#yes the 1980s were like 40 years ago now | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

chrysolipsist · 1 year ago

Text

The cost of credulity

It's funny to remember how, in the 1980s, there was a sudden surge of public interest in the Procter and Gamble corporation and how it was supposedly run by members of the Church of Satan, primarily in connection to its old logo. Today, this survives as an entry in P&G's Wikipedia article:

I was a child at the time but I was around adults who actually paid enough attention to this to stop and consider: "should I stop buying products made by this company?" I remember that my mom specifically stopped using Comet brand scrubbing powder because it was owned by them, and the label at the time featured an upside-down five-pointed star (the "comet" on the 1980s label), which was supposedly another satanic symbol.

It all seems extremely naïve and stupid in the year 2023. Setting aside the notion that a publicly owned corporation would willingly wear this sort of intention as a sort of open secret, it seems almost laughable to conjure up "Satan worshippers" as something even remotely relevant to the life of an average person in our time. It's simply too boring by modern standards. Of course, the average person in 1988 had fewer options to search for an answer. Yes, if you took the time, you'd be able to go to the library and look up some related articles. But the majority of people would not really know how to do this. Instead, the average person would have probably believed whatever they saw on TV about it. There was no social media around either to ridicule the notion out of existence or to build up its credibility.

It's difficult to say which direction the P&G "controversy" would go today, but I think it borders on the edge of being too ridiculous and not spicy enough. Merely being run by possible Satan worshippers is almost quaint. There needs to be something much more notorious and sensational, such as heinous crimes being done to people in the basement of a pizzeria. In a way it seems rather quaint to have ever been willing to entertain the P&G controversy, as if there was a time when merely saying "this is the devil's work" was enough to raise the hackles of most people if said with sufficient feeling. It makes you feel like in 1988 we were barely one degree of separation removed from being as well informed as medieval villagers.

We have become a little less credulous for the same given value of "shock", which seems to be part of the currency of credulity. To be sure, there is no shortage of outrageous notions and outright falsehoods that people seem to believe in today (a legacy of mid-20th-century mistrust in institutions, which is not for nothing--although it is a topic for another time). However this bought at a much greater "cost" than 30 or 40 years ago--primarily the maintenance of a large enough group to keep it going and extend it through the application of confirmation bias to every new piece of information that comes in.

One could draw many parallels with this surcharge on belief. A general loss of innocence is one way to look at it. Before 2001, it was assumed that if a plane was hijacked, the hijackers would be primarily interested in negotiating to have their demands met. That now almost quaint seeming expectation vanished the moment the plane struck the south tower. From that moment we as a society decided that we had no choice but to shoot down hijacked planes from that point forward. Official policy actions took place, but there was no doubt about what those changes were going to be. The old model, including the idea that the hijackers might value their own lives if nothing else, simply evaporated. This is, of course, a rather extreme example, but there are countless closer-to-home examples that we could imagine if we were to stop and think. For instance, I remember one of my dad's cousins visiting when I was a teenager and he told some story about a guy who had been put in a mental hospital because he had allegedly gone insane and was convinced that bugs were living under his skin, and he had to be restrained or else he would scratch until he bled. The story concluded with the twist that, after what must have been unimaginable prolonged suffering of being restrained while being eaten alive, the guy loosed his restraints long enough to reveal that there were indeed ants dwelling in his living flesh. Needless to say, there are some flaws with this story. For one, a human body is not an ideal (or even very good) environment for an ant colony to develop, let alone flourish while going completely undetected. If you spend just one minute thinking about how ant colonies work, and how a network of tunnels is supposed to exist in raw flesh without caving in or causing internal bleeding, etc., it should be self-evident that the story is nonsense. Even if it were possible, it seems unlikely that this would go completely unnoticed in a person under medical supervision, and at the very least, the unveiling of the ants would surely not have happened without it being recorded somewhere besides this one ridiculous story, which came with no identifying location or time details whatever.

The deeper end of this discussion brings us to how we interpret our place in this apparently absurd universe in which we find ourselves. Some may look at how things have changed and remark about how "faith" has atrophied. Fewer people believe in the supernatural than in the past, and I think it's safe to say that even people who still have some sort of religious faith are, at least on average, less literal than people in the past, or at least somewhat willing to compromise on dogma when some sort of evidence makes it untenable. Sure, some people double down and entrench themselves in a belief but I think such people are largely on the fringes. Some people probably lament the diminishment of faith. I have my doubts as to the value of what might have been lost. A greater confidence in the validity of things that are untrue?

In 1988, I was credulous enough to entertain the possibility of the supernatural. After all, most people seemed to believe in something. I wasn't religious growing up, but I was aware of religion and open-minded enough as a child that it's entirely possible I could have developed some form of supernatural faith. My grandmother believed in ghosts, in particular the ghost of my late grandfather, and other family members had stories. In fourth grade, I participated in a religious education program, which was optional but since most of the other kids went, I also wanted to go, and this was the first time I heard any serious amount of Christian doctrine. For a while, I was curious about what sorts of knowledge each form of religion might possess. My parents collected many books, including a collection of the main religious texts from the main world religions. Thus, even before the internet, in the moments just before the dawn of the information age, I was able to inform myself about these things.

However the outcome of being supplied abundant information was ultimately to have undermined any sort of faith I might have otherwise developed had I been deprived of that information. The main problem was that, to me, it was obviously completely impossible to tell which religion was "correct". They all had an equal claim to correctness. A rather dull way out of dealing with this issue is to say that they're all correct, or that the truth could be found in some synthesis of the different religions. But meaningful synthesis is not really possible because there are direct, irreconcilable disagreements between religions. Perhaps even more convincing for me personally was simply reading about history in greater detail, as I did when I was a teenager, especially considering the industrial-scale atrocities of the 20th century, which are only the latest in a storied history of cruelty and depravity perpetuated by the leaders of most nations to ever have existed, seemingly born from the very nature of power. If you give adequate consideration to the evil things that have transpired--keeping in mind that these are only the ones we know about--it becomes very difficult, and, for me, impossible, to contend that some sort of beneficial entity curates fate for a good purpose. If there is any such entity, it seems to be amoral or apathetic at best, or actively harmful at worst.

Philosophers have gone over this problem for centuries. At the end of the day there is no conclusion that can be reached through mathematical reasoning alone. When only axioms are in play, any conclusion requires faith. For me personally, in the year 2023, the very notion of a supernatural entity of any form doing much of anything at all seems extremely doubtful, which piles an extra helping of ridiculousness onto the P&G controversy when viewed in retrospect. By doubting God, we necessarily also doubt the other characters in His story. If we no longer believe in the main character, why would we still believe in the villain? People who believe that evil must have an incarnate, anthropomorphic form (maybe they need someone they can blame) will sometimes say that "the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince the world that he did not exist" as though this is some kind of profound statement. But you could say the same exact thing about anything: unicorns, dragons, the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man, whatever. This "fear of missing out" approach to faith (Pascal's wager is another example) feels somehow even less legitimate than the blind-faith variety.

That's not to say I am immune to the value of comfort inherent in much of faith. It's nice to think that there's a place you might go at the end of your life where you have a chance to see all your loved ones again, and be free to do more or less whatever you want or otherwise to be happy for all eternity. Sure, that's a nice thing to be able to think, and if the outcome really is oblivion, if this belief made you happier during the time when you were alive, then the outcome is probably a net positive, at least if you calculate it for yourself alone, ignoring the side effects of many people believing all the other weird things included in your religion. But my problem is that I simply don't believe. I don't have the feeling. I was never visited by any dead relatives. If there was ever a moment when it should have happened, it would have been when my grandmother passed away. But I never experienced anything. Sometimes this idea of things fading into the ether seems sad. Yet each of us once dwelt, before we were born, in this same state of oblivion that we seemed fated to return to.

0 notes

sunderedstar · 3 years ago

Text

@blitzlowin /cracks knuckles/ i do this for u. there is no order to this list, but here we go -

the jasmine throne - 2021, epic fantasy. fantastic. lesbeans. just gorgeous worldbuilding, and the main characters Priya and Malini are likeable and smart while they’re maneuvering around each other and the other moving pieces in a colonized country under the thumb of an empire that’s rapidly taking a turn towards war. the cover for book 2, the oleander sword, just dropped, and I’m dying.

the luminous dead - 2019, scifi/horror. lesbeans, with even more emphasis on the morally grey aspects this time. absolutely fucking terrifying - the threats in this alien caves are very real, stacked with the psychological tension of having someone above control the caving suit that keeps you alive while underground for weeks at a time and the economic pressures of being trapped on a dead-end planet, leaving you no choice but to keep delving deeper...and deeper...

again, the worldbuilding is insane. I reread it periodically and can never get over how well-paced the beats are. this is the kind of merch you get:

iron widow - 2021, scifi/fantasy. the bisexual poly love triangle we’ve all been screaming about. I describe it as an inverse Pacific Rim, but you won’t get why until pretty much the final pages. all three of these have had morally dubious protagonists but in iron widow Zetian GOES OFF AND WE LOVE HER FOR IT. she’s chaotic furious. she’s unhinged in the best way. “May he stay unsettled.” the author themselves has described this as accidentally furry Dragonball Z with giant Pacific Rim robots and monsters, essentially. I have absolutely no idea what will happen with book 2 but I know it’ll be balls-to-the-walls insane (complimentary).

the outside - 2019, cosmic horror scifi. lesbeans. humanity is ruled by AI gods throughout the stars, the angels are cybernetic post-human cogs in a repressive machine, and Yasira accidentally makes a scientific leap that invites in a disruptive, heretical, reality warping presence that destroys a space station. things spiral out of control from there. the second book didn’t hit as well for me (mostly because mysteriously it was half the length it needed to be? it goes from a novel to a sequel novella almost, so not sure what happened there) but the outside is 9/10.

the world gives way - 2021. scifi. you will cry. like that’s it, it’s a short little novel written entirely to gut you. that is all.

murderbot - scifi. I feel like everyone by this point has heard about/read murderbot by this point, but the fact is I can’t in good conscious leave it off a rec list. there are six books, now, a mix of novellas and one full length novel about Murderbot, and Martha Wells (bless her for this and for the Books of the Raksura, her series full of bi poly shapeshifters) apparently has a contract to write at least three more murderbot books so we’re set for life basically. Ms Wells has never let me down ever, in her life -

the darkangel trilogy - 1982-1990. scifi/fantasy, though you may not realize the scifi at work at first.

okay. okay listen. listen. hear me out. you read the first book description. it sounds like a traditional dracula hetero set up. Aerial and her mistress are kidnapped by the darkangel. it has an almost fairy-tale kind of logic to the magic system. it ends with Aerial literally exchanging her heart with the darkangel’s to save his life, causing him to fall in love with her.

meredith ann pierce then spends the next two books deconstructing the consequences of that choice, as Aerial finds herself more and more estranged from the rest of the humanity-adjacent people of her world - including the darkangel himself - and becoming a sorceress whether she wants to be or not, inextricably linked to the sci-fantasy workings that keep their world turning under the light of a [spoilers] COMPLETELY IRRADIATED EARTH. ultimately she has to make a choice to give the darkangel his own choice back, and take up a responsibility that will leave her cut off from her humanity entirely but for one person who stays with her to the very end. meredith ann pierce’s meld of scifi and fantasy is what I aspire to - the worldbuilding is so subtle at first that you don’t even realize what’s happening until it happens.

(do I like to imagine it ends on a slightly lesbean note because of that last part? maybe so...)

tgcf/heaven official’s blessing - 2017, now being published officially in English starting with book 1 in December this year. putting the g in LGBT. before, I could have linked to the free online English translation, but everything has been taken down since it was licensed officially for publication. Xie Lian ascended to godhood 800 years ago, and through a series of catastrophes and extremely traumatic events was banished, ascended again, got banished again in even more disgrace, and spent the rest of that time wandering the world, luckless and alone, until he finally...ascended again. but the evil and mysteries that plagued him 800 years ago haven’t gone away, either. (MXTX also did MDZS/Grandmaster of Demonic Cultivation, the basis of the Untamed show.)

#blitzlowin #books #yes I will continue to push the 40+ year old book agenda #yes the 1980s were like 40 years ago now

764 notes · View notes

fancyfade · 3 years ago

Text

if i have to see one more person defending taylor or batgirls 2021′s babs because of invisible disabilities i’m gonna puke

like yes invisible disabilities exist. my disability WAS invisible for a long time before it got bad enough I had to use a wheelchair full time outside of the house. I still don’t *need* a wheelchair if I’m doing a short errand like to just pick something up in a small store, just in bigger stores or if I’m working or going to school. it STILL is treated not seriously by doctors (you won’t get how many doctors think walking everywhere will solve all my problems and just ‘dealing with being in pain’ as if I don’t already do that) and the only way I can get any treatment is by focusing on how useful to capitalism it makes me.

BUT

first of all, DC’s giving babs the chip did NOT come from a genuine place of wanting to represent invisible disabilities, batgirls writers did NOT actually plan out any of the scenery as if they were keeping an invisibly disabled person in mind (I know I would love to climb up 4 flights of stairs to get to my apartment where my bed is up some more fucking stairs /s and the allegedly-being-written-as-mobility-impaired-with-good-days-and-bad-days babs sure as hell wouldn’t want to either!). The only reason this is happening is they’re attempting to put a progressive-sounding spin on DC’s magicuring that happened in new 52

but secondly

imagine how fucking selfish you’d have to be to think “sure, babs was a paraplegic character in a wheelchair for years, who expressed how being disabled did not make her life worse and her life may be better now. Sure she is important for paras and people who use wheelchairs because so often the dominant thought is “if i need to use a wheelchair my life is over” --

BUT

she represents me now so that’s okay!”

like imagine if 40 years ago in the 19-fucking-80s DC had a gay character, who discovered they were gay in a well-written arc, and talked about how much better their life was now that they knew they were gay

and then in 2011 they decided “um actually he’s straight now because that’s beneficial for his character and the arc in 1980s was written really homophobically anyway --- ” and in 2021 they said “we didn’t mean straight uwu we meant ace and heteroromantic* that’s still not straight we’re so progressive”

(and this is somewhat using an argument posited by mollyhats (link) post because I like how it was explained. Tho she talked about queerbaiting I guess I’m using a slightly different comparison with the authors straight up saying the character’s marginalized identity)

and then if gay people who found his story meaningful said “hmm this is kind of shitty” were met with “well you’re just aphobic”

anyway -- do ace people deserve to be represented? Absolutely

do people with invisible disabilities deserve to be represented? Also absolutely!

does that mean it’s OK for DC to take away representation from their most recognizeable wheelchair-using-superhero, magicure her, then try to (poorly) slap a bandaid on it 11 years later?

