Sunday, May 10, 2015

Mom: The Designated Worrier

There's a story my daughter loves to hear me tell: The day after I came home from the hospital with her big brother, my first child, I was seized by the certainty that I was about to die. I sobbed; I asked my husband: “But who will keep him in socks? Who’ll make sure he’s wearing his little socks?”

“Didn’t you think Daddy could put the socks on?” my daughter exclaims, delighted that I’d been so ridiculous.

“I wasn’t sure he’d remember,” I say, “or have enough on hand.”

New parenthood, of course, does things to your brain. But I was on to something, in my deranged, postpartum way. I should state for the record that my husband is perfectly handy with socks. Still, the parent more obsessed with the children’s hosiery is the one who’ll make sure it’s in stock. And the shouldering of that one task can cascade into responsibility for the whole assembly line of childhood. She who buys the bootees will surely buy the bottle washer, just as she’ll probably find the babysitter and pencil in the class trips. I don’t mean to say that she’ll be the one to do everything, just that she’ll make sure that most everything gets done.

Sociologists sometimes call the management of familial duties “worry work,” and the person who does it the “designated worrier,” because you need large reserves of emotional energy to stay on top of it all.

I wish I could say that fathers and mothers worry in equal measure. But they don’t. Disregard what your two-career couple friends say about going 50-50. Sociological studies of heterosexual couples from all strata of society confirm that, by and large, mothers draft the to-do lists while fathers pick and choose among the items. And whether a woman loves or hates worry work, it can scatter her focus on what she does for pay and knock her partway or clean off a career path. This distracting grind of apprehension and organization may be one of the least movable obstacles to women’s equality in the workplace.

It's surprising that household supervision resists gender reassignment to the degree that it does. In the United States today, more than half of all women work, and women are 40 percent of the sole or primary breadwinners in households with children under 18. The apportionment of the acts required to keep home and family together has also been evening out during the past 40 years (though, for housework, this is more because women have sloughed it off than because men have taken it on). Nonetheless, “one of the last things to go is women keeping track of the kind of nonroutine details of taking care of children — when they have to go to the doctor, when they need a permission slip for school, paying attention at that level,” says the social psychologist Francine Deutsch, author of “Halving It All: How Equally Shared Parenting Works.”

The amount of attention that must be paid to such details has also ballooned in the past few decades. This is because of our commitment to what the sociologist Annette Lareau calls “concerted cultivation.” We enroll children in dance classes, soccer, tutoring — often three or four extracurricular activities a week. These demand schlepping, obviously, but also have less visible time costs: searching the web for the best program, ordering equipment, packing snacks and so on. We fret that we’re overscheduling the children, but don’t seem to realize that we’re also overscheduling ourselves.

And when I say “we,” you know who I mean. A 2008 study by Dr. Lareau and the sociologist Elliot B. Weininger found that while fathers often, say, coach games, it’s mothers who perform the behind-the-scenes labor that makes kids’ sports and other pursuits possible. As one of the mothers in the study put it: “I do all the paper work. I do all the sign ups. ... This is the calendar and most of the stuff on the calendar is Grace’s. Like last week, 5:30 dance, Tuesday talent show, she had a talent show after school and then she had Scouts. ... Wednesday she had dance. Thursday she was supposed to have her fan club but it was canceled.” The researchers also noted that mothers’ paid work hours go up when children’s activities go down, whereas fathers’ paid hours are not affected by how much their children do. (...)

No matter how generous, “helping out” isn’t sharing. I feel pinpricks of rage every time my husband fishes for praise for something I’ve asked him to do. On the other hand, I’ve never gotten around to drawing up the List of Lists and insisting that we split it. I don’t see my friends doing that either. Even though women tell researchers that having to answer for the completion of domestic tasks stresses them out more than any other aspect of family life, I suspect they’re not always willing to cede control.

I’ve definitely been guilty of “maternal gatekeeping” — rolling my eyes or making sardonic asides when my husband has been in charge but hasn’t pushed hard enough to get teeth brushed or bar mitzvah practice done. This drives my husband insane, because he’s a really good father and he knows that I know it. But I can’t help myself. I have my standards, helicopter-ish though they may be.

