Thursday, July 25, 2024

The Flattening Machine

A wonder of the internet is that, from the right perch, you can watch information wash over people in real time. I happened to check X on Saturday only minutes after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and I experienced immediate disbelief. Surely the stills and live-feed screenshots were fake—AI-generated or Photoshopped.

But the sheer volume of information in a high-stakes news event such as this one has a counterintuitive effect: Distinguishing real from fake is actually quite easy when the entire world focuses its attention on the same thing. Amid a flurry of confusion and speculation, the basic facts of this horrifying event emerged quickly. The former president was shot at. He was injured but is recovering. For a brief moment, the online information apparatus worked to deliver important information—a terrifying shared reality of political violence.

Our information ecosystem is actually pretty good while the dust is up. But the second it begins to settle, that same system creates chaos. As my own shock wore off, leaving me to contemplate the enormity of the moment, I could sense a familiar shift on Reddit, X, and other platforms.

The basic facts held attention for only so long before being supplanted by wild speculation—people were eager to post about the identity of the shooter, his possible motives, the political ramifications of the event, the specter of more violence. It may be human nature to react this way in traumatic moments—to desperately attempt to fill an information void—but the online platforms so many of us frequent have monetized and gamified this instinct, rewarding those who create the most compelling stories. Within the first four hours, right-wing politicians, perhaps looking to curry favor with Trump, hammered out reckless posts blaming Joe Biden’s campaign for the shooting; Elon Musk suggested that the Secret Service may have let the shooting happen on purpose; as soon as the shooter’s name was released, self-styled online investigators dug up his name and his voter registration, eager for information they could retrofit to their worldview. Yesterday, conspiracy theorists pointed to a two-year-old promotional video from BlackRock that was filmed at the shooter’s school and features the shooter for a moment—proof, they said, of some inexplicable globalist conspiracy. As my colleague Ali Breland noted in an article on Sunday, conspiracy theorizing has become the “default logic for many Americans in understanding all major moments.”

An attempted assassination became a mass attentional event like any other. Right-wing hucksters, BlueAnon posters, politicians, news outlets, conspiracy shock jocks, ironic trolls, and Instagram dropshippers all knew how to mobilize and hit their marks. Musk let only about 30 minutes pass before he brought attention back to himself by endorsing Trump for president. It took just 86 minutes for Barstool Sports’ Dave Portnoy to post a link to a black T-shirt with the immediately iconic image of a bloodied Trump raising a fist. Trolls made fake online accounts to dupe people into thinking the shooter was part of the anti-fascist movement.

Some may wish to see the conspiracy peddling, cynical politicking, and information warfare as a kind of gross aberration or the unintended consequences and outputs of a system that’s gone awry. This is wrong. What we are witnessing is an information system working as designed. It is a machine that rewards speed, bravado, and provocation. It is a machine that goads people into participating as the worst version of themselves. It is a machine that is hyperefficient, ravenous, even insatiable—a machine that can devour any news cycle, no matter how large, and pick it apart until it is an old, tired carcass.

All of these people are following old playbooks honed by years of toxic online politics and decades of gun violence in schools, grocery stores, nightclubs, and movie theaters. But what feels meaningful in the days after this assassination attempt is the full embrace of the system as somehow virtuous by the bad actors who exploit it; unabashed, reckless posting is now something like a political stance in and of itself, encouraged by the owners, funders, and champions of the tech platforms that have created these incentives. (...)

The overall effect of this transformation is a kind of flattening. Online, the harrowing events of Saturday weren’t all that distinguishable from other mass shootings or political scandals. On X, I saw a post in my feed suggesting, ironically or not, “I know this sounds insane now but everyone will totally forget about this in ten days.” The line has stuck in my head for the past few days, not because I think it’s true, but because it feels like it could be. The flattening—of time, of consequence, of perspective—more than the rage or polarization or mistrust, is the main output of our modern information ecosystem. 

by Charlie Warzel, The Atlantic |  Read more:
Image: Illustration by The Atlantic. Source: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty.

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

via:


Angel Nenov

via:

Project 2025: J.D. Vance Writes Forward

As Trump desperately tries to separate his campaign from Project 2025, users on X have noted one big problem: J.D. Vance wrote the foreword to a forthcoming book by the plan’s lead author, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts.