Hell no!

If you want an invisibly disabled DC hero try any other hero besides one who already has an established, non-invisible disability that was very important to their character for 30 years.

*yes you can be ace and of any or no romantic orientation this is just being used as an example.

#look i dont mind whoever follows me but if you're genuinely a fan of batgirls 2021 youre probably not going ot be happy following me #ableism #dc comics #fade rants #batgirls 2021 #batgirls 2021 negative #barbara gordon

203 notes · View notes

zhuhongs · 3 years ago

Text

Ever since I watched Your Name Engraved Herein two weeks ago, I have wanted to talk about Jiahan as whole but in particular this scene right here that starts around the 40 minute mark.

CW’s: discussion of religion, internalized homophobia, violent homophobia, choking, and lack of consent. Generally, the same cws as in the movie.

Read more bc it’s uh.. 2.7k

all images are described in alt text

As soon as I watched this scene I just knew it had to be really significant and now rewatching YNEH, I realize that this is a major ideological turning point for Jiahan as a character. From this point on he slowly begins to accept that he’s gay and starts to consciously act on his feelings for Birdy. However, I must first add some context and insights on Jiahan’s prior behavior before I dive into this scene as a whole. At the beginning of the movie, we see that while Jiahan feels different from the rest of his roomates, he still sneaks out with them when they go hook up with girls, despite not showing any interest in the girl he’s with. He feels very different from the rest of his friends, but still goes along with them due to peer pressure. Later, he tries to dissuade them from violently hazing the gay student, Xie Zhenhong, (his name is never said in the film but it says so on his uniform shirt, and that what I’ll refer to him as for the rest of the post) but is reluctantly influenced to gang up on the student as well. He closes his eyes while he’s about to strike the bat down on the student, until Birdy rescues the student-- and Jiahan in a way-- from what is about to play out. After this, his friends accuse him of being in the same stall as Birdy (which he was) but he denies it, not wanting to explain why he was there and the ensuing taunting from his friends.

While its obvious that Jiahan has feelings for Birdy, he isn’t confident enough to pursue them outright. Birdy is the more confident one in both their friendship and in his sexuality, not caring about how anyone perceives him and does what he wants regardless of the consequences. Jiahan is the one worried about societal stigma and goes along with things he doesn’t want to do. However after this encounter with the gay underclassman pictured above, Jiahan become more brave and honest about his feelings towards Birdy. Interestingly enough in the scene directly after this, Birdy begins to conceal his true feelings for Jiahan and pursue a straight relationship with Banban. He doesn’t do this hurt Jiahan, as he does reciprocate Jiahan’s feelings, but to discourage him from coming out and becoming a social pariah for being gay. Birdy himself doesn’t mind being an outcast, but he does not want to see the same thing happen to the one he loves. So instead of letting Jiahan do that, he tries to discourage Jiahan from ever pursuing him by getting a girlfriend and suggest Jiahan does the same. In the same day, both Jiahan and Birdy come to opposite realizations about their feelings for the other, thereby changing their dynamic for the course of the movie. Someone else has picked apart Birdy’s scene in their own post. If you haven’t read that analysis, please go read it, because its really good at explaining Birdy’s character since most of his story isn’t directly revealed to us. We must read inbetween the lines and piece it together, which can be confusing on a first watch.

Anyways, now we can focus on Jiahan. At this point in the movie, Jiahan is trying to understand why he’s upset that Birdy is showing interest in a girl in their band while dealing with his own internalized homophobia and denial over his sexuality. He then turns to the only out gay person he knows -- Xie Zhenhong, who he sees in the cafeteria with new bruises on his face. He looks at Jiahan with a smile. This makes me feel like Zhenhong probably picked up on Jiahan and Birdy’s feelings for each other since last year, when he saw them exit the same stall in the bathroom. Having been the Distinguished Out Person in a group before, I can definitely relate to the way Zhenhong reacts to Jiahan. It the typical “oh honey, you don’t realize it yet, but I know you’re gay” reaction.

Jiahan waits outside the cafeteria and calls out to out him from behind. At first Zhenhong ignores him as we can see that he smirks a bit when he first speaks. He definitely heard Jiahan but doesn’t answer him until he repeats himself a few times. Zhenhong purposely stops when the two are in front of the stained glass window, away from others. Jiahan’s word choice towards Zhenhong is also interesting as he addresses him as “學弟” which is a term for an underclassman. To my understanding, it’s not overly formal nor is it overly familiar, however it is the nicest way that anyone has addressed him all movie. Jiahan than asks him who gave him those bruises, showing concern for his well being. He then reveals why he stopped Zhenhong saying “Actually I want to ask you, when did you start liking boys?” This really seals the deal to Zhenhong that Jiahan is talking to him to try and sort out his own feelings towards Birdy. While his suggestion that Zhenhong perhaps “see a doctor” or “consider getting a girlfriend” read as a microaggression to most viewers, Zhenhong himself can tell that Jiahan is asking him this in good faith. And perhaps, this might be the most understanding anyone has been towards him since Birdy helped him out prior. Before he responds, he looks up at Jiahan and fixes his bangs. This all stumps Jiahan whose eyes dart around, speechless. Zhenhong then circles his arms around Jiahan’s neck, a very intimate gesture, and studies him for a moment. We cannot see Jiahan’s face at this moment but he does shuffle slightly, his body language nervous and confused, but not upset. After looking at him, Zhenhong then goes in closer, assumedly to kiss him. At this point, Jiahan physically stops him and grabs him by the throat. However, Jiahan’s face doesn’t seem to be angry, if anything, his face looks more scared and confused-- akin to a ‘what are you doing?’ moment.

Initially Zhenhong’s choice to kiss Jiahan read very...strangely to me. Why would the screenwriter, as a gay man that grew up in the 80’s, choose to include this? What was there to gain? To me it seemed like it was reinforcing the stereotype of gay men being overly flirtacious and viewed as predators. Why show a nonconsentual attempted kiss at all? I thought about it a lot, both for this scene and the following one with the old man and later between Jiahan and Birdy because it seemed?? Odd to me?? Isn’t that a disservice in representing gay men? I don’t fully have the right answer but I feel like by writing the scene like this, it goes to demonstrate how Jiahan still isn’t fully comfortable with being gay. And also that lgbt people, especially teens, aren’t always going to be good rep. Liu Kuang-hui wasn’t writing the movie to be an perfect, morally uplifting, santized gay narritive. He was writing something that spoke to his real life experience as a gay man in 1980’s Taiwan. In real life, people do questionable things and good narratives are supposed to make you question characters and their actions and judge for yourself whether what they did was right or wrong. The narrative isn’t looking to condemn Xie Zhenhong for doing this. Xie Zhenhong is ultimately a victim of violent homophobia, that will not hide himself or his sexuality despite the violence he faces. He isn’t perfect, nor is Jiahan, nor is Birdy, nor is anyone in the film.

Although now having rewatched this scene upwards of eight times in writing this, it feels like Zhenhong didn’t assume this action to be without consent. Of course, no words were explicitly exchanged about kissing, and I’m not trying to make the case that it’s okay to kiss someone without their consent, that’s harassment. However, Zhenhong did gave Jiahan time to express his discomfort before proceeding. Zhenhong first got close to Jiahan by brushing his bangs, Jiahan did not say anything or look visibly uncomfortable. He then put his arms around Jiahan’s neck, and stared at him for a good ten seconds. At this point, Jiahan had time to say he was uncomfortable. As we know it, consent does indeed entail a verbal, understood yes from both parties. However given the context, I can understand why Zhenhong thought that Jiahan was consenting at that moment. However the moment Jiahan revoked his consent Zhenhong stopped trying to kiss him. Zhenhong shouldn’t have gone in without getting verbal consent, and Jiahan could’ve done something other than grabbing him by the throat. They were both in the wrong. Violence shouldn’t have been the reaction, nor should’ve kissing someone without their verbal consent. The lines were very blurred, and proper communication could’ve resulted in a better interaction but like I mentioned above, I don’t think the writers wanted to portray the scene in that way. The intent was not to say that Zhenhong’s actions were romantic or something to emulate. It was very purposeful in showing to interplay of homophobia, gay desire, and religion.

The scene is set up like a religious confession. Zhenhong purposefully leads Jiahan to the stained glass, a metaphor for his religious guilt. He doesn’t look Zhenhong in the eyes, his voice is hushed, and body language nervous, and troubled-- it communicates to Zhenhong that he thinks he may be gay and wants either reassurance that he isn’t or acceptance that is. Regardless, it’s a very vulnerable and intimate moment. Jiahan is facing him like ‘hey, I know my friends were bullying you and I wanted to save you but was too much of a coward and almost took part in harming you. I’m sorry. I know you saw that me and Birdy were in the same stall together, and that you saw me just telling him not to talk to the girls, and neither of those are heterosexual things to do. Please, help me.’ He’s asking Zhenhong to pass judgement on him, is he gay or not? By virtue of even asking that question, they both know the answer -- Jiahan is in love with Birdy, but whether Jiahan can accept that or not is up to him. In a way, Zhenhong is testing Jiahan to see how honest he can be with himself. By approaching him like that, he’s testing to see whether Jiahan can accept being intimate with a man or not. It’s not a good or ethical test, but it sure is effective. Because in his head, Jiahan is coming to realize that he doesn’t mind a man being close to him in a romantic way. Although, he isn’t fully there yet. He still grabs Zhenhong. But as Zhenhong stares at him despite the hand around his throat, Jiahan really has to think about his actions. Is that what he really wants to do, or is that what he’s been taught to do? It illustrates his internalized homophobia perfectly. Jiahan is literally staring gay desire in the face, rejecting it, while in front of his religion. Zhenhong finally answers Jiahan that “he has always loved boys since he was little, it’s never changed.” Upon hearing that his grip loosens and he pulls away. And the fact that we can hear him well means that Jiahan was never choking him, his hand was there, but not gripping. Zhenhong pulls him in closer and tilts his head, and says “and it never will.” Zhenhong’s words are very deliberate. It’s as if he anticipated this might happen and knew exactly what to say. He wants to carve it in Jiahan’s brain that no one chooses to be gay. They always are and no amount of denial, like the kind Jiahan is showing, will change that. He then finally lets go of Jiahan, who is speechless, he thanks him, and leaves. Jiahan, however, stays there for a second, processing everything that has happened, and breathes heavily before the scene cuts to later that day.

Finally, I would like to examine exactly what Zhenhong’s “thanks” even means. Why would Zhenhong be thanking Jiahan? On the surface, it lookslike Jiahan waited for this guy to finish eating, then asked him invasive questions about his sexuality and suggest he should get help and then almost choked him. This should count as a microagression at best and an attempted hate crime at worst. But, as I just dived into, this wasn’t a bad faith jeer by Jiahan in order to bully Zhenhong, this was a genuine cry for help made by a deeply confused teenager. I feel like the “thanks.” at the end of the scene was perhaps just as puzzling to me as when I thought about why the staff would have that scene play out like that in the first place? I think his thanks is conveying many things. Firstly, thanking him for not actually hurting him and allowing him to have a semi normal interaction with a student of the same gender. As far as we know, many, MANY different students have tried to hurt him in the new semester alone. Hell, we literally do not even know his name as everyone refers to him by the q slur or some other derogatory term, which speaks a lot to how he is treated. He also may be saying thanks for actually asking him about his sexuality. While Jiahan still followed it up with a suggestion he see a doctor, he still genuinely wanted to know why rather fully assume he has something wrong with him. Also, I feel like he might be thanking Jiahan for being brave enough to actually confront his sexualtiy and ask Zhenhong for help in the first place. Zhenhong really seems to be alone as the only gay student at the school but now knowing that Jiahan is realizing thathe’s gay as well, might make him be hopeful that things may slowly begin to change. Sadly, this interaction is the last time we see Xie Zhenhong all film which sucks because I really liked him. And I feel like it would’ve been really nice to see him after the time skip or at least have Jiahan mention him because this moment was one of the things that really made Jiahan start to accept his sexuality. A cut scene with Father Oliver also contributed, but I really wish Xie Zhenhong got more narrative than being the only out student that was then violently bullied. But, I acknowledge that MANY scenes were cut from the film for length so I can’t complain to much.

Oh god, that was a lot to say about a scene that was literally a minute and thirty seconds long. In conclusion!! I just had a lot of things to say about this scene and the scenes surrounding it. I think Jiahan is just a very painfully relatable character for many LGBT viewers and he was incredibly relatable for me which is why I felt the need to spend my day off writing this as opposed to doing homework. This scene is incredibly rich on many levels and I really appreciate YNEH as a whole for not spoonfeeding the viewer information and letting us interpret and question the scenes on our own and come to our own conclusions about the characters and yea. There’s so much going on and a lot of nuance and idk how to properly convey a lot of my thoughts but I tried really hard bc i really do love this movie. I really was puzzled by this scene at first, but now having examined it, it is my favorite scene in the movie. If this scene was changed in any way to make it more palatable, it would’ve been nearly as impactful which was a hard decision to come to, but I stand by it. I don’t know if I feel the same about other scenes but I will be reviewing YNEH as a whole in a different post. I have much more to say but my thoughts on this scene were far too long to not make it a separate post of its own. In essence, YNEH is about growing up and accepting yourself in all ways. Not all of those things are pleasant but if you cannot accept those things about yourself, you’re doomed to be miserable until you can live life unburdened by your own and societies limitations. Goodnight, my fingers hurt.

#i think im like . the only one thats ever refered to that student by name on tumblr dot com.. that ive seen #your name engraved herein #刻在你心底的名字 #chang jiahan #long post #🐌.pdf #also i rewrote and reworded this sooo many times to get it to sound the way i want fjvjdjdjs bc this movie has so much to talk abt and word #it right bc like yea.. yk... bc like... yea #its 1am... gn

168 notes · View notes

christiangrest · 2 years ago

Text

Glock Pistols…The Modern Classic?

So when one thinks of a classic pistol, we usually have thoughts of pistols from the early 20th century. Iconic pistols such as the 1911 designed by John Browning or maybe even the German Luger. Many revolvers have been considered “classic” in nature such as the Smith & Wesson K-38 Masterpiece. When we think of the original polymer framed pistol, the Glock, the automatic stigma is that this is a “modern” pistol for modern times. So when does it actually become a classic to be hailed upon like other classic pistols? Food for thought…an automobile tends to be considered a classic somewhere between 25 and 40 years of age typically. It’s the year 2022 and the first Glocks were available in 1982.

