[ed. Richard Sherman being Richard Sherman. Still can't get over the Seahawks season and SB win (and neither can anyone else in Washington state).]
via:

via:

Jennifer Lawrence And The History Of Cool Girls

What’s your favorite Jennifer Lawrence moment? When she tripped on the way to accept her Academy Award, or when the paparazzi snapped photos of her drinking Veuve Cliquot straight out of the bottle? Or maybe it was the ease with which she regaled Conan O’Brien with a tale of butt plugs, or the Vine of her spilling mints in the middle of press conference? My personal moment happened backstage at the Oscars, when, with the help of a mildly lecherous Jack Nicholson, she turned the normally banal post-win interview into a master class in charm. He sneaks up on her, she freaks and fangirls out, they do some weird flirting, and when Nicholson leaves, Lawrence just loses it: “OH MY GOD,” she gasps, her face in her hands.

And there it was, my moment: I loved her. I had admired her acting years before, in Winter’s Bone, but this was something different. From that point forward, I was powerless before her charm. But what made that exact moment — and others like it — so effective? Stars are charming all the time. Anne Hathaway, who also won an Oscar that night for Best Supporting Actress, is a veritable charm machine. But that’s just it: Hathaway seems like a very talented, very well-programmed machine, while Lawrence seems like a weird, idiosyncratic, charismatic human. She’s never polished; she’s always fucking up. On the red carpet, in paparazzi photos, and in acceptance speeches, she seems to just “be herself,” which means anything from flipping off the camera to reacting with horror when someone spoils Season 3 of Homeland on the red carpet. She is the living, breathing embodiment of Us Weekly’s “Stars: They’re Just Like Us.”

But is Jennifer Lawrence really just like us?  (...)

But, no, she’s not like us. She’s like a perfect character out of a book. Specifically, a book by Gillian Flynn called Gone Girl (currently being developed into a David Fincher movie), in which a main character describes a very particular yet familiar archetype:

“Men always say that as the defining compliment, don’t they? She’s a cool girl. Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2, because Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry; they only smile in a chagrined, loving manner and let their men do whatever they want. Go ahead, shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl.”

The Cool Girl has many variations: She can have tattoos, she can be into comics, she might be really into climbing or pickling vegetables. She’s always down to party, or do something spontaneous like drive all night to go to a secret concert. Her body, skin, face, and hair all look effortless and natural — the Cool Girl doesn’t even know what an elliptical machine would look like — and wears a uniform of jeans and tank tops, because trying hard isn’t Cool. The Cool Girl has a super-sexy ponytail.

The Cool Girl never nags, or “just wants one” of your chili fries, because she orders a giant order for herself. She’s an ideal that matches the times — a mix of feminism and passivity, of confidence and femininity. She knows what she wants, and what she wants is to hang out with the guys.

Cool Girls don’t have the hang-ups of normal girls: They don’t get bogged down by the patriarchy, or worrying about their weight. They’re basically dudes masquerading in beautiful women’s bodies, reaping the privileges of both. But let’s be clear: It’s a performance. It might not be a conscious one, but it’s the way our society implicitly instructs young women on how to be awesome: Be chill and don’t be a downer, act like a dude but look like a supermodel.

by Anne Helen Petersen, BuzzFeed |  Read more:

Image: Vittorio Zunino Celotto / Getty Images

via:

Who Killed the Romantic Comedy?

Once, she'd been worth a fortune — at least $100 million, according to her friends, who sat at home and rewatched tapes of her at her prime. Every woman had wanted to be her: Julia, Meg, Sandra, Reese. Not anymore.

The romantic comedy is dead.

In 1997, there were two romantic comedies among the top twenty box-office performers. In 1998 and 1999, there were three. Each cracked $100 million in sales. Even as recently as 2005, five romantic comedies topped $100 million at the box office.

Contrast that with 2013: There's not one romantic comedy in the top 50 films. Not even in the top 100.

Men and women are still falling in love, of course. They're just not doing it onscreen — and if they do, it's no laughing matter. In today's comedies, they're either casually hooking up or already married. These are comedies of exasperation, not infatuation.