On the Amazon product page, the promotional material for the book, titled Dawn’s Early Light, highlights Roberts’s role in composing Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation proposal for a conservative overhaul of the federal government.

The product page also includes a favorable review from Vance. “Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism,” the review says. “We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon.”

When the book first became available for pre-order on June 19, Vance promoted it on X, writing, “I was thrilled to write the foreword for this incredible book, which contains a bold new vision for the future of conservatism in America.”

On the Amazon page for Dawn’s Early Light, the subtitle reads, “Taking Back Washington to Save America,” but an archived version of the page from June 19 indicates it was initially “Burning Down Washington to Save America.”

Inflammatory language in the blurb has also apparently been tamped down.

A sentence on the archived page that says the book “blazes a warpath for the American people to take back their country” now says it “blazes a promising path.” Another fiery sentence on the archived page read, “Just as a controlled burn preserves the longevity of a forest, conservatives need to burn down these institutions [the FBI, The New York Times, the Department of Education, etc.] if we’re to preserve the American Way of life.” It now says that those institutions “need to be dissolved if the American way of life is to be passed down to future generations.”

by Robert McCoy, Yahoo News | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. When your own candidates disavow and try to hide your Party's agenda - not a good sign. See also: What is Project 2025? (Yahoo News):]
***
What is Project 2025? Conversations, both online and off, surrounding the conservative agenda have exploded recently — more than a year after the policy proposal was published.

Project 2025 is a 922-page proposed blueprint for the next Republican administration produced by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation.

Critics have labeled it “an authoritarian takeover of the United States,” while supporters call it a plan to return “our federal government to one ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’” (...)

What is Project 2025, and what is it calling for?

Project 2025 bills itself as “a policy agenda, personnel, training and a 180-day playbook” to be implemented “on day one” by the next Republican president, outlining various agenda items, including which bills to propose, laws to revoke and government agencies to restructure. (...)

Some of its directives include:
  • An overhaul of the Department of Justice and FBI, the former of which it labels "a bloated bureaucracy" with employees "who are infatuated with the perpetuation of a radical liberal agenda."
  • Implement Schedule F, a Trump-era executive order that the Biden administration repealed that would allow the reclassification — and potential replacement — of thousands of government workers.
  • Eliminate the Department of Education.
  • Impose wide restrictions on abortion access, including reversing federal approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.
  • Allocate funding for “construction of additional border wall systems.”
  • Ban pornography and imprison anyone who produces or distributes it.
  • Promote "Sabbath Rest" by encouraging Congress to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to require people who work these days to be paid time and a half.
  • Have the federal government promote “biblically based, social science reinforced” heterosexual marriages.
  • Call on the new Health and Human Services secretary to “reverse the Biden Administration’s focus on 'LGBTQ+ equity'" and “subsidizing single-motherhood.”
  • Remove sexual orientation, gender identity, diversity, equity, inclusion and gender equality from any federal rule, regulation or legislation.
  • Revive Trump’s plan to open most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development.

The Knotty Death of the Necktie

Not long ago, on a Times podcast, Paul Krugman breezily announced (and if we can’t trust Paul Krugman in a breezy mood, whom can we trust?) that, though it’s hard to summarize the economic consequences of the pandemic with certainty, one sure thing is that it killed off ties. He meant not the strong social ties beloved of psychologists, nor the weak ties beloved of sociologists, nor even the railroad ties that once unified a nation. No, he meant, simply, neckties—the long, colored bands of fabric that men once tied around their collars before going to work or out to dinner or, really, to any kind of semi-formal occasion. Zoom meetings and remote work had sealed their fate, and Krugman gave no assurance that they would ever come back.

Actual facts—and that near-relation of actual facts, widely distributed images—seem to confirm this view. Between 1995 and 2008, necktie sales plummeted from more than a billion dollars to less than seven hundred million, and, if a fashion historian on NPR is to be believed (and if you can’t believe NPR . . . ), ties are now “reserved for the most formal events—for weddings, for graduations, job interviews.” Post-pandemic, there is no sign of a necktie recovery: a now famous photograph from the 2022 G-7 summit shows the group’s leaders, seven men, all in open collars, making them look weirdly ready for a slightly senescent remake of “The Hangover.” As surely as the famous, supposedly hatless Inauguration of John F. Kennedy was said to have been the end of the hat, and Clark Gable’s bare chest in “It Happened One Night” was said to have been the end of the undershirt, the pandemic has been the end of the necktie.