Even though a Glock pistol looks much the same over the different versions of Glocks, they are very recognizable when displayed amongst their peers from S&W, Beretta, Sig, FN and Walther. Such a simple outward design, but yet everyone will recognize a Glock pistol. Like them or hate them, Glock did revolutionize designs of pistols since its introduction in the early 1980s. Purists of course scoffed at the idea of a plastic pistol. Many refer to them as Tupperware guns even still today. There was a time when I looked the other way when presented with the idea of a Glock pistol. The introduction of the Glock pistol ushered in somewhat of a revolution towards where we are now in terms of modern pistol design. I would venture to say that the vast majority, of pistols being introduced in the past 2 decades have been polymer framed striker fired pistols. Pistols with external hammers look funny to some people that are recently getting into firearms.

Love them or hate them, Glock pistols and the many, many derivatives of the original Tupperware pistol are here to stay. Recently I had the very first Glock style pistol from my collection out for a photo op. It’s a Brownells exclusive Polymer80 framed Glock 19 sized pistol that’s far from what a Glock looks like. It does use, however, the same internals that any Glock would use. This pistol was the basis for my thoughts of this article. Before I embarked upon building this pistol, I had never owned any Glock, but the experiences led me to appreciate Glock for what they are known for, super reliable modern pistols. You can take one look over at Brownells and can either build a custom Glock-like pistol to your desire or purchase a factory Glock pistol model. Not too long ago in 2020, Glock re-introduced a remake of the original design called the Pistole 80. It featured all of the original features, including the grip style. But honestly, it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between this model and modern versions unless you look closely. Yes, the design is still a classic design, with subtle changes for each successor version.

40 years since the original Glock pistol was unveiled to the world AND one of the most commonly used pistols since that time. Is it a classic? Should it be spoke in the same sentence as the 1911 or Walther PPK? You can decide for yourself, but this once Glock hater says yes.

#brownells #brownellsinc #bureauofpropaganda #glock #classicpistol #tupperwaregun

3 notes · View notes

ecliterature · 3 years ago

Text

Ménage à Gretchen

Gretchen trailed her laquered red nails down the wallpapered halls of Crestmire Manor, her assisted living facility. What a sad, 1980s, daytime television backdrop for my golden years, she thought. Couldn’t they at least consult the recent Laura Ashley neutrals? This pale pink bullshit makes my skin look ghastly in the daylight.

It was 10.45pm, and the halls were silent, empty. All of the Crestmire residents had long been tucked into their adjustable beds, Eszopiclone or Zaleplon administered. “No more benzos for us oldies. Oh no. Heaven forbid we have any fun any more. Not even when we’re trying to sleep,” Gretchen muttered. She walked languidly, acrylic tips brushing the walls as she passed, leaving the faintest imprint. Grandma graffiti. Still here.

Gretchen stopped when she got to room 207. Henry’s room. She took a deep breath, rearranged her wine-red chiffon robe to better frame her cleavage. Her trusty crimson wrap, it had covered and revealed her in turn for nearly 3 decades now, since her 60th birthday. She had scrupulously hand-washed the stains out of it for years and now that those stains came less often she almost wished she had left a few. Just a few. Reminders of specific men, specific moments. Steven in Paris in 1996, when she was 62 and freshly divorced (for the third time) and took her first alimony cheque to the travel agency. Picked up her plane ticket and the 40 year old travel agent, Steven, and went for her own little vacance. She lived in that red see-through number, barely saw Paris beyond the arrondissement out her window. She fucked and she fucked and she fucked.

Or her 70th birthday, when Gregory was drinking a scotch while fucking her – always the multitasker – and nearly lost consciousness when he came, spilling the drink all down her and the open robe. The salty, muddy fragrance of Gregory’s scotch mixed with his cum. She wouldn’t mind smelling that again. If only Gregory hadn’t passed away 5 years ago, age 86, surrounded by his dearly devoted wife and children. What they didn’t know. What Gretchen could tell them about their precious Gregory and his proclivities.

The ding of the elevator down the hall wakes Gretchen from her memories. Better get inside, can’t get caught by one of these narcing young orderlies who obviously aren’t getting enough themselves. She scratches her acrylics on Henry’s door – shukka shukka, shukka shukka, shukka shukka – just like Dolly in 9 To 5.

Henry opens the door and he, too, is in a robe, pleated blue velour. Henry’s a newer resident at Crestmire, having moved in a few months ago. He’s young – 76 – and still plays golf, and it’s a damn mystery why he’s at Crestmire at all, an independent man like that. The ladies say it’s because he lost his wife and he’s lonely; the men guess there’s conniving children involved, wanting his house for their own. Gretchen listens to the talk but doesn’t participate. What business is it of hers why he’s here? He’s one of the only men in this place who can still get hard without Viagra and that’s all she cares about. He’s a horny old goat and, Gretchen sighs, “I guess I’m a horny old goatess.”

“What’s that about my goatee?” Henry asks.

“Oh, nothing Henry. I was just thinking out loud again. Could you stir me a martini, please?”

“You know it Gretch.”

“Miss Gretchen, please.”

“Sorry. Yes, Miss Gretchen.”

Gretchen watches his ass under his too-small robe as he ambles to the kitchen. Still plump, somehow. Must be the golf. She slips out of her matching red kitten heel slippers – with the poofs on top – and flexes her painted toes. Also red. Another night, another geriatric fuck. Thank god for that hip replacement 7 years ago.

Henry pops his head out of the kitchenette, illuminated by overhead fluorescents: “Miss Gretchen, there’s something I should tell you. I — I went out on a whim tonight. I want you to know how much I’ve been enjoying our sex. I never imagined Crestmire would be so… exciting. So it’s not that I haven’t been having fun. Or that I don’t like, hem, doing, uh, having sexual intercourse with you.” He looks down at the martini shaker. Gretchen hasn’t seen a man blush this furiously since she asked an ex state senator to fuck her in the ass.

“Henry, jesus, spit it out! What is it?”

“I invited Monica over tonight too!” Henry blurted.

“As in, you forgot I was coming?” Eyebrow raise.

“No I just thought… you’re such a wild woman Miss Gretchen… I thought you might be up for a threesome with Monica and I!”

Monica was a long time resident of Crestmire, dating from her last bout of chemo a decade ago. She was around the same age as Gretchen but you wouldn’t know it. Gretchen kept her blonde hair curled, her nails done, her outfits coordinated. Her purse always matched her belt matched her shoes. She had even gotten the girls at the salon to do eyelash extensions a couple months ago. They were little geniuses, those salon girls. Nevermind her excellent facelift in 2003 that was still holding up. A present for her 69th birthday from Gregory. Thanks for everything, Gregory.

Monica had long, grey hair, often braided down her back. She was prone to wearing screenprinted sweaters that featured her (dead) pets or (living but now adult) grandchildren. She crocheted – crocheted! – and she always ate the cafeteria food dutifully and never joined in for poker. Something about gambling being a tool of the devil. Like crocheting wasn’t. And now Henry was telling Gretchen that Monica wanted a threesome?

“Does Monica… know I’m here?” Gretchen asked, cautiously.

“Of course, Gretch – sorry, Miss Gretchen. Of course she knows. She’s really excited about this. Actually, it was her idea.”

Well, what the hell, thought Gretchen. I haven’t had a threesome in decades.

#black girls must die exhausted #fanfic

2 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 3 years ago

Link

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 10, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

The shocking revelations from former acting attorney general Jeffrey A. Rosen about former president Trump’s direct efforts to use the Department of Justice to overturn the 2020 election, along with the horrors of spiking Covid among the unvaccinated, drove out of the news cycle a revelatory piece of news.

Last Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor released the jobs report for August 2021. It was stronger than economists had predicted, and even stronger than the administration had hoped.

In July, employers added 943,000 jobs, and unemployment fell to 5.4%. Average hourly wages increased, as well. They are 4% higher than they were a year ago.

Harvard Professor Jason Furman, former chair of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, tweeted: “I have yet to find a blemish in this jobs report. I've never before seen such a wonderful set of economic data.” He noted the report showed “Job gains in most sectors... Big decline in unemployment rate, even bigger for Black & Hispanic/Latino… Red[uctio]n in long-term unemp[loyment]... Solid (nominal) wage gains.”

“Still a long way to go,” he wrote. “[W]e're about 7.5 million jobs short of where we should have been right now absent the pandemic. But we've made a lot of progress.”

Michael Gapen, chief U.S. economist at Barclays, told New York Times reporter Nelson D. Schwartz: “It’s an unambiguously positive report…. Labor market conditions are strong. Unemployment benefits, infection risks and child care constraints are not preventing robust hiring.”

The jobs report is an important political marker because it appears to validate the Democrats’ approach to the economy, the system the president calls the “Biden Plan.” That plan started in January, as soon as Biden took office, using the federal government to combat the coronavirus pandemic as aggressively as the administration could and, at the same time, using federal support to restart the economy.

In March 2021, the Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package. In addition to strengthening healthcare systems to combat the coronavirus, it provides economic relief primarily to low- and middle-income Americans by extending unemployment benefits and the child tax credit; funding schools, housing, and local governments; providing help for small businesses; and so on.

Polls indicated that the measure was enormously popular. A Morning Consult poll from February showed that 3 out of 4 voters liked it, and local governments and state governors, including a number of Republicans, backed the bill.

But every single Republican lawmaker in the House of Representatives voted against the measure, saying it was too expensive and that it was unnecessary.

Since 1980, Republican lawmakers have opposed government intervention to stimulate the economy, insisting that private investment is more efficient. Rather than use the government as presidents of both parties from Franklin Delano Roosevelt through Jimmy Carter did to keep the playing field level and promote growth, modern-day Republicans have argued that the government should simply cut taxes in order to free up capital for wealthier Americans to invest. This, they said, would create enough growth to make up for lost tax revenues.

President Ronald Reagan began this trend with major tax cuts in 1981 and 1986. President George H.W. Bush promised not to raise taxes—remember “Read my lips: No new taxes”—but found he had to increase revenues to address the skyrocketing deficits the Reagan cuts created. When he did agree to higher taxes, his own party leaders turned against him. Then President George W. Bush cut taxes again in 2001 and 2003, despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in 2017, Republicans under President Donald Trump cut taxes still further.

In 2017, Trump claimed the cut would be “rocket fuel for the economy.” Then–Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin echoed almost 40 years of Republican ideology when he said: "The tax plan will pay for itself with economic growth." And then–Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said: "After eight straight years of slow growth and underperformance, America is ready to take off.” (In fact, while Trump’s tax cuts meant tax revenues dropped 31%, they yielded only 2.9% growth, the exact same as the economy enjoyed in 2015, before the cuts.)

Laws like the American Rescue Plan should, in the Republicans’ view, destroy the economy. But Friday’s booming jobs report, along with the reality that the Biden administration has created an average of 832,000 new jobs per month, knocks a serious hole in that argument.

It may be that the pendulum is swinging away from the Republican conviction that tax cuts and private investment are the only key to economic growth.

Today, the Senate passed a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill by a vote of 69 to 30. The bill repairs roads and bridges, invests in transit and railroads, replaces lead pipes, and provides broadband across the country, among other things. In the next ten years, it is expected to create nearly 3 million jobs.

Nineteen Republicans voted in favor of the bill. There were many reasons to do so. The measure is popular with voters, and Republicans were embarrassed by their unanimous opposition to the American Rescue Plan. Indicating a willingness to work with Democrats might also undercut the Republicans’ image as obstructionists and help to protect the filibuster (a factor I’m guessing was behind McConnell’s yes vote).

But that Republicans felt they needed to abandon their position and vote yes for any reason is a big deal. "For the Republicans who supported this bill, you showed a lot of courage,” Biden told them. “And I want to personally thank you for that."

The bill now goes to the House, which will take it up after the Senate passes a $3.5 trillion infrastructure measure through the reconciliation process, which Democrats can do with a simple majority and without Republican support. The larger package addresses climate change, child care, elder care, housing, and so on. Moody Analytics, which provides economic research and modeling, says that, if it is combined with the bipartisan bill, it will add close to 2 million jobs a year over the next ten years.

Yet, Republicans say it is a “reckless tax and spending spree.”

In contrast, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said: “My largest concern is not: What are the risks if we make these big investments? It is: What is the cost if we don’t?”

—-

Notes:

https://www.bls.gov/bls/history/home.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/explainer-5-key-takeaways-from-the-july-jobs-report/2021/08/06/97dff92a-f6f3-11eb-a636-18cac59a98dc_story.html

Jason Furman @jasonfurmanI have yet to find a blemish in this jobs report. I've never before seen such a wonderful set of economic data: --Job gains in most sectors --Big decline in unemployment rate, even bigger for Black & Hispanic/Latino --Redn in long-term unemp --Solid (nominal) wage gains2,735 Retweets10,265 Likes

August 6th 2021

https://morningconsult.com/2021/02/24/covid-stimulus-support-poll/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/business/economy/july-2021-jobs-report.html

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/789540931/2-years-later-trump-tax-cuts-have-failed-to-deliver-on-gops-promises

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/06/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-july-jobs-report/

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026081880/senate-passes-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/10/senate-passes-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-503265

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-explained/index.html

https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-infrastructure.pdf

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/08/10/senate-passes-infrastructure-bill-bipartisan-support/5539281001/

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/04/yellen-says-enacting-bidens-agenda-key-to-keeping-america-as-worlds-pre-eminent-economic-power.html

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From An American #political #jobs #Democracy #Democrats #the economy #corrupt GOP #criminal GOP

9 notes · View notes

regrettablemeasure · 4 years ago

Text

[CW: talking abt queer theory and mentioning a transphobic author]

Listen im not saying compulsory heterosexuality DOESN'T exist in some shape or form, but ignoring even the modern way its been used to try and shame and enforce the "gold star lesbian" standard onto us - the theory originally was written straight up by a transmisogynist.

Adrienne Rich was the author who first penned Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence in 1980. And yes, I have actually READ it. It's only 32 pages long and not that difficult to get through. (more info and sources are under the cut)

Despite the book having what I do think are very good viewpoints and ultimately a good intention, its completely irresponsible to ignore the fact that the woman was a classic TERF. She was a gender essentialist and was a HUGE supporter of Janice G. Raymond (who wrote The Transsexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male). Raymond even shouted her out in that awful book. They were bros. I know its sad to acknowledge a lot of older lesbian authors were transphobic, and I know it was 40+ years ago. I DO think there is a level of needing to acknowledge the time period where things were written and what was considered progressive and socially acceptable back then. But I also don't think its fair to just completely ignore that the woman who penned a theory that now is being used by a LOT of radfems and their supporters today to go after gay women that don't hold up to certain "standards"... was written by a transphobic person.