Allow me to advance one more, perhaps controversial, theory about why women are on the hook for what you might call the human-resources side of child care: Women simply worry more about their children. This is largely a social fact. Mothers live in a world of other mothers, not to mention teachers and principals, who judge us by our children. Or maybe we just think they’re judging us. It amounts to the same thing. But there is also a biological explanation: We have evolved to worry.

by Judith Shulivitz, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: Anna and Elena Balbusso

El Lissitzky
via:

Welcome to the Education-Industrial Complex

Last month, a high school student in Warren, New Jersey, finished taking the state's mandatory PARCC test and did what everybody does after taking a test: She talked to her friends about it. This being 2015, her conversation took the form of a tweet, which referenced one of the test questions.

Thirty miles away, alarm bells rang in the Manhattan headquarters of the Pearson Corp., owners of the PARCC test: The tweet had "initiated a Priority 1 Alert for an item breach," a school official later wrote. Corporate officials swung into action, contacting their partners in the New Jersey Department of Education, with whom they have a $108 million contract.

That night, the Warren school district's testing coordinator received a call from a state official informing her about the "breach" and requesting that the student be suspended. The next morning, Warren school superintendent Elizabeth Jewett e-mailed her colleagues about the incident:
The DOE informed us that Pearson is monitoring all social media during PARCC testing. I have to say that I find that a bit disturbing–and if our parents were concerned before about a conspiracy with all of the student data, I am sure I will be receiving more letters of refusal once this gets out.
At the time, the Jewett didn't even know that Pearson was doing far more than "monitoring" social media. Because the student's Twitter handle didn't involve her name, Pearson got Twitter to turn over her private personal information, on the grounds that she had violated the testing company's "intellectual property."

As Jewett predicted, the spying revelations added fuel to the fire for parents and educators who were already upset at the state's cozy relationship with Pearson, and their joint agenda to implement a mandatory testing regime in line with the Common Core standards that have reshaped schools across the country with virtually no democratic discussion about their educational merits.

Pearson's online stalking is not only creepy--it reveals many of the most threatening features of the corporate takeover of public education: the tight partnership between corporations and government officials; the use of intellectual property claims to stifle the free exchange of ideas that is a vital part of learning; and the suppression of the rights of students, parents and teachers to resist the growing emphasis on testing "data" to measure education and knowledge.

Welcome to the Education-Industrial Complex.

"The entire education sector now represents nearly 9 percent of the U.S. GDP," gushed an advertisement for a 2013 investor conference titled "Private Equity Investing in For-Profit Education Companies." The ad continued: "Merger and acquisition activity in for-profit education last year surpassed activity at the peak of the Internet boom."

Six years earlier, Jonathan Kozol warned in Harper's magazine about the coming siege on public education. Quoting a prospectus given to him by a friend on Wall Street, Kozol wrote, "'The education industry represents...the final frontier of a number of sectors once under public control' and 'the largest market opportunity' since health care services were privatized during the 1970s."

Just as the health care industry encompasses a wide array of fields in which capital can find ways to mine profit out of our basic need for health and wellness--from pharmaceuticals to hospitals to the especially egregious example of insurance--so the education sector contains a variety of sub-industries.

by SocialistWorker.org |  Read more:
Image: uncredited

Narrowing a Residential Street

[ed. See also: Architecture vs. the People]

I took the image below outside my apartment on the 1400 block of McAllister Street between Scott and Pierce.


It’s a pretty ordinary street in San Francisco. The buildings are primarily three-story Victorians divided into flats. The other properties consist of two corner apartment buildings, an assisted living facility, and a surface parking lot. (...)

Remember that San Francisco is suffering through an affordability crisis caused in large part by a massive housing deficit. We need space for a lot more units than we have, and no one wants to build up.