Such truths are always at best half-truths. Sudden appearances and disappearances tend to reflect deeper trends, and, when something ends abruptly, it often means it was already ending, slowly. (Even the dinosaurs, a current line of thinking now runs, were extinguished by that asteroid only after having been diminished for millennia by volcanoes.) In “Hatless Jack,” a fine and entertaining book published several years ago, the Chicago newspaperman Neil Steinberg demonstrated that the tale of Kennedy’s killing off the hat was wildly overstated. The hat had been on its way out for a while, and Jack’s hatless Inauguration wasn’t, in any case, actually hatless: he wore a top hat on his way to the ceremony but removed it before making his remarks. Doubtless the same was true of the undershirt that Gable didn’t have on. They were already starting to feel like encumbrances, which might explain why Gable didn’t wear one. And so with the necktie. Already diminishing in ubiquity by the Obama years, it needed only a single strong push to fall into the abyss. (...)

What we now think of as the necktie—cut on the bias, made of three or four pieces of fabric, and faced with a lining—was actually a fairly recent, and local, invention, that of a New York schmatte tradesman named Jesse Langsdorf. What we call “ties” generically are, specifically, Langsdorf ties.

The Langsdorf necktie that emerged early in the twentieth century was, to be sure, hideously uncomfortable. (It is no accident that a necktie party was a grotesque nickname for a hanging.) Their constriction made them perhaps the masculine counterpart of the yet more uncomfortable fashion regime—high heels—forced upon women. (...)

Examine any now unused collection of ties, and you will find that they are full of tightly compressed meanings—once instantly significant to the spectator of the time and still occultly visible now. Not only the specific meanings of club membership but also the broader semiotics of style. In any vintage closet, there are likely to be knitted neckties that still reside within the eighties style of “American Gigolo”—which, believe it or not, helped bring Armani to America. The knit tie meant Italy, sports cars, daring, and a slight edge of the criminal. There are probably ties from Liberty of London—beautiful, flowered-print ties whose aesthetic ultimately derives from the Arts and Crafts movement, with its insistence on making the surfaces of modern life as intricate and complexly ornamental as a medieval tapestry or Pre-Raphaelite painting. If the closet is old enough, its ties will show a whole social history of the pallid fifties turning into the ambivalent sixties turning into the florid seventies. The New Yorker cartoonist Charles Saxon captured these transitions as they occurred, in a career that can be seen as a dazzling study of ties and their meanings. The neatly knotted ties of Cheeveresque commuters give way in the early seventies to the ever-broadening ties of advertising men, flags they waved to show off their desire to simultaneously woo the counterculture and keep out of it.

The tie could sometimes get so compressed in its significance as to lose its witty, stealthy character and become overly and unambiguously “loaded.” There is no better story of suicide-by-semiotics than that of the rise and death of the bow tie, which, beginning in the nineteen-eighties, became so single-mindedly knotted up with neoconservatism, in the estimable hands of George Will, that to wear one was to declare oneself a youngish fogy, a reader of the National Review, and a skeptic of big government. The wider shores of bow-tie-dom—the dashing, jaunty, self-mocking P. G. Wodehouse side of them—receded, and were lost. It became impossible to wear a bow tie and vote Democratic. (...)

Of course, the human appetite for display will never end, and, so, as the concentrated symbolism of the necktie evaporates, the rest of our clothes must carry its messages. The purposes of Warburgian pattern have now spread everywhere: to the cut of your jogging pants and the choice of your sneakers and, well, the cock of your snook. Where once the necktie blazoned out a specific identity from the general background of tailored gray, now everything counts. The most obvious successor garment to the necktie is the baseball cap, which declares its owner’s identity and affiliation not with some tantalizing occult pattern but the painful unsubtlety of actual text—the club named on the cap.

by Adam Gopnik, New Yorker |  Read more:
Image: Jaedoo Lee
[ed. Cock of your snook? Look it up yourself, I'm not doing it for you.] 

