#I actually just have about 110 drafts I need to get rid of because they overwhelm me

[care666bear]

& hide you in my treasure chest 🖤

[st-louis]

super keen to know who’s on your list of habs guys you’d keep in a rebuild !!!

so this is built around the idea that we are trying to contend within five or so years, and that to some extent everyone is up for sale, although we are trying to keep a few veterans to help shepherd and guide the younger players and act as mentors during this transition (to hopefully avoid ending up like buffalo or arizona or cbj where it seems like things are always in a flux or a rebuild).

[this is assuming that kent hughes does the smart thing which is immediately revamp and restructure the departments, and hire people in analytics and player development who can maximize the prospects we have who haven't been ruined by the prior regime (and this is like. a lot of hires. it's not just stats people but like hughes indicated, people who can tell you why someone has a bad xGF and want to fix it) and try to make sure that a bunch of them can actually make the league one day. without the prospects being able to fill the gap (even in bottom pairing or bottom six lines) we aren't going anywhere. it also assumes that he is going to hire competent scouts to cover both north america and europe.

this is also in an ideal world where contracts could be offloaded... i truly can't imagine anyone actually trading FOR mike hoffman, although maybe with salary retained we could get someone to take him off of our hands.]

but anyway. the guys i am definitely keeping include the players who i see as the young core, the pieces we are building around. that's nick suzuki first and foremost, cole caufield and alexander romanov on the second tier, and to some extent a prospect like kaiden guhle. (i would keep either one of preems or monty as a backup or an ahl guy although i would be open to moving them, as much as i love both of them, more on that later. we're being ruthless here and for a good return, i'm open.)

for veteran forwards, i am keeping tyler toffoli. he is a valuable trade piece with his contract and the way his game is played (he's a smart player, already not the fastest, his best qualities will age well), but i think he is even more valuable as a mentor for guys like nick and cole, who literally call him their dad. look how much better nick plays on the ice with him than without him. he's only 30 so he's going to decline within the next four years or so, but by that time, he will have been a valuable support to the kids who need his leadership. he comes up big in the playoffs and he knows what it takes to win a cup.

i would also keep lehky. he is young, fairly affordable, and gives it 110% every shift. you can never accuse lehky of taking a night off. he's defensively responsible and if he sometimes lacks finishing, he still has his big moments (see the gwg sending us to the scf.) he's also a little older than some of the prospects and has a good sense of humor, and i think he's an important locker room guy. he can play up and down the lineup even though on a contending team, he is a bottom six guy.

i wouldn't go crazy pushing guys like jake evans out the door, because again, he's a really reasonable contract, he gives it 110% every shift, and he's defensively responsible and can play up the lineup when needed, but you also know what his ceiling is. if there was a good offer for him i would consider it.

literally everyone else is on the block, even though i am fond of (i.e. i would either say i like them or love them) a lot of them and it pains me to say it. with a rebuild clearly shit isn't working, and you can't afford to get attached to players, even the ones you love. this was one of bergevin's major failings (even beyond the drafting and development which were the worst), was being emotional about contracts, whether it was getting rid of guys he didn't like, or giving really huge term to guys he did.

a lot of the current players on the roster do things that can be done cheaper, better, healthier, or younger by someone else. this is where if you could get an offer for gally you would jump at taking it and have to not be sentimental--he bleeds bleu blanc et rouge but he's not getting any younger and you can see what a huge toll his playing style has already taken on his body. and like i love pezz, but on a contending team he would not even be sniffing the nhl, you know? same for rem pitlick.

for the defensemen not named alexander romanov, i'm pretty sure the only one i would not be trading if i got an offer would be eddy. he is solid, and even if he's not a puck moving defensemen he was able to do it during the playoffs last year. he is also an important voice in the room and that's one of those veteran leadership qualities that's important. but otherwise i would absolutely gut the defense. it's built in bergevin's image, it is not modern, and even our premier puck moving defenseman or the closest thing to it--petry--has been a shadow of himself this year. just burn it all down and start over. we could have eddy-romanov as a top pair, deal with the leftovers (probably no one would want clague or niku and they're perfectly cromulent bodies during a rebuild for now), and start bringing up the prospects like norlinder or guhle or harris if he'll sign over the summer.