Let’s pause here briefly and ponder a question: What type of places make a city great? To answer that it’s helpful to think about the difference between “Places” and “Non-Places”. Nathan Lewis defines them:

Places are areas where things happen. This includes:
  • Houses
  • Offices
  • Factories
  • Warehouses
  • Beaches
  • Marinas
  • Parks
  • Museums
  • Restaurants
  • Shops
  • Theaters
  • Schools
  • Hotels
  • Sports fields
  • Train stations
  • Plazas/central squares
  • Gardens/yards/courtyards
In short, if you “do something,” like work or sleep or go shopping or have a picnic or a party, it’s the place where you do it. A destination. The location where people interact. Places are universally pedestrian places. Nothing happens while people are in their cars. Cars are just the means to get from one Place to another Place.

Non-Places are areas of the city where nothing happens. This includes:
  • Parking lots
  • Useless greenery (not a park, but landscaping where nobody goes)
  • Roadways and other transportation infrastructure
  • Areas around buildings which are not “destinations,” and often have no real purpose
When we look at traditional cities outside of North America we can see a consistent pattern — lots of “Place” and very little “Non-Place”.


Looks pretty nice, right? Now let’s say we wanted to emulate a similar traditional pattern here in San Francisco in order to maximize the amount of “Place” in our neighborhoods. We have the space to do it — but it would require us to stop parking and driving on so much of it.

by Steve Dombek, Narrow Streets SF |  Read more:
Images: Steve Dombek, Metro Centric and Michael Vito on Flickr

Eleanor Powell, Fred Astaire


Francis Picabia, Girl Born Without a Mother, 1916-17
via:

Where Would the Kardashians Be Without Kris Jenner?

Kris Jenner slowly descended one side of the curving double staircase in her home in Hidden Hills, Calif., like some sort of grande dame, like Elizabeth Taylor in a White Diamonds commercial, only dressed head to toe in black: Balmain blazer, Rag & Bone jeans and Chanel ankle boots. When she reached the foyer, she greeted the former ’N Sync member Lance Bass, kissing him on both cheeks, and then said hello to Tom, who was . . . Bass’s assistant? His producer? Everyone there was an assistant and everyone was a producer. Whatever Tom’s official job title was, his actual name was Bob, and he corrected Kris, who smiled and explained that they really were the same name. A production assistant in surgical shoe coverings handed out microphones, and people wired themselves up through the bottoms of their shirts while Kris invited them into the kitchen for coffeecake. (...)

Her face was the color of a Malibu sunset, her teeth as white and opaque as Michelangelo’s “David.” Her makeup was a masterpiece: even, perfectly blended foundation; precision-defined eyeliner; expertly contoured cheekbones; a heavy fringe of auxiliary eyelashes. Her hands were closer to the color of her teeth than that of her face, a stark contrast when she leaned her chin on them. She has her makeup and hair professionally done every day that “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” is shooting. An assistant told me that she gets it done quickly because she’s so busy: It takes only an hour. (...)

There are still people who dismiss Kris Jenner, 59, and her family — Kourtney, Kim and Khloé Kardashian, all in their 30s; her son, Rob Kardashian, 28; and Kendall and Kylie Jenner, 19 and 17 — as “famous for being famous,” a silly reality-show family creating a contrived spectacle. But we have reached the point at which the Jenners and the Kardashians are not famous for being famous: They are famous for the industry that they’ve created, the Kardashian/Jenner megacomplex, which has not just invaded the culture but metastasized into it, with the family members emerging as legitimate businesspeople and Kris the mother-leader of them all.