Tuesday, July 23, 2024

Dark Oxygen

In the total darkness of the depths of the Pacific Ocean, scientists have discovered oxygen being produced not by living organisms but by strange potato-shaped metallic lumps that give off almost as much electricity as AA batteries.

The surprise finding has many potential implications and could even require rethinking how life first began on Earth, the researchers behind a study said on Monday.

It had been thought that only living things such as plants and algae were capable of producing oxygen via photosynthesis – which requires sunlight.

But four kilometres (2.5 miles) below the surface of the Pacific Ocean, where no sunlight can reach, small mineral deposits called polymetallic nodules have been recorded making so-called dark oxygen for the first time.

The discovery was made in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), an abyssal plain stretching between Hawaii and Mexico, where mining companies have plans to start harvesting the nodules.

The lumpy nodules – often called “batteries in a rock” – are rich in metals such as cobalt, nickel, copper and manganese, which are all used in batteries, smartphones, wind turbines and solar panels.

They then noticed how the nodules were carrying a startling electric charge.

On the surface of the nodules, the team “amazingly found voltages almost as high as are in an AA battery”, Sweetman said. This charge could split seawater into hydrogen and oxygen in a process called seawater electrolysis, the researchers said.

This chemical reaction occurs at about 1.5 volts – approximately the charge of an AA battery.

Nicholas Owens, the SAMS director, said it was “one of the most exciting findings in ocean science in recent times”.

by Agence France-Presse in Paris | Read more:
Image: GSR/Reuters

Monday, July 22, 2024

Why Biden Finally Quit

The Saturday night decision that ended Biden’s reelection campaign.

For 23 days, President Joe Biden insisted on pushing forward with his reelection bid in the face of calls from Democratic lawmakers and donors for him to step aside.

And then, almost on a dime, things changed.

Early Saturday, Biden told senior aides it was “full steam ahead” for the campaign. But by later that evening, he had changed his mind following a long discussion with his two closest aides.

Steve Ricchetti, who’s been with Biden since his days in the Senate, drove to see the president at his house on the Delaware shore on Friday. Mike Donilon arrived on Saturday. The two men, both of whom had been by Biden’s side during key decisions about whether to seek the presidency in 2016 and 2020, sat at a distance from the president, still testing positive for Covid, and presented damning new information in a meeting that would hasten the end of Biden’s political career.

In addition to presenting new concerns from lawmakers and updates on a fundraising operation that had slowed considerably, they carried the campaign’s own polls, which came back this week and showed his path to victory in November was gone, according to five people familiar with the matter, who, like others interviewed for this article, were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Biden asked several questions during the exchange.

The only other people with Biden in the residence when he arose Sunday were first lady Jill Biden and two other trusted aides: deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini and assistant to the first lady Anthony Bernal. At 1:45 p.m., he notified a somewhat larger group of close aides that he had decided the night before to end his quest for another term, reading his letter and thanking them for their service. A minute later, before any other campaign and White House staffers could be notified, he posted the historic letter from his campaign account on the social media site X.

The announcement, which shocked the political world, almost immediately flipped the narrative around Biden: His own party, after three weeks of deriding him privately as an isolated, deluded lion in winter dragging other Democrats down with him, was showering him with loving tributes, praising his record, career of public service and a selfless decision they said put his country first.

It wasn’t that the president had grown tired of the drip of defections from within his own party — although he had. Rather, it was that Biden himself was finally convinced of what so many other Democrats had come to believe since his poor debate performance last month: He couldn’t win.

When the campaign commissioned new battleground polling over the last week, it was the first time they had done surveys in some key states in more than two months, according to two people familiar with the surveys. And the numbers were grim, showing Biden not just trailing in all six critical swing states but collapsing in places like Virginia and New Mexico where Democrats had not planned on needing to spend massive resources to win.

With that knowledge and the awareness that more party elders, including more of his former Senate colleagues, would pile on the public pressure campaign, a sudden exit offered the president his best chance to make it appear that the decision came on his own terms. It was a face-saving move of high importance to Jill Biden, who, according to people familiar with recent conversations, was adamant that her husband’s dignity be preserved.

Senior Biden aides were bracing for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who’d worked behind the scenes to encourage others in the party toward the kind of collective action that might finally push the president to end his campaign, to go public this week and possibly even disclose Democratic polling clarifying Biden’s dire political straits.