Its almost as if I don't pull these TERF criticisms out of my ass from nothing. Isn't that something!

When Rich wrote about focusing on other women as a way to uplift other gay women, she meant to look upon other gay women in a positive way. To listen to them and understand THEIR viewpoints, especially because we don't have a surplus of text, art, etc. in the public conciousness made by gay women. Ironic, then, that both she and modern day TERFS use it as a way to splinter the community and silence women that don't fit in their boxes. To try and forcibly slingshot us back into heterosexual space where we inherently don't belong.

You need to know your history but, especially with Queer Theory or any subject matter you want to debate, also know the person BEHIND that history. I think its very important to read these authors but you also need to update your own belief as the world moves forward. Comphet was written in the 80's and its always going to be stuck that way. If you're reading this post, it means you're a Currently Alive Person, which means you're malleable and need to be willing to update your views for the betterment of gay women. Don't come to me with this comphet bullshit unless you actually have read the original essay and are willing to come to grips with everything stated above. There's a reason a lot of queer women are leaving the term behind.

I also implore you to read "What Kind of Times Are These" by Jennifer Boylan. Shes a trans woman who did enjoy parts of Adrienne's writings like a lot of us do - but also discusses how it was important for Adrienne's views to be publicly acknowledged. Instrument in the Shape of a Woman by Alison Rumfitt discuses her, too. It's never been a "cancellation" of Adrienne and writers like her, because its true that they've contributed a lot to the community. But holding their WORST beliefs accountable and bringing them to the forefront is mandatory for the queer community - especially for queer women- to grow.

Sources (including a link to the essay): X X X X X

#long post #lgbt #queer theory #compulsory heterosexuality #comphet #lesbian #cw transphobia #cw transmisogyny

26 notes · View notes

foreverdavidbyrne · 4 years ago

Text

David Byrne’s interview in NME magazine

In 1979, David Byrne predicted Netflix. “It’ll be as easy to hook your computer up to a central television bank as it is to get the week’s groceries,” he told NME’s Max Bell, sitting in a Paris hotel considering the implications of Talking Heads’ dystopian single ‘Life During Wartime’.

He predicted the Apple Watch in that interview too: “[People will] be surrounded by computers the size of wrist watches.” And he foresaw surveillance culture and data harvesting: “Government surveillance becomes inevitable because there’s this dilemma when you have an increase in information storage. A lot of it is for your convenience, but as more information gets on file, it’s bound to be misused.”

In fact, over 40 years ago, he predicted the entire modern-day experience, as if he instinctively knew what was coming. “We’ll be cushioned by amazing technological development,” he said, “but sitting on Salvation Army furniture.”

The 68-year-old Byrne says today, “You can’t say that you know,” chuckling down a Zoom link from his home in New York and belying his reputation for awkwardness by seeming giddily relieved to be talking to someone. “It’s crazy to set yourself up as some sort of prophet. But there’s plenty of people who have done well with books where they claim to predict what’s going on. I suppose sometimes it’s possible to let yourself imagine, ‘Okay – what if?’ This can evolve into something that exists, can evolve into something more substantial, cheaper – these kinds of things.”

It’s been a lifelong gift. Byrne turned up at CBGBs in 1975 with his art school band Talking Heads touting ‘Psycho Killer’, as if predicting the punk scene’s angular melodic evolution, new wave, before punk was even called punk. In 1980, Talking Heads assimilated African beats and textures into their seminal ‘Remain In Light’ album, foreshadowing ‘world music’ and modern music’s globalist melting pot, then used it to warn America of the dangers of consumerism, selfishness and the collapse of civilisation. Pioneering or propheteering, Byrne has been on the front-line of musical evolution for 45 years, collaborating with fellow visionaries from Brian Eno to St Vincent’s Annie Clark, constantly imagining, ‘What if?’

The live music lockdown has been a frustrating freeze frame, but Byrne was already leading the way into music’s new normal. Launched in 2018, the tour to support his 10th solo album, ‘American Utopia’, has now turned into a cinematic marvel courtesy of Spike Lee – the concert film was released in the UK this week. The original tour was acclaimed as a live music revolution. Using remote technology, Byrne was able to remove all of the traditional equipment clutter from the stage and allow his musicians and dancers, in uniform grey suits and barefoot, to roam around a stage lined with curtains of metal chains with their instruments strapped to them. A Marshally distanced gig, if you will.

“As the show was conceptually coming together, I realised that once we had a completely empty stage the rulebook has now been thrown out,” Byrne says. “Now we can go anywhere and do anything. This is completely liberating. It means that people like drummers, for example, who are usually relegated to the back shadows, can now come to the front – all those kinds of things – which changes the whole dynamic.”

With six performers making up an entire drum kit and Byrne meandering through the choreography trying to navigate a nonsensical world, the show was his most striking and original since he jerked and jived around a constructed-mid-gig band set-up in Jonathan Demme’s legendary 1984 Talking Heads live film Stop Making Sense.

The American Utopia show embarked on a Broadway run last year, where Byrne super-fan Spike Lee saw it twice and leapt at the chance of turning the spectacle into Byrne’s second revolutionary live film, dotted with his musings on the human condition to illuminate the crux of the songs: institutional racism, our lack of modern connection, the erosion of democracy and, on opener ‘Here’, a lecture-like tour of the human brain, Byrne holding aloft a scale model, trying to fathom, ‘How do I work this?’

“I didn’t know how much of a fan Spike was!” Byrne laughs today. “He’d even go, ‘Why don’t you do this song? Why don’t you add this song in’. We knew one another casually so I could text him and say, ‘I want you to come and see our show; I think that you might be interested in making a film of it’.”

Are the days of the traditional stage set-up numbered? “Yes, I think so,” he replies. “At least in theatres and concert halls the size that I would normally play, yes. The fact that we can get the music digitally [means] a performance has to be really of value. It has to be really something special, because that’s where the performers are getting their money and that’s what the audience is paying for. They’re not paying very much for streaming music, but they are paying quite a bit to go and see a performance, so the performance has to give them value for money… It has to be really something to see.”

How does David Byrne envisage the future possibilities of live performance?

“I’ve seen a lot of things that hip-hop artists have done – like the Kanye West show where he emerges on a platform that floats above the stage,” he says. “I’d seen one with Kendrick Lamar where it was pretty much just him on stage, an empty stage with just him on stage and a DJ, somebody with a laptop – that was it. I thought, ‘Wow’. Then he started doing things with huge projections behind. There are lots of ways to do this. I love the idea of working with a band, with live musicians. ‘How can I innovate in this kind of way?’ It’s maybe easier for a hip-hop musician who doesn’t have a band to figure out. The pressure is on to come up with new ways of doing this.”

In liberating his musicians from fixed, immovable positions, American Utopia also acts as a metaphor for freeing our minds from our own ingrained ways of thinking. As Byrne intersperses Talking Heads classics such as ‘Once In A Lifetime’, ‘I Zimbra’ and ‘Road To Nowhere’ with choice solo cuts and tracks from ‘American Utopia’, he also dots the show with musings on an array of post-millennial questions: the health of democracy; the rise of xenophobia and fascism; our increasing reliance on materialism and online communication; the climate change threat; the existential nightmare of the dating app; and, crucially, the distances all of these things put between us.

“The ‘likes’ and friends and connections and everything that the internet enables,” he argues, “even Zoom calls like this, they’re no substitute for really being with other people. Calling social networks ‘social’ is a bit of an exaggeration.”

Byrne closes the show with the suggestion that, rather than isolate behind our LCD barriers, we should try to reconnect with each other. In an age when social media has descended into all-out thought war and anyone can find concocted ‘facts’ to support anything they want to believe, is that realistic?

“I have a little bit of hope,” he says. “Not every day, but some days. I have hope that people will abandon a lot of social media, that they’ll realise how intentionally addictive it is, and they’re actually being used, and that they might enjoy actually being with other people rather than just constantly scrolling through their phone. So, I’m a little bit optimistic that people will, in some ways, use this technology a little bit less than they have.”

A key moment in American Utopia comes with Byrne’s cover of Janelle Monae’s ‘Hell You Talmbout’, a confrontational track shouting the names of African-Americans who have been killed by police or in racially motivated attacks – Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, George Floyd and far, far too many more. Does Byrne think the civil unrest in the wake of Floyd’s death and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement make a serious impact?

“We’ll see how long this continues,” he says, “but in projects that I’m working on – there’s a theatre project I’m working on in Denver, there’s the idea of bringing this show back to Broadway, there’s other projects – those issues came to the fore. Issues of diversity and inclusion and things like that, which were always there. Now they’re being taken more seriously. The producers and theatre owners realise that they can’t push those things aside, that they have to be included in the whole structure of how a show gets put together.”

“At least for now, that seems to be a big change. I see it in TV shows and other areas too. There’s a lot of tokenism, but there’s a lot of real opportunity and changed thinking as well.”

Elsewhere, he encourages his audience to register to vote, and had registration booths at the shows. He must have been pleased about the record turnout in the recent US election? “Yeah, the turnout was great. Now you just got to keep doing that. Gotta keep doing it at all the local elections, too. It was important for me not to endorse a political party or anything in the show but to say, ‘Listen, we can’t have a democracy if you don’t vote. You have to get out there and let your voice be heard and there’s lots of people trying to block it.’ We have to at least try.”

Will Trump’s loss help bring people together after four years with such a divisive influence in charge?

“Yes. I think for me Trump was not so much a shock; we knew who he is. He was around New York before that, in the reality show [The Apprentice], we knew what kind of character he was. What shocked me was how quickly the Republican party all fell into line behind him, behind this guy who’s obviously a racist, misogynist liar and everything else. But it’s kind of encouraging – although it’s taken four years and with some it’s only with the prospect of him being gone – that quite a few have been breaking ranks. There are some possibilities of bridge building being held out.”

But, he says, “It’s too early to celebrate,” concerned that Senate Majority Leader and fairweather Trump loyalist Mitch McConnell will use any Republican control of the Senate to block many of Biden’s policies from coming into effect. “[This] is what happened with Obama… I want to see real change happen. [Climate change] absolutely needs to be a priority. The clock had turned back over the last four years, so there’s a lot to be done. Whether there’s the willpower to do everything that needs to be done, it remains to be seen, but at least now it’s pointing in the right direction.”

How will he look back on the last four years? Byrne ponders. “I’m hoping that I look back at it as a near-miss.”

American Utopia is as much a personal journey as a dissection of modern ills. Ahead of ‘Everybody’s Coming To My House’, Byrne admits to being a rather socially awkward type. He claims that a choir of Detroit teenagers, when singing the song for the accompanying video, had imbued the song with a far more welcoming message than his own rendition, which found him wracked with the fear that his visitors might never leave. How does someone like that deal with celebrity?

“In a certain way it’s a blessing,” Byrne grins, “because I don’t have to go up to people to talk to them – they sometimes come up to me. In other ways it’s a little bit awkward. Celebrity itself seems very superficial and I have to constantly remind myself that your character, your behaviour and the work that you do is what’s important – not how well known you are, not this thing of celebrity. I learned early on it’s pretty easy to get carried away. But it does have its advantages. I had Spike Lee’s phone number, so I could text him.”

Talking Heads drummer Chris Frantz’s recent book Remain In Love suggests that the more successful Byrne got early on, the more distant he became.

Byrne nods. “I haven’t read the book, but I know that as we became more successful I definitely used some of that to be able to work on other projects. I worked on a dance score with [American choreographer] Twyla Tharp and I worked on a theatre piece with [director] Robert Wilson – other kinds of things – [and] I started working on directing some of the band’s music videos. So I guess I spent less time just hanging out. As often happens with bands, you start off being all best friends and doing everything together and after a while that gets to be a bit much. Everybody develops their own friends and it’s like, ‘I have my own friends too’. Everybody starts to have their own lives.”

The future is far too enticing for David Byrne to consider revisiting the past. “I do live alone so sometimes it would get lonely”, he says of lockdown, but he’s been using his Covid downtime to cycle around undiscovered areas of New York and remain philosophical about the aftermath.

“We’ll see how long before the vaccine is in, before we return to being able to socialise,” he says, “but I’m also wondering, ‘How am I going to look at this year? Am I going to look at it as, “Oh yes, that’s the year that was to some extent taken away from our lives; our lives were put on pause?”’ We kept growing; we kept ageing; we keep eating, but it was almost like this barrier had been put up. It has been a period where, in a good way, it’s led us to question a lot of what we do. You get up in the morning and go, ‘Why am I doing this? What am I doing this for? What’s this about?’ Everything is questioned.”

Post-vaccine, he hopes to “travel a little bit” before looking into plans to bring the ‘American Utopia’ show back to Broadway, and possibly even to London if the financial aspects can be worked out. “Often when a show like that travels, the lead actors might travel,” Byrne explains, “but in this case it’s the entire cast that has to travel. So you’ve got a lot of hotel bills and all that kind of stuff. We wanted to do it. There might be a way, if we can figure that out.”

Once we all get our jab, will everyone come to recognise that, as Byrne sings on ‘American Utopia’s most inspiring track, ‘Every Day Is A Miracle’? “Optimistically, maybe,” he says. “There will be a lot of people who will just go, ‘Let’s get back to normal – get out to the bars, the clubs and discos’. That’s already been happening in New York; there’s been these underground parties where people just can’t help themselves. But after all this it’d be nice to think that people might reassess things a little bit.”

And with the algorithm as the new gatekeeper and technology beginning to subsume the sounds and consumption of music, what does the new wave Nostradamus foresee for rock in the coming decades? Will AIs soon be writing songs for other AIs to consume to inflate the numbers, cutting humanity out of the equation altogether?

“It seems like there’ll be a kind of factory,” Byrne predicts, “an AI factory of things like that, and of newspaper articles and all of this kind of stuff, and it will just exaggerate and duplicate human biases and weaknesses and stupidity. On the other hand, I was part of a panel a while back, and a guy told a story about how his listening habits were Afrofuturism and ambient music – those were his two favourite ways to go. The algorithm tried to find commonalities between the two so it could recommend things to him and he said it was hopeless. Everything it recommended was just horrible because it tried to find commonalities between these two very separate things. This just shows that we’re a little more eclectic than these machines would like to think.”