She is an executive producer of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” and its summer spinoffs. She also manages the careers of all six of her children, as well as her own. Without Kris, Kim might not have pulled in a reported $28 million in 2014. Kendall wouldn’t necessarily be an in-demand model, walking runways for Chanel and Marc Jacobs and appearing on the covers of Allure and Harper’s Bazaar. There would most likely be no Kim Kardashian: Hollywood, a choose your own adventure (presuming it’s an adventure Kim Kardashian would go on) game app, starring Kim, that brought in many millions last year, or T-Mobile commercial, or book of selfies (“Selfish”), released this month. Kourtney and Khloé and Kim might not have three retail stores, named Dash, in Los Angeles, New York and Miami; a hair-and-makeup line, Kardashian Beauty; a bronzer line, Kardashian Glow; and Kardashian Kids, a children’s clothing line sold at Babies “R” Us and Nordstrom. Kendall and Kylie might not have licensing deals with PacSun, Steve Madden, Topshop and Sugar Factory, where they each have signature lollipops and several contractual agreements to appear at the candy stores. Rob, the lone brother, would probably not have a sock company that features socks that say things like “LOVE HURTS” and “YOLO” or sell adult onesies at places like Macy’s. There would not be seven perfumes in Kim’s name, or Khloé’s perfume with Lamar Odom, Unbreakable, which is still available, though their marriage has ended. There would be no endorsement deals, either: things like OPI nail polish and a “waist trainer” that Khloé and Kim model on their Instagram account. It is entirely possible that without Kris Jenner and all her wisdom over the years, all the attention she has garnered for her family, 16.9 million people would not have tuned in on April 24 to watch her ex-husband Bruce tell Diane Sawyer that he is transgender.

The thing is, no one in her family knew what they were doing until Kris took charge.

by Taffy Brodesser-Aknar, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: CreditE! Entertainment

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Tell-Tale Signs of the Modern-Day Yuppie

Of all the family-newspaper-appropriate socioeconomic slurs, one that was ubiquitous in the 1980s and ’90s is slowly on its way out in this millennium: yuppie.

This moderately derogatory term for young urban professionals, or young upwardly mobile professionals (given more kick with the addendum of “scum”), is believed to have first appeared in print in a 1980 Chicago magazine article by Dan Rottenberg, though he does not take credit for coining it. A Google Ngram search reveals that the word’s usage in books began ascending steeply in 1983 and reached its apex a decade later.

It’s no surprise that the yuppie flourished after the gloomy ’70s had yielded to easy money in the stock market (until 1987, at least) for postcollegiate brokers and boomers eager to invest after their youthful fling with the counterculture. Television and movies amply reflected the proliferating demographic. The yuppie apotheosis on the small screen was “Thirtysomething” and “Seinfeld”; in the multiplex, there were too many to mention, but “The Big Chill” and “When Harry Met Sally” would be a good start, and, on the darker side, Michael Douglas’s 1987 filmography (“Wall Street” and “Fatal Attraction”).

We have plenty of equivalents today, such as “This Is 40” (and nearly every other romantic comedy) and TV’s “Togetherness” and the recently departed “Parenthood” and “How I Met Your Mother” (and most other dramedies and sitcoms). Their organic-buying, gym-going, homeowning characters, however, aren’t tagged as yuppies as readily as those from the previous era were. It’s not because they aren’t from the narcissistic upper middle class; they certainly are. But they look different now.

The yuppie has shifted from standing on the prow of his yacht in an attitude of rapaciously aspirational entitlement to a defensive crouch of financial and existential insecurity. This instability has fragmented the yuppie’s previously coherent identity into a number of personae, each of which can trace its lineage to its ’80s paterfamilias.

Collectively, these microyuppies are just as strong in their ranks as their progenitors, if not more so. Three decades ago, the yuppie was viewed as a self-interested alien invader in an America that had experienced a solid 20 years of radical activism and meaningful progress in civil rights and women’s liberation. A generation and a half later, we have so deeply internalized the values of the yuppie that we have ceased to notice when one is in our midst — or when we have become one ourselves.

by Teddy Wayne, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: Tiffany Ford

Per Kleiva, NÃ¥r isen legg seg (When the ice sets)

The Accidental Swami

[ed. See also: Love and Death]

In April 2013, Robert Black, a grad student at California State University, moved into a small apartment in South Pasadena. He and his wife of ten years had decided to split up, and he found himself spending much of that summer alone. He missed his kids: Hayley, Kieran, and Saer. “I needed something structured and regular in my life,” he recalled. On August 2, Black wrote a blog post entitled “On me in 3… 2… 1…” It was a line from the 1993 film Groundhog Day, which he had vowed to watch every day for a year.