“Nancy made clear that they could do this the easy way or the hard way,” said one Democrat familiar with private conversations who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “She gave them three weeks of the easy way. It was about to be the hard way.”

With Biden vowing in a statement to return to the campaign trail next week, some in the party came to believe that more direct and public opposition might be the only way left to convince Biden to step aside. At least a half-dozen House and Senate Democrats — including senior lawmakers — had planned to call for the president to leave the campaign on Monday and Tuesday, according to one lawmaker who had a pre-drafted statement.

“We were giving him the respect of the weekend to make his decision. We were hopeful that this is the decision we would make,” the Democrat said. This lawmaker, who had personally spoken with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks about their district-level polling and voter concerns back home, said they had already been sharing that data with the Biden campaign team on a regular basis.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic leadership sensed Biden’s decision was coming. A lawmaker close to leadership, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said the president had “gone offline” in recent days as he spent time with his family, a signal that he was digesting several weeks of firm Democratic messages that he needed to step aside.

“He got the message,” said the House Democrat, granted anonymity to speak frankly. Referring to the Senate Majority Leader, House Minority Leader and Speaker Emeritus, the lawmaker said: “It was from Chuck, Hakeem, Pelosi.”

This account of what led to the president’s reversal is based on conversations with 22 people who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

by Eli Stokols, Jonathan Lemire, Elena Schneider, and Sarah Harris, Politico |  Read more:
Image: Illustration by Bill Kuchman/Politico (source images via Getty)
[ed. For the best. Now he can be remembered for his accomplishments (of which there are many) rather than blamed for a lost election (and whatever follows). See also: The Men Who Gave Trump His Brutal Worldview (Politico)]

Jack White


"Put bluntly, No Name is a rock record – an incredibly satisfying one. It sounds more like the White Stripes than anything White has cut since that band’s demise – its 13 songs are driven by the blues, his playing sounding like the bastard son of Elmore James and Jimmy Page, swinging between bare-knuckled riffs and sweet slide-guitar with a switchblade edge. The instrumentation is pared back to only what matters, what’s necessary. The drumming often channels the magical primordial stomp of the sorely missed Meg White’s poetic, bone-simple playing.

The album is dark, heavy, thrilling, beautiful." ~  Jack White: No Name review (Guardian)

[ed. Yow. A great one. Reminds me a bit of Jon Spencer Blues Explosion (Orange). Listen to Side A and Side B in their entirety.]

Can Glen Powell be a Movie Star in a Post-Movie-Star Era?

The Twisters actor’s career explains a lot about the state of the industry.

Actor Glen Powell's parents hold up signs behind him as they attend the special screening of Hit Man at the Paramount Theatre in Austin, Texas, on May 15, 2024.

A few weeks ago, a Reddit poster decided to ask about which actors audiences were being “force fed to accept” as movie stars. They had what they felt was a prime example at their fingertips: Glen Powell.

“I feel like this guys [sic] is everywhere doing anything,” the poster mused. Yet they found Powell’s work to be “all just Meh.”

This is Glen Powell’s summer. After spending decades in the Hollywood trenches, Powell is now the star of Twisters, out this week, and of Hit Man, now streaming on Netflix, which he also co-wrote and produced. He’s got big glossy profiles in GQ, the Hollywood Reporter, and Vanity Fair. He’s been anointed, crowned, and feted as the next big thing. (...)

Part of why Powell’s sudden rise feels so notable is its strangely retro vibe. Today’s ambitious young actors, like Timothée Chalamet and Florence Pugh, usually flit back and forth between Marvel or some other big action series — to build their names and paychecks — and quirky off-beat films made by auteurs that will get them critical recognition. Powell, in contrast, has stuck to the genres that conventional wisdom has long held were dead: Romantic comedies. Middlebrow adult dramas not based on an existing franchise. You know, ’90s kind of stuff.

“I’m working to try to be you,” Powell told Tom Cruise when he was cast in a supporting role in Top Gun: Maverick, according to an interview in the Hollywood Reporter earlier this year. But Powell also seems to know that his dream is unlikely because the industry doesn’t really make Tom Cruises anymore.