It's not only that audiences are refusing to see romantic comedies. It's that romantic comedies aren't getting made, at least not by the major studios. The Big Wedding, 2013's sole boy-meets-girl-meets-matrimony comedy, was unceremoniously dumped into theaters by big indie Lionsgate and limped to No. 101 on the chart.

What happened?

As in an Agatha Christie novel, there are many suspects. Some observers blame men who think they'll lose testosterone if they buy tickets to any movie with a whiff of chick flick about it. Still others argue that as a culture we've simply stopped believing in love.

But when we set out sleuthing for the smoking gun, the plot thickened: Those usual suspects have airtight alibis. As with any good murder mystery, the truth is both more complicated than you might have assumed — and a whole lot simpler.

by Amy Nicholson, Riverfront Times |  Read more:

Image: Tim Gabor

Jens Juul
via:

Alana Jones-Mann
via:

Corey Arnold
via:

Seniors

My friends and I are turning fifty-nine this year. I know—unbelievable, right? Seems like just yesterday we were fifty and trying to figure out how to dress, what car to drive, what sort of laptop to use. Now we’re like, fifty-nine. It’s so cool. I went into the Minetta Tavern the other night with no reservation and they looked at me and you could tell they were all like, better get a booth for this guy. I don’t make a big thing out of it but, of course, I enjoy it.

The only bad part, I have to admit, is that there is a certain type of person… How can I put this? A certain type of younger person who doesn’t always totally get that when you’re fifty-nine you expect things to go a certain way—not because you’re snobby or think you’re super cool but just because that’s the way things are. And the type of person I’m talking about—I don’t really know a polite way to say this—is a particular kind of fifty-six-year-old.

I’m not saying this about all fifty-six-year-olds by any means. My sister is fifty-six and she’s great. She and her friends are into their things and they don’t try to push it on me and my friends. They care about whose daughter is getting married to whom and my friends and I talk about prostate exams—and there’s no us trying to get into their bridal discussions or them wanting to know if Cialis really makes you puke. They respect the boundaries.

But not all fifty-six-year-olds get it. Like, the other night my friends and I went to the Knicks game and then we all went to Monkey Bar and got a big table. There were seven of us at a table for eight. So we’re sitting there talking about whether Mannix was a better detective than Ironside and up comes this fifty-six-year-old I know from work and he says, “Hey! Is this seat taken?” Nobody says anything. I’m embarrassed because I know him sort of and he just plops down in the empty chair and tries to jump into the conversation. But he can’t because he really doesn’t know anything about Ironside and Mannix so he starts trying to turn the discussion to “Starsky and Hutch.” Everybody gets quiet while this kid just talks himself into a corner and finally Hornoff leans across the table and says, “Look, we all got our drivers licenses in 1971. Nobody here ever watched ‘Starsky and Hutch.’ ” And the kid just acts like, oh no big deal and asks me if I’m going to finish my French fries.

This sort of thing happens more than you’d think.

by Bill Flanagan, New Yorker | Read more:
Image: Colin Hawkins/Getty

Confessions Of A Nail-Biter

My mom suspended her college education in order to have kids, and so I was five years old when she finally received her bachelor's degree. We drove down to her school for a tasteful graduation luncheon. I remember they had free soda. At some point, while my mom was mingling with her classmates, I took a bite of the side of my thumbnail and began to tear it away, but I bit too close to the cuticle and so, to my horror, about half the nail began to rip off. I couldn't alter the path of the tear. There is, at times, a point in ripping off a nail where pain ensues, and I had reached it.

I tried to pull the nail upward but that only made things worse. Blood began spurting out. I got it on my shirt and soaked the little cocktail napkin they give you whenever you go somewhere classy. I couldn't stop the bleeding and my thumb hurt like a bitch, so eventually I did the sensible thing and dunked my thumb in my Coke and kept it there for the rest of the afternoon. And yes, I kept drinking the Coke, because I was a little fat kid and a little blood ain't gonna stop a fat kid from drinking Coke. By the end of day, I had a wrinkled, puffy thumb that wouldn't stop bleeding. It looked like a corpse thumb.

