape or attempted rape by this young age.

Since the #MeToo movement, six states have introduced or passed bills to require the teaching of consent in their sex ed classes in K-12. But there’s not yet much research on what kind of education actually works to shift teens’ attitudes and actions.

Sandra Malone directs prevention and training at Day One, a nonprofit in Providence, R.I., which offers both education and rape crisis services. Her program has been among the first to try to move teens to seek consent and build healthier sexual relationships by harnessing an unlikely force: peer pressure.

She says she can remember from her own teenage years: “Their peers are so important to them. Those are powerful years where you don’t want to make yourself vulnerable and stand out.”

In its workshops at high schools, Day One uses a version of the positive social norms approach adapted from alcohol education programs.

“Peers are very, very influential, and people of any age who want to fit in will try and behave according to what they perceive as the group norm,” explains Alan Berkowitz, a psychologist and expert on preventing sexual assault. But when you’re talking about transgressive behavior, like underage drinking, drug use or nonconsensual sexual behavior, there’s often a “misperception of the norm.”

Social norms approaches start by surveying a population to get accurate information, which is then used to correct that misperception. “One of the most effective and powerful ways of encouraging young people to make healthy decisions is to know the truth about their friends,” Berkowitz explains. “Because in fact most of their friends are healthy.”

This message doesn’t necessarily fit on a poster.

Wes Perkins, a professor of sociology at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, was one of the originators of social norms education for alcohol. On his campus in Geneva, N.Y., they do things like setting up a voluntary random Breathalyzer to test students on a Saturday night, proving that they’re just as likely to be in the library as at a frat party.

Yet, compared to drinking, Perkins says that sexual behavior is “politically a little more tricky.” By publicizing the fact that “most men” don’t commit or condone sexual violence, you don’t want to sound like you’re downplaying the issue. “It can easily be misunderstood as trying to whitewash the problem.”

However, with plenty of conversation, perhaps in a workshop setting, “in the long run you can get men to act more as allies.”

To see how the Day One program works, I visited a consent workshop at The Metropolitan Regional Career and Technical Center, a high school in Providence. Leslie, a studious 10th-grader, was one of the participants. (We’re not using the students’ last names to protect their privacy.)

She explains that the workshop leaders started with survey questions. For example: Would you care if a girl at your school was being verbally harassed? Do you think others at your school would care?

“We could see that everybody thought nobody would care,” Leslie says. But in fact, “everybody saw, oh, a lot of people do care, which is something a lot of people don’t know.”

Lindsay Orchowski at Brown University and her team worked with Day One to survey nearly 8,000 students at 26 high schools across Rhode Island, in research funded by the Centers for Disease and Prevention. They shared their as-yet-unpublished data with us, which found trends similar to what Leslie learned:

87 percent of students said that they, personally, would believe someone who reported a sexual assault. But only 51 percent of students thought their peers would believe such a report.

92 percent of students personally agreed that bystanders can help prevent sexual violence. But only 55 percent thought their peers would agree on the power of bystanders.

To correct these kinds of misperceptions, the four one-hour sessions in Day One’s program cover scenarios like street harassment, groping, sexual assault by an acquaintance and cyberbullying.

Sadly, these are all common, says Kevin, a 15-year-old with curly hair.

“I’ve been cyberbullied in eighth grade and that was a horrible experience,” he says. “And I remember the first time I got catcalled. It was kind of weird … good thing I was with a friend, I was shook.”

Once they learn that their fellow students agree on things like supporting survivors, the next step is to make that positive social norm more visible.

Alan Berkowitz, the sexual assault prevention expert, lays out a common scenario: A young man makes a sexist remark or even gropes a woman in front of his friends. Most of them probably feel uncomfortable, yet they say nothing, or even laugh along.

As a result, “You have a silent majority that thinks it’s a minority,” he says. Publicizing the social norms lets that majority know that they have numbers on their side.