And in the distant future? Best prepare to welcome your new gloop overlords. Byrne isn’t concerned about The Singularity – the point at which machine intelligence supersedes ours and AI becomes God – but instead believes that future technologies will emulate microbial forms.

“I watched a documentary on slime moulds [a simple slimy organism] the other day,” he says, warming to his sticky theme. “Slime moulds are actually extremely intelligent for being a single-celled organism. They can build networks and bunches of them can communicate. They can learn, they have memories, they can do all these kinds of things that you wouldn’t expect a single-celled organism to be able to do.”

“I started thinking, ‘Well, is there a lesson there for AI and machine learning, of how all these emerging properties could be done with something as simple as a single cell?’ It’s all in there… when things interact, they become greater than the sum of their parts. I thought, okay, maybe the future of AI is not in imitating human brains, but imitating these other kinds of networks, these other kinds of intelligences. Forget about imitating human intelligence – there’s other kinds of intelligence out there, and that might be more fruitful. But I don’t know where that leads.”

His grin says he does know, that he has a vision of our icky soup-world future, but maybe the rest of the species isn’t yet advanced enough to handle it. But if we’re evolving towards disaster rather than utopia, we can trust David Byrne to give us plenty of warning.

December 18, 2020

#david byrne #talking heads #music #new wave #post-punk #art pop #avant funk #worldbeat #interview #nme magazine #2020

50 notes · View notes

angryschnauzer · 4 years ago

Text

An update for Chez Schnauz. (don’t @ me for any of this please)

As you know i’m always very open about my life, and whats going on, and want to share a update so you can understand why i may miss your tag.

First up; Little Dude (my 5 1/2 year old son). He’s currently fighting a kidney infection, which is incredibly stressful for him and us. He was due to go for ADHD testing this April, but because of covid it was all cancelled. Throughout lockdown in the UK his condition worsened and me and hubby have had to learn very quickly how to work with Little Dude when he has an episode. He despises change and for him food is a big thing, and he only likes certain foods. A couple of weeks ago LD suddenly started to wet the bed at night, which was very unusual because he had happily been toilet trained for well over 2 years and was pretty much always dry at night. At first we thought it was just down to the heatwave and how we were asking him to drink lots because of the 36C temperatures, but the heatwave broke and it was still happening. So we took him to the doctors and they found Glucose and Protein in his urine. Multiple tests later including a pinprick test for diabetes we thankfully ruled that out, and that there is no blood in the urine (plus no pain), we have been instructed to drastically change his diet... which is so incredibly hard because he has found comfort in his selected foods, and by changing it we have to be careful how we do it because of his ADHD and we don’t want to trigger him. So its meant lots of trips to health food shops to try and find kid friendly alternatives. I also am hyper aware of anything that could trigger a eating disorder as my own ED developed when i was around 6 years old.

Next up me; I’ve mentioned before about my distain for the NHS and how they are completely biased against people who are overweight. I’ve been asking for blood tests to get my hormones checked for EIGHT YEARS. Every time i ask i get refused. I get told that whatever my ailment (overweight, tiredness, nausea...) it’s caused by being overweight and they refuse to give me any tests. No amount of explaining that i have at most 1500 calories a day, that i have dieted my entire life, that i have PCOS, my mum has had her thyroid removed at age 40 (same age i am now), but still every request for testing is refused. I know a lot of people say ‘find another doctor’ but with the NHS that isn’t an option. You can’t skip the process and go straight to an endocrinologist (if thats the right word), you can’t swap GP practices unless you move house, and even then you will get the same answer. Private healthcare is almost non existant, and is VERY expensive (yes on par with USA). My husband has some private healthcare through his work but they are being very slow in confirming if i can persue this avenue with them. So at the moment i am stuck in limbo, suffering from fatigue, back ache due to my weight, and that i am gaining 2lbs/1kg a month without increasing my calorie intake. I still exercise as much as i can, but simply by the fact i am gaining weight without knowing why, exercise is starting to become difficult and is in turn causing issues like back pain. I am in a vicious cycle where the doctors insist the weight is the cause of my issues, and will not test me so they don’t have to accept that its the affect of a more serious condition.

On top of all that i also have Aspergers. I was diagnosed when i was 38, or more to the point i was re-diagnosed at 38, my original diagnosis was when i was 8 years old which my parents ignored as back in the 1980s if you had a child with autism they were stupid... and thus i had to deal with school and life thinking i was stupid and weird, when in fact i should have had support. So anyway, a huge part of my condition is that i get noise sensitive, so on top of all the stresses of this year, add in that my child is dealing with ADHD which means he is loud and talks the entire time he is awake, and i have no escape from it, i find myself wanting to shut myself in a dark silent room just to escape the chaos in my head. I don’t get time to decompress my mind in order to write or work or just think, so my writing is suffering, and that is usually a big escape for me. I can’t concentrate on anything during my son’s waking hours, he needs to be with someone (in the same room as him) whenever he is awake, so its at the point where i can’t even go to the bathroom on my own, if i pick up my phone he’s on me asking 100 questions, to the point i really don’t have the energy to explain who everyone is on tumblr/facebook, what i’m doing, and its to the point i can’t concentrate. Tags get missed, and that’s when tumblr even does give me a notification.

And yes we are very much looking forward to when he goes back to school. Yes i will be sending him, we are in the UK and at present our infection rate/death rate is dropping daily, there have been no cases in our county for a month. When there are cases and towns become hotspots, they go into local lockdown. The school has everything planned out and will be social distancing and there is no mixing between his class and other classes. Each class has its own arrival and pick up time so parents can’t mix between groups. Little Dude needs the interaction with other children, and the trained support from his teacher, where we can finally get some guidance on his ADHD.

47 notes · View notes

nakediconoclast · 3 years ago

Text

About a certain livestock de-wormer...

Ivermectin

Before I even start this post, let me get the legal shit out of the way.I am not a doctor. I haven't even been to a doctor in over 5 years.I have no medical training except for maybe 100 hours of outdated first aid training when I was in the army 40 years ago and my First Sergeant needed a break from me.I am not a pharmacist, although back in the 1980s and 90s, I have dispensed dru..... Wait, I better leave that one alone.The point being, don't take my word for shit here. Do your own research. I'm going to refer to the drug as IM in this post because I don't want Google/Blogger taking my blog down or red-paging it for not toeing the party line. It is not my purpose to try to talk you into taking it any more than I'd try to talk you out of taking the vaccine if that's what you want to do. Your body, your choice.All I'm doing is making you aware of it if you haven't already checked it out, and to pass on my own experiences and thoughts. IM has been approved for use in humans, although it's more widely known as an parasitic medication for livestock.IM, sold under the brand name Stromectol among others, is a medication that is used to treat parasite infestations. In humans, this includes head lice, scabies, river blindness (onchocerciasis), strongyloidiasis, trichuriasis, ascariasis, and lymphatic filariasis. In veterinary medicine, it is used to prevent and treat heartworm and acariasis, among other indications. It can be taken by mouth or applied to the skin for external infestations.MORE Question: If it's already been proven safe for human use, why isn't there full speed ahead testing being done to see if it works for covid?Answer: Big Pharma. IM has been off patent for years and is dirt cheap. If it's found out to be effective for covid, guess who's profits are going to nosedive in that vaccine market? * Back a few weeks ago, a very good friend who shall remain nameless - fuck it, I'll out him, it was WiscoDave - initiated a conversation with me about IM and wanted to know if I had considered taking it to 1) prevent covid and 2) use it to cure covid if I were to contract it. Me, being invincible, said no, so he turned me onto a few links and pretty much left it at that.He's a sly devil - he knew I'd eventually get bored and read them. One of them concerned a study in India. As you may recall, there was a major outbreak a couple months ago and motherfuckers were dying like flies, then all of a sudden..... nothing.Why? Because they introduced IM. HERE is the link to the study in the first sentence of this paragraph.HERE is a 25 minute youtube video along the same lines. There's more out there if you take a few seconds to look them up. Okay, I read that, then I started digging and found more articles and videos on youtube, although youtube seems to be pulling a bunch of them if they even mention covid and IM.To make a long story short, I figured to give it a try. Hell, I never was shy about trying new drugs when I was younger, so it wasn't that big of a deal.My reasoning was this: While I may be invincible, my wife is not and with her health problems, she is one of those high risk people. She doesn't get out much, so about the only way she'd get it would be from me, so I needed to protect myself, but I really don't want to get vaccinated.Besides, I keep hearing about all the deaths and complications from taking the vaccines, but I've yet to hear about anybody dying from taking IM. On top of that, every day I read about fully vaccinated people being diagnosed with covid in spite of their precautions, so even if I got vaccinated, there's a good possibility that's not going to protect my wife from getting it. Wisco had also directed me to Ann Barnhardt's IM page HERE and told me to be sure that I read it - it tells you where to buy it, how to buy it, what kinds to buy (very important!) and dosage instructions. So, armed with that knowledge, I went into town to score some of this miracle drug in the liquid form. First stop was the Farmer's Co-op in town. There was none to be had and the old boy behind the counter said they can't keep it in stock for the past few months. That seemed a little weird seeing as I haven't noticed a massive influx of livestock around here lately - unless people are buying it up to use on themselves. Bubba also told me he couldn't guarantee a hold for me when it did come in, so I headed down to Tractor Supply. Once there, I couldn't find the liquid 1% solution so I asked one of the guys and immediately started getting the 3rd degree - just exactly what I did I want it for and shit like that, so I told him it was to worm a sick donkey. He went to the back to see if there was any there, but came back to tell me there was none in stock, so I asked him to order it for me. He hemmed and hawed around until the manager walked by and told him to order anything I wanted, with as much money as I've spent in that store, so he ordered a 50ml bottle for me and I got it 3-4 days later.While I'm on the subject of Tractor Supply, if you order something online from your home, YOU pay the shipping. If you have them order it for you, it ships to your address and shipping is free - something to keep in mind. Ten bucks is ten bucks. Anyways, after I got home and was re-reading Miss Ann's page, I realized I saw the 1.87% paste there at Tractor Supply, so I hustled back down there and scored a tube for about 8 bucks.Once I got it home, I figured to give it a whirl as a preventive measure, but I didn't want to use the liquid, figuring to hold off on that in case it became 'unavailable' in the future.Now Wisco had told me the paste tasted like ass, but what the fuck, I've eaten British food before. I ain't scared. Besides, this shit was apple flavored. So I took a piece of bread, squeezed out the recommended dose (I thought), put it on the bread, folded it over and wolfed it down. I got a very slight taste of bitter apple, so I shoveled in a load of Copenhagen and that was the end of that. Now, while IM in the liquid form is taken orally, it's drawn from the bottle and measured using a syringe which can be bought at Tractor Supply, livestock supply stores and even online at vet supply sites such as Chewy.com.In the liquid form and by using a little math, you can get the dosage down for your body weight pretty easily. Using the paste, the tube dispenses the doses in 50 kilogram increments for your body weight. Luckily, as I found out, it's pretty fucking hard to overdose yourself. As I was putting the tube away, I realized I had accidentally dosed myself with double the amount recommended for my weight. It's okay to round up - better a little too much than too little according to everything I had read, but damn, I really rounded up.Like I said, the shit measures out in 50 kilo increments for body weight and I did 3 clicks instead of 2. I weigh 170 pounds and took enough for a 330 pounder.I sat down and waited to die. What I got was a very slight headache and I do mean very slight - it wasn't even bad enough to require aspirin. I didn't even cop a buzz, damn it. Okay, that's my experience. Did I have any side effects? Nope.Did I get sick to my stomach? Huh-uh.Does my dick still get hard in the morning? Most of the time, but that's my age showing.Any frothing at the mouth? Only when I brush my teeth.Do my trigger fingers still work? Yes, praise the Lord.Any newfound empathy or tolerance for Biden? Fuck no.Do I have an urge to gallop in the pasture? What happens in that pasture is between me and God. Obviously, there's precautions.Ladies, you probably don't want to take it if you're pregnant or trying to get pregnant.If you're taking medication, you most definitely want to talk with your doctor first to see if there's going to be any kind of interactions. There's a website HERE that you can check, but I think I'd want to hear it from a doctor. How you word those questions is up to you, but if it was me I wouldn't ask IF I can take it, I'd let him or her know I was going to take it and what should I know. Okay, bottom line for me: Like I said earlier, I've heard of many, many cases of horrible side effects and even deaths from taking the vaccines, but I've yet to hear of anybody taking the correct dosage of IM having any adverse effects. I'm sure there's some out there, but if they were even remotely common, the FDA would be spreading those examples everywhere. Instead, they're putting out vague warnings like this HERE.Do I believe the hype about how deadly covid is for healthy people? No. But I do believe it can make you sicker than a dog, and I generally try to avoid shit like that. And again, I do have to protect my wife by protecting myself. With her health issues, death is a very real possibility. * So, if you are considering it, please go to Ann Barnhardt's page on the stuff and read it. Again, you'll find instructions on the kind to buy (they're not all the same), dosage, how to take it, and even a little video on how to use the paste.HEREIf you're concerned about the correct dosage, she addresses that as well.HERE

2 notes · View notes

legacyridley · 4 years ago

Text

— LYING IS THE MOST FUN A GIRL CAN HAVE WITHOUT TAKING HER CLOTHES OFF (BUT IT’S BETTER IF YOU DO!)

“I CAN’T RECALL a single amazing thing i have seen first-hand that i didn't immediately reference to a movie or tv show. a fucking commercial. you know the awful singsong of the blasé: seeeen it. i've literally seen it all, and the worst thing, the thing that makes me want to blow my brains out, is: the secondhand experience is always better. the image is crisper, the view is keener, the camera angle and the soundtrack manipulate my emotions in a way reality can't anymore.”

— gillian flynn , gone girl

ooc —

hi there ! i’m shannon, i’m non-binary, my pronouns are she/they and i’m from the united kingdom. you can just call me the ceo of the unhinged rosamund pike cinematic universe, though. or keira knightley’s bitch, because i am, even if i decided against bringing her this time ( still might later ! ) i love morally corrupt women, i’d give my life for them, if one couldn’t tell by . . . uh. frankie.

application —

[ rosamund pike | 40 | she/her | cis woman ] if it isn’t FRANCESCA RIDLEY ! you know, FRANKIE ! they’ve lived in monarda for TWO MONTHS. some people say that they’re CONSCIENTIOUS & CHARMING, but that they can also be PRIVILEGED & AVARICIOUS. last i heard, they were working FREELANCE as a BUSINESSWOMAN ! i’ve also heard the rumor that they’re a WITCH. if you’d ask me, they remind me of BEING BORN WITH THE METALLIC TANG OF A SILVER SPOON IN YOUR MOUTH ( JUST LIKE THE TASTE OF YOUR OLD-MONEY BLOOD ), “MANEATER” BY NELLY FURTADO PLAYING, SLIGHTLY MUFFLED, FROM INSIDE YOUR CAR, LIKE MUSIC FROM A PARTY BATHROOM, & THE NOTION OF A NEW SELF YOU’LL FIND BY THE SHORE ( BUT HOW’S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU, HONEY? DO YOU FEEL LOVED? ) ! i wonder what monarda’s got in store for them today!