The movie, if you’ve managed to miss it, follows a Pittsburgh weatherman named Phil Connors, played with impeccable sourness by Bill Murray. While reporting on the Groundhog Day festivities in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, Phil gets trapped in a mysterious time loop that forces him to relive the same day over and over again. By the end of the film, he has learned to embrace humanity and the charm of small-town life, and has won the affection of his producer, Rita (Andie MacDowell).

“Phil Connors,” Black wrote his first post, “is not only a great central character for a good comedy like this—not that there are many comedies like this—but he works as an everyman and he goes through all the emotions we all do every day of our lives. There is time in the film (not to mention the many parts of his journey we don’t see on screen) for joy, for sadness, for arrogance and humility, silliness and seriousness, flippancy and philosophy.”

As Black watched and rewatched the film, mirroring Phil’s repetitious existence, he found endless strands of interpretation. On August 11—day 10 of what he called “The Groundhog Day Project”—he presented a study of gender roles. On September 10 (day 40), he discussed Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence. He offered disquisitions on Carl Jung, Phil as Christ figure, and the color blue. On December 2 (day 147), Black took an online dating quiz and concluded that he was in a relationship with Groundhog Day.

He’s not the only one. In the two decades since the movie was released, it has become a philosophical touchstone, dissected by comedy nerds and PhDs alike. Religious scholars have cast Phil’s predicament as a metaphor for Christian purgatory, or the Buddhist concept of samsara. Military theorists have used it as an analogy for endless war. An economist at the Ludwig von Mises Institute once posited that the film “illustrates the importance of the Mises-Hayek paradigm as an alternative to equilibrium economics.”

The title has become an idiom for futility, deployed on the evening news to describe the Middle East or Congressional gridlock. In 1996, President Clinton told the US troops in Bosnia, “Some of you have compared life here with the Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day, where the same day keeps repeating itself over and over and over again.” So far in 2015, it has been used to describe the Democratic leadership (Salon), the Paris terror attacks (Bill Maher), and men’s fashion week in London (the Independent).

When Harold Ramis, the film’s director, died, last February, obituary writers hailed Groundhog Day as his crowning achievement. Jezebel ran a post called “Everything I Know About Life I Learned from Groundhog Day.” The Daily Beast called it “about as perfect as a movie gets,” ranking it alongside It’s a Wonderful Life in the category “Great Movies Driven by Gimmicks.” And yet few people could tell you who came up with the idea.

On January 31, 2014—day 183—Robert Black flew to Woodstock, Illinois, the town where the film was shot, to attend its annual “Groundhog Days” celebration. Though he had never been there, he had the eerie sensation of knowing his way around. Like his fellow Gorundhog Day fanatics, Black was on a pilgrimage to see the weekend’s guest of honor: Danny Rubin, the man who wrote the screenplay.

by Michael Schulman, The Believer |  Read more:
Image: via:

Friday, May 8, 2015


Jimmy Lawlor
via:

DinoMike,
The Great Godzilla off Kanagawa

What’s Wrong With Electric Bicycles

A new electric bike — the Koben, from Karmic Bikes — promises to fix what ails the electric bicycle industry. We spoke to its designer to find out what those problems are, and how he thinks he’s solved them. (...)

Batteries You Can’t Replace Or Rebuild

The batteries in any electric vehicle (be it a Tesla Model S or a forklift) are composed of many individual cells, all clumped together to form a pack. Traditionally, if one of those cells fails, you have no option but to replace all of them. And, if new technology improves battery capacity, there’s no way an existing electric vehicle owner can take advantage of it without buying a whole new battery pack or a whole new vehicle. That’s bad.

“The big bugaboo with all these batteries is their packing,” starts Neal. Tesla is a great example. The cells inside the battery pack they sell, those only account for 40 percent of the price of the pack. It’s hard to get it waterproof, it’s hard to get it vibration proof and to do that in a package that doesn’t cost a million dollars.”