“First of all, there will never be another Tom Cruise,” he continued in the profile. “That is a singular career in a singular moment, but also movie stars of the ’80s, ’90s, early 2000s, those will never be re-created.”

All the same, Powell looks an awful lot like he’s going to make a play for it — by sheer force of will, if necessary. After all, he’s had a lot of practice. (...)

Tom Cruise became a movie star in the raunchy coming-of-age sex comedy Risky Business, his signature commitment powering him through the iconic scene where he dances around in his underwear. Julia Roberts became a movie star when she flashed her megawatt smile at the camera in the cheesy-but-satisfying Mystic Pizza. These were movies that weren’t stupid but weren’t particularly challenging either, simple and goofy mid-budget fare that almost anyone would want to see.

In the late 2000s going into the 2010s, Hollywood pretty much stopped making that kind of movie. DVDs and then streaming, along with the rise of prestigious cable shows, eroded the audience. As the domestic box office collapsed, the international market became more important, driving a push toward spectacle-laden action franchises. The only thing reliably making money anymore was the ascendent Marvel Cinematic Universe, which in the early 2010s was just entering the so-called Phase 2.

The new financial path for studios became: Focus most of your money on a big flashy action franchise, ideally one based on familiar IP with a built-in fanbase. Allow some money on the side for movies that have a solid chance at the Oscars. Let a more intimate movie get made here and there, but give it a budget that looks like a rounding error, which means it won’t have any stars. Mid-budget movies? Those are for streaming. (...)

Powell, meanwhile, had his sights set on the biggest ’90s throwback of all: Tom Cruise’s new Top Gun sequel. Powell auditioned for the crucial role of Goose’s son and, once again, got close, he told GQ. Not close enough: The part went to Miles Teller. Still, Cruise, who liked Powell’s screen test, offered him the part of Slayer, the equivalent of the Val Kilmer role from the original movie.

Powell said no. He didn’t think Slayer worked in the script. The kid in the tux in him who had put in a lot of time analyzing the way movies worked foresaw himself ending up all over the cutting room floor.

Cruise felt strongly enough about Powell’s potential that he personally called him to give him career guidance. If Powell really wanted to be the next Tom Cruise, he told him, the key wasn’t to pick a great role. It was to pick a great project and then make the role great. He got Powell to sign on as Slayer, and then he got Slayer rewritten into a new character, now called Hangman, who would fit Powell’s smarmy golden boy skill set.

Top Gun: Maverick was the first blockbuster of the post-pandemic era. It was also definitively Tom Cruise’s hit. Powell’s turn as Hangman wasn’t on the cutting room floor, but it wasn’t central enough to the film to be part of the narrative of its success. (...)

If Hollywood stops making movie stars, can you DIY one?

If this story makes it sound like Glen Powell is an underdog, that’s inaccurate, in the same way it was inaccurate to push that narrative about Armie Hammer a few years back. Powell is a tall and handsome white dude who could afford to stick it out through a decade or so of under-employment because he was getting mentored by Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise. He’s not an underdog. He’s doing a different thing.

The thing about Glen Powell that comes through most strongly in profiles is this: You have never read a more earnest celebrity interview than the ones he gives. This man keeps a bingo board where he tracks all the character types he wants to play. He’s currently finishing his final college credits because he thinks it would mean a lot to his mom. He’s got a book he calls an icon wisdom journal he fills with advice from his mentors, most notably Cruise. He wore that tux. He’s a hard worker who is very earnest about the value of hard work.

Powell mostly masks this earnestness by playing insufferable assholes, less a Chris Pratt than a Matt Czuchry. It may be that the closest fit onscreen to Powell’s real personality is the before character in Hit Man, mild-mannered philosophy professor Gary, before he transforms himself into a cold-blooded killer.

Yet ironically, Gary pre-transformation is one of Powell’s least convincing performances. Powell doesn’t seem to know how to fold his broad shoulders in or soften his big Hollywood grin so that he looks less than confident, even when the character he’s playing is lecturing a bored class of college students or letting his co-workers mock him to his face. Part of the reason Powell pops is that whenever he shows up on camera, he gives every evidence of believing he belongs there.

by Constance Grady, Vox | Read more:
Image: Sergio Flores/AFP via Getty Images
[ed. See also: Netflix’s totally delightful Set It Up proves just how durable the romcom formula is (Vox). And, the original Hit Man article here (Texas Monthly):]
***
"On a nice, quiet street in a nice, quiet neighborhood just north of Houston lives a nice, quiet man. He is 54 years old, tall but not too tall, thin but not too thin, with short brown hair that has turned gray around the sideburns. He has soft brown eyes. He sometimes wears wire-rimmed glasses that give him a scholarly appearance.