I have many bad habits: booze, swearing, overeating, excessive onanism, etc. But biting my nails is the bad habit I have had the longest and the one that causes me the greatest amount of shame. It's a repulsive, disgusting habit. There's nothing good about it. At least when you smoke, you look kinda cool. No one looks cool biting their nails. No one's hands are improved by nibbling on their fingertips. There's no buzz. There's no high. You don't lose inhibitions when you bite your nails. There are no wild biting orgies to reminisce about with your friends. It's just you abusing yourself for reasons you have long since forgotten. (...)

There are ways of quitting this habit. You can buy that stuff to put on your nails that makes them taste nasty. You can cover your bitten nails with acrylic nails. You can get hypnotized. But as with any other addiction, you have to truly WANT to quit in order to succeed, and there is a terminal laziness in me that keeps that desire at bay. If you bite your nails long enough, you develop a form of OCD in which you begin to go stir crazy if you just leave your nails be, especially if you think there's an uneven part that needs to be edged out or a piece of loose skin that needs to be addressed.

This will sound like bullshit, but I often bite my nails in the hopes of  IMPROVING them. Like, if I just strip that little part off, it'll look okay! And then it tears wrong and I realize I've eaten myself into a corner. Either I keep ripping or I leave the nail alone and I can NEVER leave it alone. I can't leave it hanging off my finger and I cant clip it so that it looks like my nail has a cliff face. Those are not options in my world.

by Drew Magary, Deadspin |  Read more:

Image: Jim Cooke

Wearable Tech Gets Fashionable

Wearable electronics have been stuck in a design rut. Bulky watches, bright wristbands and Roman-gladiator-meets-the-Jetsons arm straps have been the go-to look for manufacturers like Nike and Jawbone.

But these wearable gadgets — often a dull representation of function over form — are finally getting a fashion-industry makeover.

Fitbit, the maker of the Fitbit One and Flex, has teamed with the designer Tory Burch to make new trackers that look like stylish jewelry. In January, Intel started a wearable design competition that will award a total of $1.25 million in prize money. (Intel also signaled its seriousness about wearable tech this week by purchasing the fitness tracker company Basis for a reported $100 million, so look for new design ideas in future Basis products).

And a handful of companies are already shipping wearable electronics that look less like athletic gear and more like well-chosen accessories.

I’ve spent the last two weeks wearing the Shine tracker by Misfit Wearables. It’s a small, tough, aluminum disc that can be worn several ways. The standard kit includes the tracker (in black, blue, gold or silver), a magnetic clip for attaching it to clothing or shoes, and a black rubber athletic wristband.

You can also buy accessories like a leather wristband and a necklace. You simply pop the magnetized disc into the various accessories to change the look. The Shine is highly water-resistant, so it’s a good option for use while swimming. And it doesn’t need to be charged because it runs on a coin cell battery for up to six months — you can change the battery when it runs out.

Sonny Vu, Misfit’s chief executive, said his team spent months researching wearable tech to figure out the right design and found a wide range of results. For example, he said, neither men nor women wanted to clip devices to their shoes when they weren’t cycling or running because, Mr. Vu said, “your shoes are the foundation of your fashion.”

In another surprising discovery, he said that in one survey of 2,000 women, a large percentage said they wouldn’t wear a wristband because it created tan lines.

“If we only think about the wrist, we will definitely be limiting our imagination,” Mr. Vu said. “You can do a heck of a lot at the wrist, but you will be limiting the people who will use it. The body is such a sacred place that you really have to think this through.”

by Molly Wood, NY Times |  Read more:

Image: uncredited

Noela Mills
via:

via:

Disenfranchised

Bhupinder “Bob” Baber bought two Quiznos franchises in Long Beach, California, in 1998 and 1999. His investment totaled $500,000, and Baber’s wife, Ratty, quit her job to work at the restaurants for no pay. The Babers did this because, as Bob would later recall, he “trusted in Quiznos.” But, as he soon found out, being a franchisee can be a very swift and painful way to lose a lot of money.