for goalies, a lot of it depends on carey price. if he is healthy and wants to play, then he is staying, first because that's the one area i'm gonna be a little sentimental in, second because when he is rested and healthy he's still one of the best goalies in the world, and third because i don't think anyone would take that contract without major salary retention anyway (and his nmc). so if he wants to stay in montreal, he's your starter. i would trade jake allen because you could definitely get good value for him, both as a good veteran locker room presence and a very very excellent 1b or backup goalie. i feel like mcniven is probably looking for a way out of the organization and i can't really blame him, because he hasn't gotten much of a chance. if we keep cayden primeau he really needs to play in a 1b situation instead of a backup to carey because otherwise he is never going to develop into an nhl-caliber goalie. same for montembeault. i feel like we'd either need to keep one or the other and as much as i love both of them one would likely have to go (there are a few very promising goalies in the pipeline including dichow, so you'd have people to eventually fill in at the ahl level, especially if you could get something back for either one of the current guys holding down our fort).

if carey can’t play or doesn’t want to stay i think i would still trade jake allen and let preems and monty get the starts. a rebuild is absolutely the time to see whether or not they have what it takes. if they don’t... can always target someone in trades or free agency later on. the goalie carousel last offseason certainly showed that.

sorry if that was a lot of words (or if i offended someone... i'm pretty sure someone's gonna be offended, haha).

so to clarify, we are definitely keeping:

forwards: nick suzuki, cole caufield, tyler toffoli, artturi lehkonen, maybe jake evans

defense: alexander romanov, joel edmundson

goalies situation one: carey price (if he wants to stay), one of cayden primeau or samuel montembeault

goalies situation two: cayden primeau and samuel montembeault

and whoever can’t be moved without losing too much in retention or assets (i’m still salty about chuck fletcher PAYING arizona to take gostisbehere).

if you’re into podcasts andrew berkshire and shane malloy (he has a phd in hockey analytics type stuff and works for ea sports on their nhl games) have a really good game over montreal episode on a rebuild and who they’d keep and what needs to be done. i agree with a lot of what they had to say tbh.

[tkmedia]