The man lives alone with his two cats. Every morning, he pads barefoot into the kitchen to feed his cats, then he steps out the back door to feed the goldfish that live in a small pond. He takes a few minutes to tend to his garden, which is filled with caladiums and lilies, gardenias and wisteria, a Japanese plum tree, and rare green roses. Sometimes the man sits silently on a little bench by the goldfish pond, next to a small sculpture of a Balinese dancer. He breathes in and out, calming his mind. Or he goes back inside his house, where he sits in his recliner in the living room and reads. He reads Shakespeare, psychiatrist Carl Jung, and Gandhi. He even keeps a book of Gandhi’s quotations on his coffee table. One of his favorites is “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”

He is always polite, his neighbors say. He smiles when they see him, and he says hello in a light, gentle voice. But he reveals little about himself, they say. When he is asked what he does for a living, he says only that he works in “human resources” at a company downtown. Then he smiles one more time, and he heads back inside his house.

What the neighbors don’t know is that in his bedroom, next to his four-poster bed, the man has a black telephone, on which he receives very unusual calls.

“We’ve got something for you,” a voice says when he answers. “A new client.”

“Okay,” the man says.

The voice on the other end of the line tells him that a husband is interested in ending his marriage or that a wife would like to be single again or that an entrepreneur is ready to dissolve a relationship with a partner.

The man hangs up and returns to his recliner. He thinks about what service he should offer his new client. A car bombing, perhaps. Or maybe a drive-by shooting. Or he can always bring up the old standby, the faked residential burglary.

As he sits in his recliner, his cats jump onto his lap. They purr as he strokes them behind their ears. The man sighs, then he returns to his reading. “Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed,” wrote Gandhi. “Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well.”

The man’s name is Gary Johnson, but his clients know him by such names as Mike Caine, Jody Eagle, and Chris Buck. He is, they believe, the greatest professional hit man in Houston, the city’s leading expert in conflict resolution. For the past decade, more than sixty Houston-area residents have hired him to shoot, stab, chop, poison, or suffocate their enemies, their romantic rivals, or their former loved ones." (...)

“Except for one or two instances, the people I meet are not ex-cons,” says Johnson. “If ex-cons want somebody dead, they know what to do. My people have spent their lives living within the law. A lot of them have never even gotten a traffic ticket. Yet they have developed such a frustration with their place in the world that they think they have no other option but to eliminate whoever is causing their frustration. They are all looking for the quick fix, which has become the American way. Today people can pay to get their televisions fixed and their garbage picked up, so why can’t they pay me, a hit man, to fix their lives?”

Thursday, July 18, 2024


Dipsacus fullonum (Common teasel)
photo: markk
[ed. Also known as Golfcoursus roughus. To be avoided.]

Getting Along With Kids

“Wow, you have a thing with kids, they really like you.”

Is there such a thing like being gifted with ‘getting-along-with-kids’?

I don’t think so. My experience witnessing how people - family, friends and complete strangers - interact with my kids (2 and 4 y/o) have made me pretty clear-sighted about how most people - and I was probably that person - get it wrong.

As a parent, as a human, I can’t truly appreciate a person who doesn’t give a damn about my kids when they’re around. Pretty simple. The same way I’d find it rude if they were ignoring my partner at a dinner, ignoring children - a very common behaviour - is something that profoundly irritates and saddens me.

I also know that most people are just clueless about how to engage with them. And the same way we tend to stay run (?) away from things that make us uncomfortable (mourning of others probably a top one), we assume that we’d be better off avoiding any kind of interaction.

What if engaging with kids was a source of deep joy and plenitude? Children come with a pure, ingenuous will for playfulness that has so much to teach us, if we’re willing to.

On your marks, get seeeet, go!

intro • is a kid a human being yet?

OK, what if we started considering them for who they are: human beings with their own sense of self, carefully, unconsciously, watching us adults and learning how to behave from our crazy codes of conduct.