Over the past year, thousands of fast-food workers have staged protests and rallies for a higher hourly wage. As they see it, big corporations like McDonald’s and Domino’s can well afford to pay workers more. But the vast majority of these workers don’t work for these giants. They work for people like Bob Baber. Franchisees don’t enjoy the market powers and economies of scale of their parent companies. Rather, they run small businesses with narrow profit margins, high failure rates, and plenty of anti-corporate grievances of their own. Anyone who wants to help immiserated fast-food workers, in other words, also needs to spare a few thoughts for their immiserated bosses. That means reforming the deeply troublesome franchise system. (...)

In the 20th century, businesses began to see the value of franchising in the service sector. Howard Johnson used franchising in the 1930s, and Ray Kroc built an empire on McDonald’s franchises in the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s. Today, fast food is sold almost entirely through franchises. Worldwide, franchises represent about 80 percent of McDonald’s restaurants, 95 percent of Burger King restaurants, and 100 percent of Subway restaurants. (The rest are usually company-owned flagship restaurants in high-profile locations or restaurants relinquished by one franchisee and not yet assigned to another.)

The positioning of franchisees between fast-food workers and large fast-food companies is part of a larger trend within the economy that might be termed (with apologies to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels) “the devolution of the proletariat.” As the Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield observes, corporations and even the federal government have learned to use “suppliers, subsidiaries, franchisees, contractors, to avoid responsibility” for the welfare of those at the bottom of what business schools call the “value chain.” The low- wage jobs are offloaded onto smaller entities. Making things worse for workers is a lack of opportunities to move up the corporate ladder, since a burger-flipper doesn’t actually work for the company whose logo decorates his uniform. (...)

Despite such stories, people still buy into the franchise dream. For many Americans, owning a franchise seems like a starter kit for being your own boss as a small-business owner. You have the benefit of riding on a well-established national brand, and all you have to do is manage the shop. But a 1997 study by Timothy Bates, an economist at Wayne State University, concluded that “entering self-employment by purchasing an ongoing franchise operation is riskier than alternative routes.” A 2007 study commissioned by franchisors found that franchisees had higher failure rates on Small Business Administration loans than non-franchisees. If everything goes right for a fast-food franchisee, he might enjoy a profit margin of about 10 to 12 percent, but a profit margin in the single digits is far more common. By contrast, at the corporate level, McDonald’s enjoys a profit margin around 20 percent.

by Timothy Noah, Pacific Standard |  Read more:

Image: Quiznos Public Domain

James Aponovich, Appledore (From the Garden) 2013
via:

Your Future is Rubbish

Adam Minter has a gift for talking rubbish.

He's been doing it all over the world. Spreading the word that trash, waste, junk—whatever you want to call it—isn't just a by-product of our consumer-oriented society, but an essential part of its economic future. And he has the stats to prove it.

'The global recycling industry employs more people on this planet than any other industry but agriculture,' he says. 'On average it turns over as much money as is generated within the Norwegian economy. We're not talking about a niche industry that makes some cute sustainable greeting cards made from yesterday's newspapers, we are talking about an industry that turns over roughly US$500 billion per year.'

By some estimates, that figure is likely to reach US$1 trillion by 2020.

The son of a scrapyard owner from Minneapolis, Minter grew up surrounded by junk: it funded his schooling and put food on the family table. His father made money out of the things other people discarded, and it was that first-hand experience of the economic value of rubbish that led Minter on a mission to document the size and scale of the global recycling market. Now a foreign correspondent based in China, his observations are detailed in a newly published book called Junkyard Planet: travels in the billion dollar trash trade.

'On balance it touches almost everything that you buy, not just the products that say “recycled” or “post-consumer waste included”, but everything from your automobile engine to the bumper on the back of your automobile. It's a staggeringly large industry,' Minter says.

'The statistic I like to give people in the United States and Europe is that, by volume, the largest volume export from the US and from the EU to China is none other than scrap—meaning waste paper, plastic, rubber, textiles, and metals of course. It's gigantic.' (...)

'The OECD estimates that more than four trillion kilograms of waste is produced in OECD nations every single year. And that waste becomes the opportunity that can solve the problem of increasing demand and reducing supply.'

Minter agrees, stressing that recycling is now clearly a global economic issue, not simply an environmental one.