BASICS —

NAME: francesca legacy ridley ( yes, really. )

AGE: forty ( b. 28 january, 1981 — knightsbridge, london, united kingdom. )

NICKNAMES: frankie , and frankie only.

GENDER: cis female.

ORIENTATIONS: bisexual / biromantic.

RELATIONSHIP STATUS: divorced & single.

NATIONALITY: british-american ( dual. )

ETHNICITY: white ( english. )

LANGUAGES SPOKEN: english, french, german.

OCCUPATION: social media mogul & socialite. ex-sunglasses model.

EDUCATION: institut le rosey & magdalen college, oxford.

PERSONALITY —

ASTROLOGICAL BIG THREE: aquarius sun, scorpio moon, scorpio rising.

MBTI TYPE: entj-a. ( the commander. )

HOGWARTS HOUSE: slytherin ( ravenclaw hatstall. )

ENNEAGRAM TYPE: eight with a seven wing ( the maverick. )

THEME SONG: maneater by nelly furtado.

FAVOURITE SONG: lay all your love on me by abba.

FAVOURITE ALBUM: super trouper by abba (1980)

PET PEEVES: people who don’t say ‘thank you’ when you open the door. back-seat drivers. chewing too loudly. tea that’s too milky. cambridge graduates.

PHOBIAS: trypophobia. hemophobia ( blood ). arachnophobia. coulrophobia ( clowns. )

GUILTY PLEASURES: radio-friendly pop music. sunglasses, still. netflix-binge style sitcoms. kate winslet movies. true crime documentaries. st trinian’s (2007) dir. oliver parker.

ABOUT —

she’s deeply charming but also . . . it’s mostly theatre. ridleys know how to put on a show. ridleys know how to make friends. so meet frankie: #1 flirt, #1 liar, and perfectionist to the nth degree.

oxford graduate from a family of oxford graduates ; if you don’t get what that means for a person, substitute oxford with harvard and you might just about be getting there, right down to the annoying person — the sort of humdrum regular who grinds on francesca’s gears — who says ‘ oh, you went to harvard? say something smart! ’ growing up in a house in london that looks like it is out of a fairytale ( would be, if the city and all its bustle and noise weren’t on the doorstep ) is about as sweet as it sounds, and who could blame one for getting a touch . . . jealous ? well, other than frankie, a product of a private school in switzerland, an oxford college, and a trust fund, who could judge someone for breathing incorrectly, and says things such as ‘ jealousy is a disease, get well soon. ’

HOW DID SHE GET TO HER CURRENT POSITION ? . . .other than her parents’ money and a wealth of connections? well, frankie quickly came to understand something; that every time the older generations catch up to a social media platform, there’s a sudden vacuum as the younger generation work out where to go. and where the audience go is where the influence is, which gains you more connections, more wealth, more influence in places people would never even think to look. do you ever think about what information leaves your hands, and where, when you agree to the terms and conditions? you probably should.

[ NOTE : when i imagine the platform, it’s something fairly twitter-esque, but without the people who use long hashtags and can’t figure out how it works. and more . . . aesthetic, somehow. like pinterest-level aesthetics. i’ll be working it out over time, but i’ve named it spectrum. yes, it’s named after the florence & the machine song, please don’t judge me. it started off as a university project á la the social network ( brilliant bloody movie ) that went onto a massive scale & became trendy and addictive. imagine if mark zuckerberg was a cool, bisexual, female ex-sunglasses model who once married the heir to grovesnor group, made him sign a considerable prenup and then divorced him when he cheated ( there was some full diana revenge dress content ) fifteen years ago, just before her old university idea went mainstream. he regrets it now, doesn’t he ? ]

imagine the kind of assholes who would give their child ‘ legacy ’ as a middle name to remind her of the constant pressure on her shoulders ? welcome to the ridleys, london-born mother & father to francesca ( golden child, with more issues than meets the eye, actually as much of a party girl as her sister but successful ) and roman ( motorbike-obsessed disgrace. ) they’re one of the oldest witch families out there, but — up until frankie & roman — they’ve been able to keep it quiet for their own benefit.

so what does frankie DO with her magic? she always says she specialises in the tempting, though the addictive is perhaps more apt. want to feel so excited about something you’ll never be bored again? want the best trip of your life? frankie’s your gal. and does it have anything to do with how influential spectrum became & how much of an addictive presence she can be? . . . well, that’s for her to know & no one to find out.

AND NOW, THE FINAL QUESTION: why the fuck is london’s premier rich bitch in where she’d consider nowhere, maine ? well, she’s on sort of a self-recreation trip right now. think about tahani in the good place when she tries to step out of the spotlight without actually doing it, except she’s thinking the sea air will cleanse her of a slight... unease coming with the approaching mid-life crisis and having to dye her greys out.

but now she’s in a smaller place than sprawling london, living in that house you look at and think ‘fuck, i’d kill for that view,’ having to associate with people properly rather than being almost a concept of a person . . . what if people tear aside the mask and discover the serpentine nature and the moral rot that lies behind it ?

credits —

template !

#monardaintro #— nothing good starts in a getaway car ( INTRO. )

6 notes · View notes

havatabanca · 3 years ago

Text

Is Eddie Grant the true inventor of Soca?

by Jo-Ann Greene

Eddy Grant stands among an elite group of artists as one who has not just merely moved successfully across the musical spectrum, but has actually been at the forefront of genres and even created one of his own. From pop star to reggae radical, musical entrepreneur to the inventor of ringbang, the artist has cut a swath through the world of music and made it his own.

Born in Plaisance, Guyana, on March 5, 1948, the young Edmond Grant grew up on the sound of his homeland, tan singing, an Indo-Caribbean vocal style whose roots lay in South Asia and are the backbone of modern chutney. Then in 1960, the Grant family emigrated to England, taking up residence in the working-class Stoke Newington area of London. The young teen's musical horizons swiftly expanded, embracing the R&B, blues, and rock that percolated across his new island home.

In 1965, Grant formed his first band, the Equals, and long before the days of 2-Tone, the group was unique in being the first of Britain's multi-racial bands to receive any recognition. The West Indian contingent comprised Jamaican-born singer Lincoln Gordon, with his twin brother Derv and Grant both on guitar, while the rhythm section of bassist Patrick Lloyd and drummer John Hall were native-born white Englishmen. Like most of the teenaged bands roaming the capital at the time, the Equals cut their teeth on the club and pub circuit and finally inked a label deal with President Records in early 1967. Their debut single, "I Won't Be There," didn't crack the charts but did receive major radio support. This, alongside an expanding fan base wowed by their live shows, pushed their first album, Unequaled Equals, into the U.K. Top Ten. At the request of his label, Grant had also been working with the Pyramids, the British group who had backed Prince Buster on his recent U.K. tour. Besides composing songs for the band (and one for Buster himself, the rude classic "Rough Rider"), Grant also produced several tracks, including the band's debut single and sole hit, "Train to Rainbow City." In 1968, the Equals scored their own hit with "I Get So Excited," the group's debut into the Top 50. Although their follow-up album, Equals Explosion, proved less successful than its predecessor, as did the next single, the quintet's career was indeed about to explode. "Hold Me Closer" may have disappointed in the U.K., where it stalled at a lowly number 50, but in Germany, the single was flipped over and "Baby Come Back" released as the A-side. It swiftly soared to the top of the German charts, a feat repeated across Europe. Later that spring, a reissued British single finally received its just due and reached number one. Even the U.S. took notice, sending the single into the lower reaches of the Top 40. Sadly, this turned out to be a flash in the pan. The Equals' follow-up single, "Laurel and Hardy" died at number 35; its successor did even worse, while their new album, Sensational Equals, didn't even make the charts. New hope arrived when "Viva Bobby Joe" shot into the Top Ten in the summer of 1969, but its follow-up, "Rub a Dub Dub," just scraped into the Top 35. Understandable, considering the Equals' roller coaster of ups and downs, Grant now turned his attention elsewhere.

In 1970, he started up his own specialty record label, Torpedo, concentrating on British reggae artists. He also utilized the label as a home for a brief solo career under the alias Little Grant, releasing the single "Let's Do It Together." But the artist hadn't given up on the Equals yet, and good thing too. Later that year, their new 45, "Black Skinned Blue Eyed Boys," slammed the group back into the Top Ten. And then, the unimaginable happened. On New Year's day in 1971, Grant, all of 23 years old, suffered a heart attack and a collapsed lung. If lifestyle played a part, it wasn't because he drank, took drugs, smoked, or ate meat; it was due to Grant's only vice -- a hectic schedule. He quit the group at this point and the Equals soldiered on into the shadows without him. He sold Torpedo as well and with the proceeds opened up his own recording studio, The Coach House, in 1972. Grant continued to produce other artists and release their records through his newly launched Ice label, but his own musical talents were seemingly left behind. It wasn't until 1977 when Grant finally released a record of his own, the Message Man album. It was three years in the making and a stunning about-face from his previous pop persona, even if "Black Skinned Blue Eyed Boys" had suggested a change was imminent. Tracks like "Cockney Black," "Race Hate," and "Curfew" were politicized dark masterpieces laced with aggression and anger.

But the album also included some lighter moments, including "Hello Africa," which featured a sound that the media hadn't even invented a word for yet. Grant dubbed it "kaisoul," an amalgamation of kaiso (the traditional word for calypso) and soul. Caribbean legend Lord Shorty, the acknowledged inventor of this new crossover hybrid, labeled it solka. Neither term stuck, however, once the Trinidad and Tobago press came up with their own label: soca. But regardless of what it was called, the style was just one of many hybrids that Grant was entertaining.

Message Man may have proved a commercial failure, but that didn't dim the artist's vision for one second.

Two more years passed while Grant wrestled with its follow-up in the studio, composing, producing, and performing virtually the entire album himself. The end result was 1979's Walking on Sunshine, one of the greatest albums of the decade. While the B-side featured a clutch of seminal musical hybrids, the centerpiece of the album's A-side was "Living on the Frontline," a dancefloor classic that blended tough lyrics with an electronic sheen, a sense of optimism, and a funk-fired sound. Released as a single, the song roared up the British chart, while becoming a cult hit in U.K. clubs. Inexplicably, the album itself didn't chart at all, nor did its follow-up, 1980's Love in Exile. However, in the next year, Grant finally cracked the market wide open with Can't Get Enough, which finally breached the Top 40. His singles' success had continued uninterrupted across "Do You Feel My Love," "Can't Get Enough of You," and "I Love You, Yes I Love You." A phenomenal live album, Live at Notting Hill, was recorded in August 1981 during London's Notting Hill Carnival. The following year's Killer on the Rampage slew its way into both the British and American charts, where it landed at number ten. The album spun off "I Don't Wanna Dance," which topped the chart in the U.K., while the exhilarating "Electric Avenue," from his next album, Going for Broke, landed at number two on both sides of the Atlantic.

Nothing else would equal these dizzying heights. Three more singles followed by the end of 1984, but none managed to break into the Top 40. In the U.S., only one, "Romancing the Stone," actually made the chart, charming its way into a respectable berth just outside the Top 25. That was his final showing in the U.S. On both sides of the Atlantic, 1987's Born Tuff and the following year's File Under Rock were passed over by the record-buying public. However, the British gave the artist one last Top Ten hit in 1988 with "Gimme Hope Jo'anna," a highlight of his 1990 Barefoot Soldier album. Unfortunately, its 1992 follow-up, Painting of the Soul, went the way of its last few predecessors.

By then, the artist had long ago left the U.K., having emigrated to Barbados a decade earlier. Even as his own career had taken off back in England, Grant was spending much of his time mentoring a new generation of soca talent. He opened a new studio, Blue Wave, and lavished most of his attention on it, which explains the gap in his output between 1984 and 1987. By the time "Jo'anna" had fallen off the chart, Grant was well on the way to creating his own mini-empire. Besides giving new stars-to-be a helping hand, Grant also moved into music publishing, specializing in calypso's legends. Over the years, Ice has thrilled the world by making the back catalog of multitudes of stars available: Lord Kitchener, Roaring Lion, and Mighty Sparrow, to name a few. And almost uniquely among Caribbean artists, Grant has maintained control over his own music, and Ice, of course, has kept it available. Across Grant's solo career, the artist has continued to experiment with different styles in ever-changing combinations. Pop, funk, new wave, reggae, Caribbean, African, and even country have all been melded into his sound. 1992's Painting of the Soul was heavy with island influences, while the next year's Soca Baptism is a collection of covers, from hits to obscurities, all dosed with a modern sound.

By this time, Grant was hard at work in the evolution of yet another hybrid style: ringbang. Many of the genre's elements are easily found in the artist's earlier recordings, from African rhythms to military tattoos, alongside soca itself and dancehall rhythms, many of the latter influenced by Grant's own previous work. The new style debuted in 1994 at the Barbados Crop Over festival. Since then, the style has continued to intrigue, but has yet to create the international success that it's always threatened. Much of this can be laid at Grant's own door, through a simmering dispute with other artists and the legal ramifications of the genre's trademark. A vociferous supporter of artists' rights, Grant first ran into trouble in 1996 when he demanded his label's artists receive adequate copyright fees from Trinidad and Tobabgo's Carnival. A heroic stance that infuriated the festival's organizers, this was quickly overshadowed by the public outcry over soca itself. As far as T&T was concerned, the inventor of soca was island native Lord Shorty, who announced its birth in 1978 with the Soca Explosion album. However, Grant insists otherwise, crediting his own "Black Skinned Blue Eyed Boys" as the first-ever soca record. Needless to say, his public proclamations of this fact continue to infuriate T&T and other Shorty supporters. But politics aside, the greater factor may be in ringbang's trademark. Once Grant filed it, the word could no longer be used by other artists without express permission. A perusal of any soca, calypso, or chutney hits collection shows the importance of the use of the genre term to the actual song, and just how many titles feature the term. By preventing artists from using the word ringbang, few outside the Ice stable were willing to explore the genre.