This little creature you easily look down on is a future you. - let this sink.

So here are common behaviours I noticed from people who “get-along-with-kids”:

1 • use the oldest icebreaker of all times: funny faces

How boring are we, adults, with our serious faces and looks. How about we stop taking ourselves so seriously? The stupid, funny face is telling a kid “Yo! We aren’t all boring, little one!”.

So smiling’s the trick? Yes! And - bam! - one of those things in life that are free and extremely rewarding. Even when the person you smile at doesn’t mimetically reply back, you’ll have shared positive vibes. Good karma. Works with adults, works with kids.

And hey, remember, you ain’t the authority - someone else is - so relax!

2 • let kids come at you

People who are the best with children tend to all keep their distance at first. They aren’t trying to force contact or anything. Giving kids space and time to make friends, especially when they just woke up (adults aren’t so different, are we?). Be patient. It’s a dance.

3 • enquire about them (and speak like… normally)

People who “get-along-with-kids” also enquire like they actually care about the child, how their day was so far, the kind of food they love most, the name of their best friends, their favorite animal… It doesn’t matter how old the child is and whether they can verbally express -yet - all the things they want to say. Eye contact. Consideration. Empathy. You can’t imagine how kids appreciate people truly engaging with them.

Oh, and kids are not stupid - generally. So why use that silly voice? Try it with an adult you meet for the first time, not sure how well they’ll engage!

4 • make room for astonishment

People who “get-along-with-kids” are convinced they can learn something from every single interaction with a kid, be it an activity, a song, a story, a game,… Genuine questions. Humility. Astonishment.

We all know too well how great it feels to be asked questions, to be listened to, and to even trigger a reaction: “noooo way?!”, “seriously?!”

5 • enter their game, follow their lead

More often than not, kids won’t need us adult to come up with ideas to play. Which doesn’t necessarily mean they want to play solo. A sincere “can I play with you?” will sometimes surprise them - I love their face when this happens! - for the best. Try it, you’ll see.

And just like improv’ teaches us - or so I am told -, all in for continuity: “Yes! And…” It is counterintuitive yet beautiful to let children take the lead. They have an intact creativity that our control-freak minds should be learning from. Not the other way round.

Only when things become dangerous (e.g. getting too close to road traffic) or inappropriate (e.g. saying something mean), should we break the playing flow.

6 • go all in

You’re at a café, catching up with a friend. You’re really into the conversation. Suddenly, your friend takes her phone, and… disengage. How do you feel? Pissed. Miserable. Disappointed. Not considered. Not worth their time. Sad.

How could that be any different from a child’s perspective? You’re there, talking, playing, and suddenly, a thought, a social interaction, a chore, a notification gets in the way. Telling the kids: “hold on, there is something more important than you right now.”

Kids won’t like us because we bring along expensive or fancy gifts. They’ll love being with us because we engage, because we are in, 100%.

A survey run by LEGO in 20181 revealed that 81% of kids wished their parents would play with them more. And what’s true with parent’s true with adults in general.
Given the positive effects it has on our wellbeing and happiness levels, family play should be the most important ‘homework’ of all. - says family expert and author, Jessica Joelle Alexander
7 • let go

Of our self-control, of our inhibition. How refreshing it feels to play with kids, allowing ourselves to be someone else for a moment, someone ten times younger.

So yes, I chase imaginary platypuses at the parc. I sail a bed-boat. I order and savour the only available meal - pasta-pesto - from the 3 y/o best chef in town.

I miss playing, and I see kids as a beautiful opportunity to reconnect with play. How about we drop that fear of finding fancy stuff to do and rather let go, give in to unstructured, random and imaginary play?

by Mathilde Baillet, A Wander Woman | Read more:
Image: markk
[ed. And wrestling (which is another form of hugging), they grow out of that so quickly. But especially don't talk down to them (#3). When I hear people "baby talking" to 5-6 year olds (or any age, really) it sets my teeth on edge. Plus, there's a reciprocal thing: they should respect your personhood as well, so feel free to assert yourself when they go beyond your boundaries. Just tell them when, and why. They'll respect that.]


via:

Vintage Italian lighting by designer Gino Vistosi

Orville Peck & Willie Nelson

[ed. Ha!]