'Nobody is going to pick through somebody's trash, which in many cases is what recycling is, without an economic incentive to do so. It's very nice that there are environmental benefits to this industry, I think that's fantastic, but ultimately it's an industry that competes with the primary raw materials industry; which is to say, your old recycled beer can, when it goes into a scrapyard, is directly competing with aluminium mined out of a bauxite mine. I mean, that's ultimately what makes this industry work.'

by Antony Funell, ABC |  Read more:

Image: ohannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images

via:

Mary Fedden, Chest of Drawers (2006)
via:

The iPod of Prison

In early 2005, Josh Demmitt arrived at a federal prison camp, in Sheridan, Oregon, to serve a thirty-month sentence for starting a fire outside an animal-testing facility at Brigham Young University. The nineteen-year-old received a warm welcome from his fellow inmates, who greeted him with coffee and cigarettes, advice on procuring vegan meals, and a pocket AM/FM radio.

The radio provided hours of welcome distraction for Demmitt, who had come from Sheridan’s adjoining detention center, where, he says, he spent weeks without a radio while confined to a small cell for at least twenty-three hours a day. The radio was unlike any Demmitt had seen outside prison, with a transparent plastic body that revealed the landscape within: a single AA battery rested at the bottom of its circuit board, while its antenna—one and three quarter inches of copper wire coiled around a small ferrite bar—peeked through a white Sony logo, just above the AM/FM dial.

The pocket analog radio, known by the bland model number SRF-39FP, is a Sony “ultralight” model manufactured for prisons. Its clear housing is meant to prevent inmates from using it to smuggle contraband, and, at under thirty dollars, it is the most affordable Sony radio on the prison market.

That market consists of commissaries, which were established by the Department of Justice in 1930 to provide prisoners with items not supplied by their institutions; by offering a selection of shampoos and soaps, they shifted personal hygiene costs to inmates, while distractions like playing cards eased tensions among the nation’s growing prison population. More than half a million inmates each week shop at commissaries stocked by the Keefe Group, a privately held company that sells items to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and twelve out of fourteen privately managed state departments of corrections. A sample commissary order form lists items like an I.B.M. typewriter ribbon, hair dye, RC Cola, Sensodyne toothpaste, chili-garlic sauce, Koss CL-20 headphones, and a “Sony Radio.”

Commissaries often carry other, bargain-brand radios, but according to former inmates and employees of the Bureau of Prisons and the Keefe Group, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, America’s federal prisoners are most likely to own a Sony. Melissa Dolan, a Sony spokesperson, confirmed in an e-mail that selling portable radios in American prisons has long been a “stable business” that represents “sizable” sales for the company. Of the models available, the SRF-39FP remains an undisputed classic, still found on commissary lists an impressive fifteen years after its initial release, making it nearly as common behind prison walls as Apple’s iPod once was outside of them, despite competition from newer devices like digital radios and MP3 players.

But sheer availability doesn’t explain its ubiquity. The SRF-39FP is the gold standard among prison radios in part because it runs on a single AA battery, and offers forty hours of listening time—longer than an iPod Classic. Digital models can require twice as many batteries, like the Sony SRF-M35FP, which runs on two AAAs. Federal inmates are particularly attuned to battery life because they are allowed to spend just three hundred and twenty dollars each month on commissary goods; more cash spent on batteries means less for snacks, stationery, clothing, and toiletries.

The importance of radio battery life in prison communities cannot be overstated; the devices are relied on for more than listening to music, hearing about local news and weather, and watching television (TV sets in common areas often use transmitters to broadcast sound on a dedicated frequency). A study conducted at San Vittore prison in Milan, Italy, found that “in a place where privacy is constantly denied, radio becomes a vital tool for building and maintaining one’s private self.” Some inmates even had a term for using their radio to create a bubble of personal space: “I headphone myself,” one said.

There is also a bit of prison culture itself at work in the story of the SRF-39FP. Radios like the one that was loaned to Demmitt are usually left behind by inmates who have reëntered the free world. Some prisoners believe that it is bad luck for radios to leave prison with their owners, while others believe that taking them simply violates the “convict code,” according to former inmates like Demmitt and Steven Grayson, author of “The Unauthorized Federal Prison Manual.” Whether radios are abandoned as a matter of solidarity, convenience, or good karma, they pass from inmate to inmate, serving one sentence after another. The durable, analog SRF-39FPs have been changing hands in this manner for a decade and a half, which adds up to a lot of radios in circulation.