10 Fantasy Thoughts: Is Cooper Kupp your 2021 fantasy saviour?

What a week for individual performances.Derrick Henry and Aaron Jones followed up lacklustre Week 1 performances to win plenty of matchups. Aaron Rodgers did what Aaron Rodgers does with a monster bounce-back performance. Austin Ekeler was used heavily in the passing game with nine catches on nine targets. Just like we all thought. Well, some of us. Week 1 overreactions are almost always followed by a market correction, so maybe keep the hot takes to a low whisper instead of shouting them out to the world. It’s very unbecoming. But hey, if people want to make it known that they think Robert Woods is washed or that Saquon Barkley suddenly became a bad running back, then be sure to seek them out and offer to take those “terrible” players off their hands. Do them that service, take that weight off them on this journey, almost like their Fantasy Sherpa. And then crush them. (All weekly rankings courtesy of Fantasy Data) 1. Cooper Kupp’s revelation I will be the first to say that I thought that the biggest benefactor of Matthew Stafford heading to Los Angeles this off-season would be Robert Woods. Through the first two weeks of the year, it’s becoming apparent that I might be just a little bit off. Kupp has been nothing short of brilliant in the first two weeks, compiling back-to-back top-10 weeks, including the top spot in this week’s finish. He has 21 targets which places him in a tie for fifth among wide receivers, 16 catches (tied for first) and 271 yards (third) with Stafford under centre and occupies a ridiculous 37.5 per cent target share. It feels like every time the Rams get possession that Kupp is going to get an opportunity to score because he constantly looks like he’s wide open. Sean McVay is also unleashing Kupp out wide as opposed to the slot where he’s primarily been deployed from since his rookie year. That percentage of slot snaps has dropped from 73 per cent in his sophomore year in 2018 to 44 per cent through the first two games of 2021. Alpha wide receivers don’t play out of the slot and it seems as though the Rams have found their alpha receiver. Kupp is going to have an off game here and there and I expect Woods is going eat a bit more into Kupp’s target share, but make no mistake about it, Kupp is going to have a monster year. 2. Derek Carr, the unlikely addition to the QB1 group Steady. Decent floor. Capped ceiling. Great second quarterback. Those have been terms used to describe Derek Carr’s fantasy relevance since coming into the league, but we might be seeing him turn a corner and maybe, just maybe, he’s actually as good as we’ve seen in the first two weeks. It’s certainly early in the schedule, but it’s not like Carr has been up against cupcake defences to start. Baltimore’s D has playmakers and the Steelers basically shut down the Bills’ aerial attack in Week 1. He currently leads the league with 817 passing yards and has four touchdowns to one interception, while occupying the QB8 spot. With the Dolphins on the docket next, it looks like another matchup that Carr can exploit, especially considering that this Raiders offence looks like it has some pretty good pass catchers outside of Darren Waller. Henry Ruggs appears ready to take the next step forward after not living up to the rookie hype of being a high first-round pick last year. Hunter Renfrow is a reliable slot receiver and Bryan Edwards has all the tools to become a good receiver at this level. All this while the running game hasn’t been too great and Josh Jacobs is dealing with an injury. Carr is going to have to be on top of his game in the coming weeks as he gets the Chargers, Bears, Broncos and Eagles in the four games following Week 3's Dolphins game. By then, we should have an accurate assessment of where Derek Carr fits into the QB1 conversation. Something tells me that this is for real. 3. The Mike Williams we’ve been waiting for He’s had a 1,000-yard season and a 10-touchdown season, but both did not occur at the same time. We’ve been drawn in by his tantalizing talent and incredible ability go make absurd leaping catches, but we’ve never seen the consistency that warrants a regular spot in your lineup. Enter new Chargers offensive coordinator Joe Lombardi, formerly of the New Orleans Saints, with Williams in a contract year and you've got a recipe for success. Lombardi talked up Williams in the off-season and is using him like he used Michael Thomas with the Saints. Justin Herbert even talked about his skill set and also wanting him to get the ball more. We’re now seeing the fruits of these discussions. Williams is currently the WR5 (tied with Amari Cooper) and has 22 targets in the first two games, parlaying those into 15 catches for 173 yards and two touchdowns. That’s the good stuff right there. I, for one, have been a big proponent of Williams ever since he was drafted out of Clemson and I’ve drafted him basically every year he has been in the league, so this one feels good. 4. Brandin Cooks = Automatic Cooks may be the most underappreciated fantasy player that we’ve seen in a long time. All he does is get the job done and his ADP almost never reflects his production at the end of the year. Last season, Cooks was the WR17 in 15 games with 81 catches for 1,150 yards and six touchdowns on only 119 targets. In five of seven seasons (including his rookie year where he only played 10 games), he has accumulated at least 65 catches, 1,082 yards and five touchdowns. It’s a pretty impressive resume that probably doesn’t get enough credit, especially in fantasy. The question now becomes, can Cooks still thrive with Davis Mills as the quarterback in Houston following the hamstring injury to Tyrod Taylor. What we know is that there isn’t a lot of competition for targets and that Houston is going to have to throw a lot in order to stay in games, so I will bet on Cooks getting plenty of looks and still manage to be in the WR2 or WR3 conversation going forward. 