Even so, Grant managed to organize the Ringbang Celebration 2000 as part of T&T's millennium festivities. The event, which went off without a hitch, created further ill will due to its price tag, a whopping 41 million (6.5 million dollars in U.S. currency). The artist himself performed two songs at the event.

In the new year, he recorded a new version of one of them, "East Dry River," while in Jamaica, appropriately enough in a ska style. The previous year, the artist released the Hearts & Diamonds album, with Reparation following in 2006. Grant continues to make an impact on both sides of the studio, with his music always an intriguing concoction of sound and his studio work equally innovative. Ice itself is equally instrumental in the music world, both in its preservation of past legacies and its attention to new artists.

via island mix backchat http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/threads/is-eddie-grant-the-true-creator-inventor-of-soca.247725/

#soca #eddie grant #lord shorty #passa passa

2 notes · View notes

lanaisnotwool · 4 years ago

Video

youtube

421 - 401K Rip-Off

https://moneyripples.com/2020/09/11/421-401k-rip-off/

Are 401K’s a good idea?

Is it possible that you are worse off with a 401K?

Where can you invest instead?

Chris runs the numbers to see what happens if you invest with a 401K. It is catered for you and is filled with the information you need to make the right decisions and making a ripple effect to the lives of others.

Listen to our Podcast here:

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/moneyripples/2020/07/30/421--the-401k-ripoff

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, my fellow Ripplers! This is Chris Miles. Your Cash Flow Expert and Anti-Financial Advisor. Welcome you out for a wonderful show. A show that is for you, and it’s about all of you. Those of you that work so hard for your money. And you’re ready for your money to start working harder for you. Now! You want to work because you want to not because you have to. You want to have that cash flow. That freedom. That prosperity. Today! Not 30 or 40 years from now, but right now, to be able to have that life that you love. To do what you love while you can still live. While you still have life in you. And it’s not just about having your own life of comfort and ease and freedom, which is amazing, but it’s about so much more. It’s about be able to create a ripple effect to the lives of others. Because as you prosper, you can use your blessings to bless the lives of others too. And that is a ripple effect. I’m here to create guys. Thank you for allowing me to create that ripple effect through you. And thank you again for bingeing, for sharing with others, for creating conversations, right? Because the only way to elevate your success is to elevate your conversations of success as well. And guys, you guys are doing an amazing job. Thank you so much for being a part of this and allowing me to create a ripple effect through you.

As a reminder check out our website, MoneyRipples.com Well, not only do we have the great e-book, Beyond Rice and Beans, that you can download for free, which will help you find money. Especially if you’re looking for a cash and be able to use and be able to create more freedom. There’s also great blogs. There’s even videos of this very episode being posted as well. So check that out. As well as our YouTube page. So check those out!

Today, guys. So again, I get this all the time because I get it. When the rest of the world is telling you to believe one thing, and you’re trying to do something different. It’s hard to break that pattern, right? Hey, we’re witnessing this in the world right now. There’s debates going on and between majorities and minorities and everything else, and it is creating a lot of debate, but the one thing you don’t see, many people debate is actually in the realm of money, right? When it comes to money, most people would agree going with the mainstream advice. It’s spend little, save a lot, save it in your mutual funds like your 401k is and get that employer match because it’s “Free Money”

Stay out of debt! You know, do all these things that you’re supposed to be doing that should somehow create freedom. Like guys, it has not worked! Period. Now you might think that somehow it has worked. Now, we might look back to grandparents generations, but understand is that there’s a ton of workers, funding, their social security and other things. They had pensions. We don’t! They have their pensions right now. There’s school teachers right now out of pensions, like running out of money. There’s States that are bankrupt right now. Government workers that aren’t getting the things that were given to us even few decades ago. And right now it’s relying upon you to create your own freedom. You cannot rely on anyone else. You cannot trust the government will have a decent amount of cash for you to use. It’s really up to you. So what’s been the answer of course, over the last several decades? It’s been the 401k, right?

I’m here to tell you the 401k is a Big Fat Lie! Now, granted. Does it do what people think it does in the sense that you defer taxes? Yes. You can have employer matches, which is like having free money. Yes. By the way, that’s just means that they’re just not paying you as much, just so you know. You know, it’s just a benefit, the company benefit of the add on, they just take it away from your salary anyways. All of these things, you know, is it essentially a real tool or a vehicle? Yes, it is. It’s a tax code that started back in, you know, back in the Carter era, right in the late seventies and by about 1980 and so on. Even though most employers didn’t really implement it, at least for the average worker, usually by the mid eighties, you start to see the average workers getting offered 401ks.

It became more mainstream. Now you have to ask yourself first and foremost, why does this thing becomes so big? Right? Why did people just keep using IRAs? Or why don’t we keep, you know, why don’t we start making roth IRAs more popular? Since that’s been around now for 20 years. More than 20 years. You know, we’ve had that for a while, but why aren’t people going crazy about the Roth? Now there’s some people that say it’s great, but the truth is you can’t save enough into a Roth. Can you? $6,000 or $7,000 a year is not enough to retire on. It’s nothing. It’s a ridiculous rule that you have the Roth IRA that kind of loses it. You’ve got things like life insurance out there that we talked about before. That is tax free, much like a Roth. It’s the same kind of taxation, but you can dump it a lot more.

But even then guys, if you’re trying to rely on a product to get you there, it won’t do it! There is no one single financial product that any financial advisor will offer you or your employer wall for you that will get you to financial freedom. And that’s what we are talking about today. Specifically, I’m going to focus on the 401k and why it’s a lie. Now understand that when it came out into the Carter era, taxes were much worse. Now there’s an article that one of my good friends sent and he sent it to me. He said, Chris, you should check this out. Very interesting. It’s actually an article in Bloomberg about 401k dated back on July 21st. Now this article, I’m not going to quote from it completely because even as I was reading it, I started to see some inaccuracies. The basic premise is pretty interesting.

Some of his solutions were different. He was talking about changing the 401k to be more flexible. More rules. I’m not opposed to that, but it doesn’t really answer the basic question. But he did bring up some good points about what happened when it started. So for example, the points that were good, right? And by the way, I know these are bad points and not only was it bad, I decided to look at the comments, which is never a good idea. If you want to stay in a good mood. When you look at the comments and people are railing into them saying, Hey, this was inaccurate. This was inaccurate. Right? But even with those inaccuracies that decided to go back and use some of those arguments, people were debating about, well, yeah, tax were higher, but medium income was lower. So I said, great. Let’s pull up the historical bureaus and find out what the census said, you know, on those things.

So anyways, I took a trip back in time to figure out what it really was. So here’s the first thing he said, the Marshall tax rate was higher in 1980, which is true. Your tax rate could be anywhere. It was taxed by just, but get this. We have eight tax brackets right now, right? In the federal income tax. The lowest is 0%. Of course. The highest is 37%. That is the highest bracket possible. Now you don’t get tax all that. It’s a scale that goes up, right? So as you hit each income bracket, that portion of that income bracket is taxed at that rate. So for example, right now missing, I’m not exact on the number. So I just closed them off, but you can get, basically get taxed 0% from like zero to about 18,000 bucks, right. Per year. So you have 18,000 or less of income.

You’re not even getting a tax on the federal side. State, maybe, but not on the federal. Then jumps up to like 10 and then 12 and so on. You know, so the top tax bracket for the median income today, by the way, the median household income today is about $78,500. So the top tax he even hit is 22%. By the way, the tax is owed as of 2020. If you make 78,500 on the federal tax, I’m not talking about the state taxes. Federal tax, you’ll pay 10,332 bucks, which is just over 30% of your income. Your total income. In 1980, the median income was 28,220 bucks. And this is across all races. I found out that white races were actually much higher. It was like 51,000. And I thought that was really interesting to see how it’s such a bigger discrepancy back then. I’m not surprised, but still pretty surprising how much the average white household was making was about 51,000.

But the median household income with all races, just like I did with 2020 was 28,220. Now with all the tax brackets, I did all the math on it. The tax, your taxes owed would be $5,663. So just over half of what you would have you paid today for the median income. The difference is though it’s about a third of the income, right? So that total percentage that you would have paid taxes back in 1980 was 20%. And also here’s the thing. The top tax bracket in 1980 was 70% with zero to 70%. With 16 brackets along the way there. So your top tax bracket even at the median household income, which wasn’t a lot 28,000 bucks, right.

Was still in that 32% tax bracket. That’s the bracket you’re in. The top bracket. So that’s where you’re paying more. So of course, if you’re looking for ways to reduce your taxes, why not find something to give you a tax deferral. In hopes that you would live on less. Here’s a faulty premise of course, is that even if you started saving in 1980, let’s say you have saved for the last 40 years. And I know some of you have. The problem is you’re probably noticing you’re not in a whole lot lower tax bracket today, are you? You know, maybe you earn a decent income, but income goes up with inflation, right? So of course the inflation you’re still having to make more. Now, granted right now is a lower tax bracket, for sure. So if you happen to retire today and you’ve been saving for awhile, you might be pretty happy.

But if you’re saving today, this might be the worst time to try to use a tax deferred account. Because right now we are in the lowest tax brackets we’ve been in decades. You know, this is amazing! These are, the tax rates are awesome! Even better than when I started working. Why would I try to avoid paying taxes now and go for a future date when it’s likely to be higher? And here’s the thing, guys, even if the brackets remained the same because of inflation, you have to consume more money each year to live. If you do, guess what, you’re getting tax on it. By the way, if you’re trying to count on social security, yes, you can get tax on social security. If you pull out more than a certain amount per year, and that’s not a lot of guys, it’s not a lot. So that’s the thing is that right now, it’s just based on taxes alone. The concept was great back then, which was, cause there was high taxes. They’re trying to pay for crazy stuff.

Inflation was going through the roof. It made sense, right? It made sense to say, Hey, the tax rates are ridiculous. I’m likely to be in a lower tax bracket because there’s so many tax brackets. It’s not hard to get to a lower one. So it was easy to kind of contribute to that and lower your tax bracket. But you’re delaying that tax for the future. You’re not really saving any taxes when you do a 401k. In fact, you saved nothing. And remember your employer’s contributions are going in as well, tax deferred and they come out taxed. So that’s a big one right there. Now here’s the thing is that people will say, okay, Chris, got it. You know, what’s the alternative, you know, what about now? You know, what’s going on today? Like what would you recommend?

Here’s the thing guys, again, I’m never going to make blanket statements. I’m not going to make blanket recommendations. I’m not going to give investment advice on the show. That’s because it’s illegal. I can’t do it. Right? But let me give you an example of what can happen because here’s the other problem with the 401k that’s a lie. Now people think with a match, right? This is the other big argument I get all the time. They’re like Chris, does it match though? That’s like a 50% match. That’s like a 50% return or a hundred percent match. It’s like a hundred percent return. So guys, I decided to do some calculations. I said, let’s do it by the numbers. That was another criticism on this guy’s thing. They said they didn’t really go by the numbers. He’s right. He didn’t, he was giving more conceptual stuff. Again, this is why I’m not really sharing the article. Cause it’s not. It’s good, but it’s not great. Right?

It’s not something you’d take as gospel for sure. So look at this way, whenever I talk to people or say, okay, Chris, this is what I’ve been doing. They’re like, I maxed out my 401k. Now when we calculate that with the match, because the match doesn’t go over usually 5% 6% a year. Anyways, if you get a hundred percent, most like get a 3% match or something or 4% maybe. But I said, okay, let’s go for the top that I’ve seen. Usually I won’t see with employer contributions. I won’t see more than 25,000 going in per year. So that’s great. Let’s just say that’s the case. I’m going to run two different scenarios. One have a person that’s about 45 years old with a quarter million saved up in the retirement account. That’s maxing their 401k for the next 20 years. And then I got somebody who’s 25 years old, starting from scratch. Also maxing out their 401k.

Which most people don’t do when they’re 25, but I’m going to say somebody is staying cheap. They’re the ultimate ideal saver, right? And they’re saving for the next 40 years and earning this. Now here’s the another debate. People say, well, what’s the real return? You know, this is why he got, I’ve put the match into this equation, right? With the match. You know, the real rate of return the market is anywhere usually between 7.4% and 7.6%, depending on the day. That’s of course the average I’ve seen like a 30 year average over time. It’s not 10 or 12%, the S&P500 doing at best, right around seven and a half. As of right now, July to July 2020, July 1990 to July of 2020, we went from the first to the first it’s about a 7.47% average.

Now like a real rate of return, not 10 or 12, that’s makes a massive difference when you’re started looking at 20 or even 40 years down the road. I figured, okay, we got that. But remember, there’s also fees in 401ks. And this is something that I saw in those comments. People are like, Oh, I’ve got like 0.04% cause I use Vanguard funds and all that stuff. Here’s the deal, guys. The fees in a 401k, aren’t that bad and even said he’s like, Hey, if you can get outside of the 401k, your fees will probably be less. Right? But here’s the deal guys. Most people never get that. And especially if you have money to go in a 401k, your fees are at least 1% on average. That’s pretty typical. They’re just the administrative fees that are inside 401ks. 401ks by the way, have like almost 20 different fees they can charge you.

So, and they’re all embedded with them. They don’t really make them very public. They’ll make them easily known. This is why people say, Hey, the Mark has been up, but my money’s not going up. Right. If you’ve ever said that, especially if you’ve been in the market long enough, you’ve felt this or noticed it before. You’re like, Hey, the market went up, but my money didn’t. There’s something wrong. This is part of the reason, fees are coming out. So I actually went kind of on the high end. Usually I don’t see people netting more than 6% rate of return. I put this at 6.25, I bonus you a quarter percent because the truth is, my point still going to win out. Even if I’m overly liberal with these numbers. Right? And not even being conservative. I’m actually being liberal against my own point.

I’m playing devil’s advocate against myself. Right? So 6.25%. Again, guys, I know the numbers going out because I just know a few of the guys are going to try to run the numbers yourself. So this is why I’m doing this. So anyways, here’s the deal. So I took that person. I said, Hey, what if you’re 45 years old? You’ve got a quarter million in your 401k as of now, which I know there’s several of you that do around this time. You’re max funding it. You’re going in about 25,000 a year with a match. I’m assuming you’re making that 120,000 or so a year. If you’re making less, it’s less right. But I’m putting this up, you know, kind of on a more conservative end where somebody might be max funding this. So you’re getting in a total of 25,000 a year. At six and a quarter percent after 20 years, you will have about $1.84 million.