But even so, it can feel scary to speak up. Day One’s final workshop session focuses on how and when to intervene if students witness something like a boy trying to maneuver an obviously intoxicated girl into a bedroom at a party.

Anyla, one of the more outspoken members of the class, says, “What I learned today is, you not saying anything is making it look like it’s OK, and it will continue.”

Sandra Malone adds that, in every group of students, you’re not just speaking to potential bystanders or potential victims. There are potential perpetrators as well. She says the social norms approach works for them too.

“I think it stops a good percentage of kids from maybe participating in those behaviors because they’re seeing that most of their peers aren’t OK with that,” she adds. “You can see the light bulb go off.”

Stopping offenders, not just empowering survivors and bystanders, is obviously central to sexual violence prevention. Perkins, at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, says research shows the vast majority of campus sex offenses involve a heavily intoxicated assaulter. While social norms education may not work for a motivated repeat abuser, he says it can be successful to “discourage the men who might think about carelessly stepping over the line.”

But, he emphasizes that most men, in high school and college, prefer to seek consent. “‘Boys will be boys,’ is not true.”

Alan Berkowitz and Lindsay Orchowksi are currently evaluating the effectiveness of Day One’s program on students’ attitudes and behaviors, an analysis that will be released in several months.

Fifteen-year-old Anyla says that for her, it’s definitely made a difference.

She owned up that, since elementary school, she and her friends would grab each other’s rear ends to be funny. But now? “After taking this class? No. Absolutely not.” She tells her classmates, “If you catch me doing that, honestly, tell me to stop, please.”

Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Peers Are Powerful: Using Positive Social Norms to Tackle Unhealthy Behaviors published first on https://dlbusinessnow.tumblr.com/

[perfectzablog]

Peers Are Powerful: Using Positive Social Norms to Tackle Unhealthy Behaviors

No one ever shows up at brunch and says, “Oh my gosh, I was so sober last night!”

Risky behavior draws attention. As a result, people tend to assume that everyone else is doing it more than they really are.

But, over the last two decades, research on college campuses has shown that giving students the real facts about their peers reduces unsafe drinking. This approach is called positive social norms. It works because of a basic truth of human nature: People want to do what others are doing.

Now, that research is starting to be applied to a novel area: preventing sexual assault and harassment. From an unwanted comment on the street to groping in the hallways at school, surveys suggest more than half of young women and almost half of young men have experienced sexual harassment before age 18.

And about 8 percent of girls experience rape or attempted rape by this young age.

Since the #MeToo movement, six states have introduced or passed bills to require the teaching of consent in their sex ed classes in K-12. But there’s not yet much research on what kind of education actually works to shift teens’ attitudes and actions.

Sandra Malone directs prevention and training at Day One, a nonprofit in Providence, R.I., which offers both education and rape crisis services. Her program has been among the first to try to move teens to seek consent and build healthier sexual relationships by harnessing an unlikely force: peer pressure.

She says she can remember from her own teenage years: “Their peers are so important to them. Those are powerful years where you don’t want to make yourself vulnerable and stand out.”

In its workshops at high schools, Day One uses a version of the positive social norms approach adapted from alcohol education programs.

“Peers are very, very influential, and people of any age who want to fit in will try and behave according to what they perceive as the group norm,” explains Alan Berkowitz, a psychologist and expert on preventing sexual assault. But when you’re talking about transgressive behavior, like underage drinking, drug use or nonconsensual sexual behavior, there’s often a “misperception of the norm.”

Social norms approaches start by surveying a population to get accurate information, which is then used to correct that misperception. “One of the most effective and powerful ways of encouraging young people to make healthy decisions is to know the truth about their friends,” Berkowitz explains. “Because in fact most of their friends are healthy.”

This message doesn’t necessarily fit on a poster.

Wes Perkins, a professor of sociology at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, was one of the originators of social norms education for alcohol. On his campus in Geneva, N.Y., they do things like setting up a voluntary random Breathalyzer to test students on a Saturday night, proving that they’re just as likely to be in the library as at a frat party.