Electric vehicle batteries also need to be hugely crash proof, with strengths far, far greater than that required of gas tanks.

“You can’t replace the cells inside those packs,” continues Neal. “With our technology, you just pop off the cover and replace an individual cell. Those are a fraction of the price of an individual cell, so you’re able to replace them if they break and upgrade them as they improve. You can upgrade our batteries forever. You’re going to have a whole bunch of Teslas out there where you have to buy a whole ‘nother battery to replace or upgrade it.”

Motors That Wear Out

“Hub motor bikes are great for the first year; maybe two. They have a really limited lifespan. An electric motor is a bunch of little magnets that are glued on, with little wires connecting everything together. A motor in the wheel just gets beaten to death, it’s too brutal an environment.”

Locating a motor in a wheel hub subjects it to every last iota of movement and every shock the wheels encounter as they roll. Know how sitting in the middle of a plane is far less bumpy than sitting way forward, near the cockpit or way in the back, near the bathrooms? It’s the same thing on a bicycle, just hopefully with less poo-stench and many more impacts and vibrations.

by Wes Siler, Gizmodo |  Read more:
Image: Karmic Bikes 

The Inherent Bullshit Of The Wellness Aesthetic

[ed. See also: The Bullshit Hypocricy of "All Natural" Foods]

Wellness is New Age for the Instagram era. Amethysts and incense have been replaced with kale and balayage; tie-dye and velvet with bamboo cotton and designer yoga pants. It’s the alternative lifestyle but with better design. It is a movement defined by its minimalist, feminine aesthetic – pastel homewares, bright vegetable smoothies, slim legs in clean, expensive exercise wear. It’s not really about health – health does not have to be beautiful, thin and tidy in designer crop tops, but wellness does. It’s an aesthetic of wealth, a sort of gentle, palatable capitalism. There’s a dizziness to its beauty: it is light, weightless, transcendent. It probably feels this way thanks to the restricted calories as much as the calm from appropriated Eastern meditation.

Aesthetically, conventional medicine does not “work”. Actual medical medicine doesn’t make the best Instagram subject. Medicine uses copious packaging and leaves unattractive bits of aluminium on your minimalist timber bedside table. It is made with chemicals that have long, indecipherable names with numbers that just don’t sound organic. Medicine is administered in cold, sterile environments, with walls painted in ugly sedated hues and smells like disinfectant.

At its simplest, wellness posits that natural is beautiful, and beautiful is good. A scroll through its dreamlike instascape teaches us that beauty is healthy. Look at this stunning quinoa beet salad, look at these berries, how can this not be better than a chemical cocktail in a capsule?

A movement that rejects science and embraces a value system based largely on aesthetics is bound to be engulfed by capitalism. I don’t know if Belle Gibson deliberately sought to financially exploit cancer sufferers or if it just happened, but it’s not surprising that it did. The Whole Pantry is a beautiful production – the book would have looked great on your blond Norwegian coffee table. It promises beauty and hope, simplicity and life. The answers are right here in the warmth of your home; just open the pantry.

The rejection of conventional medicine in favour of a vague, though stubborn, belief in the power of leafy greens demonstrates the same desperate logic as conspiracy theorists. Wellness advocates seek simple answers to problems that confound them, while the beautiful filters through which we view their beliefs give the movement respectability not afforded to UFO spotters or 911 truthers.

At its most extreme, wellness claims it can cure cancer. Cancer is often not curable – this is a terrible, upsetting fact. It is senseless how many people die from this disease. Conspiracy theorists crave order from chaos – they want a truth that makes more sense than life just being a random, unfair mess. It is much easier to believe that if you just eat all the right foods you can survive, rather than rolling the dice with a selection of invasive and painful treatments. An unwell person cannot be blamed for buying the answers sold by charlatans – it is in our nature to find hope wherever we can – but the people who espouse wellness cures are selling conspiracy theories that endanger lives.