So you have nearly $2 million. Now you might think that’s a lot, but you got to understand. There’s another thing working against us, which is inflation. Now I went conservative on this number. Again, playing devil’s advocate against myself, but I just decided to make this a number of conservative. I put it at a 4% inflation rate. Do not trust the government says about what, you know, their consumer price index and the inflation rates are. They’re messing with those rates to slow down the increase on social security payments to you. You know? So they’re trying to let that money stretch and last longer, they’re manipulating those numbers in real life, though, if you notice your real life, it’s not too far fetched to say, you know, about every 10 to 15 years, you know, my lifestyle has to kind of double.

Like what I’m living on today. I’ve got to have about double that within 15 years. You know, if you’re living on $4,000 a month back in 2005, you’re probably living on about $8,000 a month now. Again, changing circumstances with the life that’s the thing with inflation is kind of weird. You can’t really count on it because life situations changes. It can go more or less, but I put it 4%. There’s debates that it could actually be like 6% or 7%. It’s more closer what it’s been. Since we’ve been taken off the gold standard back in the early seventies. So anyways, I put it at 4% just to make it better. Here’s the key guys. When you’re looking at lifestyle, cause $1.84 million sounds great in 20 years. But when you look at the after inflation adjustment, that’s almost like having $840,000. So, and by the way, you haven’t paid taxes on this money yet. You still gotta pay taxes.

So say a quarter of that goes to taxes. You’re now left with about $600,000, right? And we’ll say 650,000. Again, I’ll be overly conservative on this number. 650,000. Here’s the key, again, financial buyers have taught this for years. Some people will say 4%. You can live on, right? That you’re not supposed to take out more than 4%. That’s an old number. That’s a number that worked before, back in the seventies. Most advisors that they’re, if they’re up to speed, won’t say more than pulling out 2% or 3%, especially with people living longer. So if you want your money to last, you want to pull out more than 2% or 3%. So what if you pulled out 3% of this after inflation adjustment of 650,000, that means you have about $19,500 a year lifestyle living on. You have a quarter million right now, you max out your 401k for the next 20 years.

And that’s like, you know, that’s a lot, right? They were putting in like over 18,000 19,000 a year into your 401k only to live on about 19,000 a year after you’ve paid taxes. That doesn’t sound so great. Does it? What if you started brand new? What if you’re a brand new person coming in and you’re like 25 years old, starting from scratch. You start immediately max funding that 401k, just like everybody tells you, you do that for 40 years. Six and a quarter percent with inflation working against you. Well guess what? The ending balance is almost 4.4 million, but after inflation, it’s more like 900, just over $900,000. So when you live on that, and remember you have to take out taxes. So let’s say a quarter of that goes into taxes. You’re left with less than 700,000. Again, you’re living on about, you know, if you factor in 3%, you’re living on about 20,000 a year. It doesn’t get any better.

This is why I say that 401k is a lie! You can not retire of 401k alone. Roth IRA won’t get you there by itself. And you can’t put in enough to make it work. You know, you factor in, even with the 401k, even with the match, you’re max funding it, unless you’re making a half million a year and you’re trying to stuff at full, most likely you can’t even do it that way. No, you can’t even do that much. It doesn’t matter. After some point you actually get restricted IRAs too. Some of you might say, well, I’ll do a SEP IRA. So I can do more of my income. I know some of you I’ve talked to, you put in 50,000 a year. It doesn’t matter, guys. You’re putting in 50,000 a year. You just double that number. And by the way, when you’re putting in SEP IRAs, you’re putting in your own match.

So the truth is you’re not even getting free money. You’re putting in all your own money to then live on about 40,000 to 50,000 a year down the road. If that. You get my point here? Is that whatever you’re trying to max fund into it. If you’re lucky, if the market smiles and you just right, stays around the average, you’re lucky to maybe pull out the same amount of money you’re pulling in. So whatever you’re putting in that’s about what you can pull out. That’s not fantastic, guys. That’s actually seems ridiculous because you can say, wait, I can just take that money, save it. You know, I can save it. Just keep it certain, not have to gamble the stock market. Because if you do like what happened to my dad Y2K knocked his retirement downright before he retired. It postponed his retirement. 15 years guys. That, I mean, this is again assuming averages. This is not assuming what if the market crashes, what if you’re trying to retire next year? And the market crashed in the next few years. Are you going to wait another five years to retire? That’s what some are doing. That’s ridiculous. It’s crazy. It’s insane.

Now let’s look at the alternative. Cause you say, Chris, what’s the alternative. So, you know, we’ve talked about different things. So I took the example of like AHP. Again, never guaranteed, right? But American Homeowner Preservation, you know, you hear their ads on this radio sometimes. They’d pay 10% a year right now. So what if you did the same thing, but here’s the thing. You’re not getting an employer match. Right? So say that you won, you had the 250,000 sitting in your 401k. You cash it out, right? Well, you might be able to avoid the penalty depending on COVID and the cares act, right?

But at least with taxes, you’ve pulled that money out. Let’s say you lose 60,000 of that quarter million. You’re left with 190,000. Okay. There you are. You’ve got 190,000. You can invest it. So say you go and invest in there. Again, this is not a recommendation. I’m just using this as an example of numbers, right? So you get 190,000 leftover after you’ve paid your taxes. You only put in 14,000 a year, not 25,000 because there is no employer match. And because now you’re getting paid that money after taxes, you got to pull taxes out. So even though you might be paying like 18,000 19,000 a year into the 401K, because now you’re taking the money out. Now you’re getting taxed. So I’m actually putting you in what would be viewed as the worst tax scenario, right? Because negative tax pull, you know, not taking, putting the money into your 401k.

Now it’s just coming out. You’re using after tax dollars. By the way, yes, you could invest in AHP pre-tax or with IRA money. But I’m using this as after tax where you get taxed every year. On the grow. So not only did you get taxed on the money, you know, that’s of course you’d actually finally put in, but now the interest you earned, which is at 10% also gets taxed and you still have to fight inflation. But again, it’s at 10% a year, right? After 20 years, here’s the thing, the end balance is almost one and a half million dollars. And this is, using this sort of person that’s 45 years old, right? So that person that said, Hey, I had a quarter million put in 25,000 a year with a match. Now they got 190,000. They’ve put into something like an AHP type fund at 10% putting in 14,000 a year.

They’re just putting their 401k contribution now into this. At 10%, they actually have one really about $400,000 less than they had when you’re putting in the 401k. You might think, well, Chris, even though they made a better return because there’s less money to go in. Yeah. There, of course it’s less. But remember too, when you’re cashing out of that money from the 401k, you gotta pay taxes. So it kinda actually owns breaks even at that point. And, but, well, actually you might end up paying a little bit more in taxes. So you might actually be a little bit under at the 401k, but remember the 401k says you should only be pulling out no more than 3% a year, right? The difference is this is that, again it’s about cash flow. Not accumulating money and then trying to live off less in the interest. It’s cash flow. Because if you had almost one and a half million dollars and you’re getting paid 10% a year, guess what?

Now you’re not pulling off, you know, and now using the numbers, of course, using the, now I’ll use after inflation number. So I just gave you that before. After inflation adjustments about, you know, $667,000, right? So that’s about what you got in, you know, in real dollars after inflation. 667, but you’re being paid 10%. It’s like having $66,700 a year lifestyle. Versus what I just said before with about an, you know, what was that $19,000 lifestyle. So you’re more than triple the lifestyle. Why? Because even though the numbers are about this, end up about the same, the cash flow is way better because the interest that’s paying you, the cash flow that’s coming from that is at 10% and not at 3%. So that’s why you’re getting more than triple the money back. Right? And yeah, you’ll pay tax on it. But so what, like maybe after the other money, your stuff pay tax on that too.

So again, same thing. That’s the person that has got 20 years of retirement. Right? So understand you can now hit those numbers faster. I use the example with that person that’s fresh start. Brand new 25 year old, right? Starting from scratch. So they just put 14,000 a year to AHP or something that earning 10%, right? Well, they’re going to end with about 3.4 million, but after inflation, that’s only like 716,000. But once again, because even though it’s like at $716,000 type of thing after inflation, the lifestyle that you can have is your pull off 10% a year is 71,000 a year. Much better than going about 20,000 a year. Right? Once again, kicks the crap out of it because it’s about cashflow, not just about accumulating money. And again, like I said, the 401k, it has to work at the right timing. You have to retire just the right time.

Otherwise it could be worked wrong. You got to make sure that taxes don’t go up dramatically. I was just pretending the taxes were staying similar, which they may or may not. If taxes go up, you’re getting host on your 401k. And people often will tell me that, Chris, I don’t know if I was a betting person. I would say that taxes are likely to go up from now. And I say with the way they’re printing money right now, either they’re going to cause massive inflation, which if you cause even worse inflation, that means you have to pull out more money, which means still more tax. Or they raise tax rates keep inflation down. So then you now have more money coming out, either way you lose when you start using that 401k. Or an IRA or anything else. Again, there is no product that a financial advisor can offer that will get you to that freedom. To be able to get you to that number.

You know, you have to be saving a ridiculous amount of money over a hundred thousand a year in hopes that you’re gonna make something. Or just live on a really cheap, you know, fixed income type lifestyle, right? Where you just try to do nothing. Don’t travel. Don’t go anywhere. Don’t visit grandkids. Just sit in your front porch and drink lemonade. Why? Not because you know, you want to, but because you can’t afford to go anywhere else and Lemonade’s on sale at the store. That’s why. This is the key factor here guys, is that it’s all about cash flow. And by the way, this is that 10% with tax with no tax advantages. If you do things like real estate, you can make better than that amount of money. And I’m not throwing those numbers out there. I’m staying on the low side. I’m basically going conservative with my point.

And I liberal against my point. Just to prove a point. Which is, is that there is a different world, a world of much better hope. If you look outside with the mainstreams, trying to pitch you and they’re selling you. And they’re selling you because they make billions of dollars in management fees off that. They want to keep the money in there forever. They’re the ones telling you to live on 2% or 3%. Why? Because then their money keeps growing. Their stock prices keep going up. Their CEO’s get keep getting paid more. They’re making more money because you’re not! And guys, that is one of the big reasons why I’m so passionately against things like 401ks, IRAs, which by the way, the government determines the rules and they can change the rules at any time. There’s no certainty. There’s no planning that can be done in those situations because you can’t maneuver with it.

You don’t even know what the rules are going to be like in 10, 20 years, how you, unless you’re retiring today, you have no clue. And even then they could change the rules. Look how they’re changing the rules on us right now because of a little virus, right? They’re freaking out. And they’re using that as a way to be able to change rules on us. We have a very different life today than we had six months ago. Wouldn’t you agree with that? Why couldn’t they change it on you? With the financial tools and things like that? The vehicles that they’ve been recommending. Of course they can. They need more taxes. They know where to go. They go for the people that are poor and middle class that don’t know what they’re doing. That are going and investing in these 401ks have zero tax advantages. And with the match, it’s just golden handcuffs.

You know, that little employer match does so little compared to the cost and the risk. But guys, just like you might’ve heard Robert Kiyosaki say, he says, the people that get the best tax breaks, the best tax advantages are the business owners or investors. If you’re in that category, if you get out of the employee mindset, you get out of that traditional mainstream mindset. Now you can actually have hope to break free. And guys, that is the kind of stuff that we’re talking about. Again, each of your situations are individual and different. I get that. Sometimes there are rare occasions, I think 401k works. Especially if you can pull money out right away. Like I get, I’ve had people get the match, pull the money out and go invest it on their own and they can work great. But, it is solo 401ks, by the way, guys, for those of you that are investors doing solo 401ks, I don’t trust those either because anything can change those rules and not to mention that we just don’t know.

I mean, plus if you get sued, I mean, there’s other issues that can happen there. You have assets they’re exposed that works against you in different scenarios. Either way, money getting locked up, get your money out of prison, get into a place that works for you. You guys want to know what that is. If you haven’t listened to show. There’s great examples of that. You know what, if you’re at the point you say, Chris, I think now’s the time I got to change my strategy. Shoot me an email. Say, Chris, what do you think about my situation? What do you think I should do? Just shoot me an email. [email protected]. And yes, I answer my emails. I shocked a guy he’s like, I can’t believe you keep telling me to email you. And I finally did it. And that guy, it was a slam dunk.

I was like, man, like, I’m so glad you actually had the courage to do it. Because for him it was like a 70,000 a year difference. You know, like a passive income that he could create from his current situation. I’m not saying that’s you, it could be, it might not be. But either way, if you think there’s a calling or a feeling with in you saying, I think now’s a time to do something different. The marks recovered. Maybe now’s the time to do something different right now. Why? While there’s still money in the market, you know, while the market’s still overvalued drastically, right? This might be the time. So again, if you have questions about that, shoot me an email. [email protected].

Guys, I hope this valuable. I hope you start to see why the 401k just cannot and will not work. And this is why I’m so passionate against it. Cause I’ve run these numbers over and over and over. And it comes up with the same results. Guys. You can’t expect to get something different when it hasn’t ever been different. This is how it’s been. This is why I left financial advising. And this is why I did something different. They gave me different results that got me to retire when other financial advisors can’t retire. And by the way, great question for financial advisors, ask them, Hey, did you get financially free off the advice you’ve been giving? Not from the commissions you’re earning, but actually from doing the things you’re telling your clients. And I can tell you honestly, I’m doing the things that I tell people to do as well. They don’t! They aren’t retired off that their mutual funds and their 401ks and IRAs. They aren’t! They are making money by selling you this lie!

This needs to stop now! This is why I’m here. This is a ripple effect I want to create. Guys, I hope you share this episode too. Share this other people. They need to know the truth. This has to stop! There are too many dumb pundits out there teaching this crap because people are putting money in their pocket, telling them, Hey, you do this. We pay you money. We will give you a little perks and benefits if you do this. So much money being thrown, at these 401ks and other plans. So you buy them and you buy a hook line and sinker. But the only person that loses is not the person telling you on the radio, right? Or on the TV or on interviews. Those people aren’t losing. The financial companies aren’t losing. It’s only you. This has got to stop. Guys, I hope this is valuable for you. Make it a wonderful and prosperous week and change your life now. It’s all about action and taking action to do something different. Do the opposite of what you’ve been told to do. Make it a wonderful week. We’ll see you later.

#Chris Miles #Anti-financial Advisor #Cash flow #Cash flow Expert #Debts #Entrepreneur #Financial Freedom #Money Ripples

14 notes · View notes