This practice helps explain the relative rarity of the SRF-39FP outside prisons. A unit in good condition can fetch up to double or triple its retail value among enthusiasts and collectors like Gary DeBock, a co-founder of the Ultralight Radio Group. According to DeBock, the outside supply depends upon stock siphoned from the California prison system and sold on auction sites like eBay.

by Joshua Hunt, New Yorker |  Read more:

Image and h/t: uncredited via:

The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics

Each night at dinnertime, a familiar ritual played out in Michael Green's home: He'd slide a stainless steel sippy cup across the table to his two-year-old daughter, Juliette, and she'd howl for the pink plastic one. Often, Green gave in. But he had a nagging feeling. As an environmental-health advocate, he had fought to rid sippy cups and baby bottles of the common plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA), which mimics the hormone estrogen and has been linked to a long list of serious health problems. Juliette's sippy cup was made from a new generation of BPA-free plastics, but Green, who runs the Oakland, California-based Center for Environmental Health, had come across research suggesting some of these contained synthetic estrogens, too.

He pondered these findings as the center prepared for its anniversary celebration in October 2011. That evening, Green, a slight man with scruffy blond hair and pale-blue eyes, took the stage and set Juliette's sippy cups on the podium. He recounted their nightly standoffs. "When she wins…every time I worry about what are the health impacts of the chemicals leaching out of that sippy cup," he said, before listing some of the problems linked to those chemicals—cancer, diabetes, obesity. To help solve the riddle, he said, his organization planned to test BPA-free sippy cups for estrogenlike chemicals.

The center shipped Juliette's plastic cup, along with 17 others purchased from Target, Walmart, and Babies R Us, to CertiChem, a lab in Austin, Texas. More than a quarter—including Juliette's—came back positive for estrogenic activity. These results mirrored the lab's findings in its broader National Institutes of Health-funded research on BPA-free plastics. CertiChem and its founder, George Bittner, who is also a professor of neurobiology at the University of Texas-Austin, had recently coauthored a paper in the NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives. It reported that "almost all" commercially available plastics that were tested leached synthetic estrogens—even when they weren't exposed to conditions known to unlock potentially harmful chemicals, such as the heat of a microwave, the steam of a dishwasher, or the sun's ultraviolet rays. According to Bittner's research, some BPA-free products actually released synthetic estrogens that were more potent than BPA.

Estrogen plays a key role in everything from bone growth to ovulation to heart function. Too much or too little, particularly in utero or during early childhood, can alter brain and organ development, leading to disease later in life. Elevated estrogen levels generally increase a woman's risk of breast cancer.

Estrogenic chemicals found in many common products have been linked to a litany of problems in humans and animals. According to one study, the pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs female. DES, which was once prescribed to prevent miscarriages, caused obesity, rare vaginal tumors, infertility, and testicular growths among those exposed in utero. Scientists have tied BPA to ailments including asthma, cancer, infertility, low sperm count, genital deformity, heart disease, liver problems, and ADHD. "Pick a disease, literally pick a disease," says Frederick vom Saal, a biology professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia who studies BPA.

BPA exploded into the headlines in 2008, when stories about "toxic baby bottles" and "poison" packaging became ubiquitous. Good Morning America issued a "consumer alert." The New York Times urged Congress to ban BPA in baby products. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned in the Huffington Post that "millions of infants are exposed to dangerous chemicals hiding in plain view." Concerned parents purged their pantries of plastic containers, and retailers such as Walmart and Babies R Us started pulling bottles and sippy cups from shelves. Bills banning BPA in infant care items began to crop up in states around the country.

Today many plastic products, from sippy cups and blenders to Tupperware containers, are marketed as BPA-free. But Bittner's findings—some of which have been confirmed by other scientists—suggest that many of these alternatives share the qualities that make BPA so potentially harmful.

by Mariah Blake, Mother Jones |  Read more:

Image: Evan Kafka