The logic seems to go that the enactment of wellness, the practice of its minimalist and beautiful obsession with the “natural”, will yield what it promises. But what happens when it doesn’t work? What if eating well and meditating changes nothing?

by Jessica Alice, Junkee |  Read more:
Image: The Whole Pantry

Thursday, May 7, 2015


photo: markk

The “Fight of the Century”: An Orgy of Wealth and Profit

On Saturday, Floyd “Money” Mayweather Jr. and Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao boxed for twelve rounds in the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada. The bout had been billed as the “Fight of the Century.” At the end of the 36-minute fight, Mayweather defeated Pacquiao by unanimous decision by the three fight judges.

The fight was the subject of extravagant media hype. It was broadcast in the United States and many countries internationally by Pay-Per-View (PPV) television. Some poorer countries, such as the Philippines and Mexico, broadcast the bout without charge, subsidized by advertising revenue.

The figures involved in this one boxing match are mind-boggling.

The fight had a $300 million purse. Mayweather will make around $180 million while Pacquiao will pocket an estimated $120 million. But these figures pale before the total revenue that the fight generated.

The final figures have not yet been released, but the Wall Street Journalreported that Pay-Per-View industry executives have estimated there were three million paid viewers in the United States. HBO and Showtime charged viewers $99 to watch the fight in high definition and $89 for standard definition. Total PPV revenue in the United States is now estimated to be $300-$400 million.

But the money does not stop there. The fight brought in profits from ticket sales, hotel bookings, gambling, promotional merchandise and advertising. For the promoters and profiteers of the boxing and entertainment industries, the bout was a bonanza of over a billion dollars.

Ostentatious amounts of money oozed from every pore of the event. The shorts that Pacquiao wore in the ring displayed seven advertising logos that netted Pacquiao $2.5 million. A two-square-inch space on Pacquiao’s rear end cost Nike $416,000. Burger King paid $1 million to have their mascot walk in Mayweather’s entourage as he entered the arena, displacing the pop star Justin Bieber.

The bout was quite the fashionable to-do. Hedge fund managers and A-list actors and celebrities rubbed elbows as they posed for selfies. Many were there to be seen and not necessarily to watch the match. They spent a total of $80 million on the 16,000 tickets available for the event.

Ringside tickets sold for $250,000. About six rows back could cost anywhere from $85,000 to $100,000.

According to ABC News, the fight was “one of the most exclusive boxing events the destination has ever hosted. Only 500 tickets were offered to the public, and they sold in seconds.” To get your hands on a ticket you needed connections.

Celebrities of Hollywood and the music industry were there in droves. Music moguls Jay-Z and Beyoncé were in attendance as was billionaire heiress Paris Hilton, Robert de Niro and Michael Jordan, Clint Eastwood and Nicki Minaj, and real estate billionaire Donald Trump.

Long-time Democratic Party operative and charlatan purveyor of identity politics, Rev. Jesse Jackson, was seated in a section that averaged at least $10,000 per ticket. There were so many celebrities that many could not find space on the floor level and had to sit among the ordinary folks in the $4,000 nosebleed seats.

The multimillionaires and billionaires flew to Las Vegas in their private jets for the fight and turned McCarran International Airport into a parking lot. Pictures posted on Instragram and Twitter show the tarmac covered in hundreds of Gulf Streams and Cessnas and Lears, the exclusive air transit of the extremely wealthy. The tarmac was so crowded that McCarran had to temporarily close the terminal. Forty members of the National Guard were brought in to ensure that no one would disturb the arrival and departure of passengers for the fight.

Some late arrivals jetted in for the fight from the Kentucky Derby horse race. The Derby ran at 6:26 pm Eastern time. According to the Washington Post, they raced in police-escorted limousines from Millionaire’s Row at Churchill Downs where they had just watched a horse named American Pharaoh win at the races, to the airport. From there they boarded private jets, which flew them to Las Vegas to round out the day with the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight.

Less prominently featured in the press, but very much in attendance, were the billionaire managers of the world’s leading hedge funds. The Pacquiao-Mayweather bout had been scheduled to take place the day before the opening of the annual SkyBridge Alternatives (SALT) convention in Las Vegas.