Yet, compared to drinking, Perkins says that sexual behavior is “politically a little more tricky.” By publicizing the fact that “most men” don’t commit or condone sexual violence, you don’t want to sound like you’re downplaying the issue. “It can easily be misunderstood as trying to whitewash the problem.”

However, with plenty of conversation, perhaps in a workshop setting, “in the long run you can get men to act more as allies.”

To see how the Day One program works, I visited a consent workshop at The Metropolitan Regional Career and Technical Center, a high school in Providence. Leslie, a studious 10th-grader, was one of the participants. (We’re not using the students’ last names to protect their privacy.)

She explains that the workshop leaders started with survey questions. For example: Would you care if a girl at your school was being verbally harassed? Do you think others at your school would care?

“We could see that everybody thought nobody would care,” Leslie says. But in fact, “everybody saw, oh, a lot of people do care, which is something a lot of people don’t know.”

Lindsay Orchowski at Brown University and her team worked with Day One to survey nearly 8,000 students at 26 high schools across Rhode Island, in research funded by the Centers for Disease and Prevention. They shared their as-yet-unpublished data with us, which found trends similar to what Leslie learned:

87 percent of students said that they, personally, would believe someone who reported a sexual assault. But only 51 percent of students thought their peers would believe such a report.

92 percent of students personally agreed that bystanders can help prevent sexual violence. But only 55 percent thought their peers would agree on the power of bystanders.

To correct these kinds of misperceptions, the four one-hour sessions in Day One’s program cover scenarios like street harassment, groping, sexual assault by an acquaintance and cyberbullying.

Sadly, these are all common, says Kevin, a 15-year-old with curly hair.

“I’ve been cyberbullied in eighth grade and that was a horrible experience,” he says. “And I remember the first time I got catcalled. It was kind of weird … good thing I was with a friend, I was shook.”

Once they learn that their fellow students agree on things like supporting survivors, the next step is to make that positive social norm more visible.

Alan Berkowitz, the sexual assault prevention expert, lays out a common scenario: A young man makes a sexist remark or even gropes a woman in front of his friends. Most of them probably feel uncomfortable, yet they say nothing, or even laugh along.

As a result, “You have a silent majority that thinks it’s a minority,” he says. Publicizing the social norms lets that majority know that they have numbers on their side.

But even so, it can feel scary to speak up. Day One’s final workshop session focuses on how and when to intervene if students witness something like a boy trying to maneuver an obviously intoxicated girl into a bedroom at a party.

Anyla, one of the more outspoken members of the class, says, “What I learned today is, you not saying anything is making it look like it’s OK, and it will continue.”

Sandra Malone adds that, in every group of students, you’re not just speaking to potential bystanders or potential victims. There are potential perpetrators as well. She says the social norms approach works for them too.

“I think it stops a good percentage of kids from maybe participating in those behaviors because they’re seeing that most of their peers aren’t OK with that,” she adds. “You can see the light bulb go off.”

Stopping offenders, not just empowering survivors and bystanders, is obviously central to sexual violence prevention. Perkins, at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, says research shows the vast majority of campus sex offenses involve a heavily intoxicated assaulter. While social norms education may not work for a motivated repeat abuser, he says it can be successful to “discourage the men who might think about carelessly stepping over the line.”

But, he emphasizes that most men, in high school and college, prefer to seek consent. “‘Boys will be boys,’ is not true.”

Alan Berkowitz and Lindsay Orchowksi are currently evaluating the effectiveness of Day One’s program on students’ attitudes and behaviors, an analysis that will be released in several months.

Fifteen-year-old Anyla says that for her, it’s definitely made a difference.

She owned up that, since elementary school, she and her friends would grab each other’s rear ends to be funny. But now? “After taking this class? No. Absolutely not.” She tells her classmates, “If you catch me doing that, honestly, tell me to stop, please.”

Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Peers Are Powerful: Using Positive Social Norms to Tackle Unhealthy Behaviors published first on https://greatpricecourse.tumblr.com/