The SALT convention is an annual gathering of around 2,000 executives from the world’s largest hedge fund companies that collectively control the majority of the planet’s wealth. This year’s convention has a speakers list that includes former head of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, former head of the NSA Keith Alexander, former US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, former director of the CIA David Petraeus, and former secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. The former prime ministers of Australia and Greece, Julia Gillard and George Papandreou, were among dozens of other world leaders and CEOs.

What better way was there to kick off a convention of the financial aristocracy and its war criminals than watching a high-ticket gladiator bout?

by Joseph Santolan , WSWS | Read more:
Image: Daily Mail

It’s Complicated

Once upon a time there lived a King, Laius of Thebes, who supported a woman’s Right to Choose after a pediatrician predicted that his son would drive him to an early grave. But Laius’s pregnant wife, Jocasta, a Right-to-Lifer, already had the nursery set up and a cute name picked out: Oedipus. So, after she bore the boy, her husband spirited Oed from the delivery room and strung him up on a mountainside. Soon the stork arrived in the form of a local shepherd who delivered the colicky kid to the childless king of Corinth.

Later, Oed, a teen now, was hitchhiking on Delphi Road when a motorist—with an uncanny resemblance to his old man, Laius—gave him the brush, the boy lost his head, and popped him. Then he continued on for Thebes, home of the fearful Sphinx.

Part lion, part bird, with a woman’s face and breasts: The Sphinx ate anybody who couldn’t figure out her riddles. Everybody. The mayor, Creon, was offering to any man who solved the monster’s riddle not only the crown, but his recently widowed sister, Jocasta.

Oedipus solved the riddle, took the throne, and tied the knot with Jo. The young man had always preferred older, more mature women. Ingenues had never interested him. Oed’s bride bore him two strong sons, Polynices and Eteocles, and two beautiful daughters, Antigone and Ismene. Each was the image of both parents, had exactly 10 fingers apiece, Oed and Jo were delighted, praised the gods, and sacrificed profusely.

Then one morning locusts descended on Thebes, and an oracle informed Oed that they’d leave as soon as the murderer of Laius, the former king, was apprehended.

By nightfall, his senior seer, a blind transsexual by the name of Tiresias, hurried onto the royal portico with a local shepherd. The conversation began in whispers at the monarch’s ear but soon rose to baying, beating of breasts, and gnashing of teeth. Meanwhile, the queen swooned and was carried to the powder room.

After dismissing his seer, Oedipus sat down at his desk stocked with vellum, the royal seal, and golden quills. He composed more than a few letters that evening, tearing up each only after a few words. This is the last surviving draft…

by David Comfort, TMN |  Read more:
Image: Oedipus explains the riddle of the Sphinx, byJean Auguste Dominique Ingres, c. 1805

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

'Deflategate": The Final Report

Tom Brady: Unbelievable.

The 243-report on "Deflategate" came out Wednesday and stopped barely short of calling the Patriots star quarterback a cheater. It did, however, call some of his claims "implausible" and left little doubt that he had a role in having footballs deflated before New England's AFC title game against Indianapolis in January and probably in previous games.

In his report, attorney Ted Wells said the quarterback "was at least generally aware" of all the plans to prepare the balls to his liking, below the league-mandated minimum of 12.5 pounds per square inch. Wells said it was "more probable than not" that two Patriots employees - officials' locker room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski - executed the plan.

For his trouble, McNally asked for expensive shoes and signed footballs, jerseys and cash. He brokered the deals over a series of salty text messages with Jastremski that portray Brady as a hard-to-please taskmaster. "F--- Tom," one read.

For the biggest home game of the season, McNally came through, taking the footballs from the officials' locker room into a bathroom before delivering them to the field, the report said.

The footballs - measured by officials at halftime- somehow lost pressure between being tested by the referee and the break.

As for Brady's claims that he didn't know of efforts to deflate game balls and didn't know anything about what McNally did: "We found these claims not plausible and contradicted by other evidence," Wells wrote.

by Eddie Pells, AP |  Read more:
Image: Elise Amendola