5. Teddy Bridgewater, the Wild (AFC) West’s newest gunslinger In a division that includes Patrick Mahomes, Justin Herbert and Derek Carr, Denver needed to being to have success through the air to stand a chance to stay alive in the AFC West arms race. Teddy Two Gloves was always perceived to be a dink and dunk type quarterback as evidenced by his Air Yards Per Target last season which had him near the bottom of the league for starting quarterbacks. Something has changed. It could be the poor competition faced so far as the Broncos took on the Giants and Jaguars, or it could be that Bridgewater has finally been unleashed. Through the first two weeks, he sits fourth in Intended Air Yards behind Trevor Lawrence, Derek Carr and Tom Brady and fifth in Completed Air Yards behind Brady, Carr, Daniel Jones and Justin Herbert. What we can deduce is that Teddy is slinging it early on. The Broncos offence has been very good through the first two games and gets a peach matchup against the awful Jets in Week 3. Teddy Bridgewater has become quite the fantasy asset in Denver with a plethora of weapons at his disposal and if they continue to let him sling it, we could really see him stay in the conversation as an every week starter and a back-end QB1 by the time the season is done. 6. The Cowboys RB timeshare…really? One of the Cowboys running backs is RB12 and the other one is RB26. My guess is that you’ve figured out that Pollard is the RB12 and Elliott is the RB26. Yes, the above statement is accurate. “It has to be because Pollard is making the most of limited opportunities though, right?” Incorrect! Pollard has 23 touches compared to Elliott’s 31, so yes, Pollard is making the most of his opportunities (7.7 yards per carry and seven catches on seven targets), but the workload is a lot closer than it has been in years past. Elliott just doesn’t look like nearly the same player that we saw two years ago and looks more like the player that we saw last year. So maybe this is just what he is at this point in his career. On the other hand, Pollard looks great seemingly every time he touches the ball. You’re going to start Elliott every week, but now you’re going to have to start Pollard every week until we are given a reason not to. The thought process is that the workload going forward is going to look very similar to what it is now, but there’s also a chance that if Zeke doesn’t perform that we could see Pollard get even more looks as the season progresses. 7. The Patriots backs are relevant again The best thing that happened to the Patriots running backs was to get rid of Cam Newton as the team’s signal caller and bring in a less athletic, more accurate passer in Mac Jones. That much has been evident over the first two weeks of the season. Damien Harris has taken over as the lead dog in that backfield and established that he’s going to be the guy to get the bulk of the carries. We’ve also established that James White is back after a tumultuous season last year where he dealt with great personal loss and injury. There is a very good chance with Jones at the helm that both Harris and White finish as top-30 running backs. Harris because of his workload and usage in the red zone looks like a virtual lock. For White, it comes down to how much usage he’s going to get in the passing game. With 13 targets (18 per cent target share) through two games, he’s on pace for 110 targets and if that holds up, he should be a great return on value, especially considering he was way down everyone’s draft board before the season started. The Patriots look like they’re back to being the Patriots we had seen for so many years prior, except for, you know, that Brady character. 8. Is the Vikings duo of receivers now a trio? It’s early in the season, we are all aware of that, but some times, some things happen that make you raise an eyebrow. There was obvious hype surrounding Justin Jefferson after his incredible rookie season and even though plenty of people were down on Adam Thielen, he certainly didn’t become a bad receiver overnight. But nobody expected what we’ve seen out of the third member of what might now be a trio of good receivers. KJ Osborn has been a revelation early on in the season for Minnesota, currently sitting at WR19 with 12 catches, 167 yards and a touchdown on 15 targets (18.5 per cent target share) and has been a great complement to the two great receivers ahead of him. The likelihood of this production is due to the injury of Irv Smith Jr., the lack of talent at the tight end position and Thielen and Jefferson drawing top coverages. Jefferson and Thielen are going to get theirs, but Osborn is worth an add in deeper leagues, especially because we have to think that the Vikings are going to be throwing the ball a lot this season. If Jefferson and Thielen go down with injury, Osborn is an easy WR3 play but could even pay dividends as a high-risk, high-reward flex play with those two in the lineup. 9. Patience is a virtue with Hollywood Brown There’s a very good chance that we overlooked Brown’s finish to last season where he was the WR13 from Week 12-17. Yes, he did have five touchdowns in that span and yes we know that is a fluke stat, but you know what, he’s been a touchdown machine since Week 5 of last year. In that stretch of 14 games he has 10 touchdowns, so he could just be on a hot stretch, but it’s worth noting. Through two games this year, Brown is the WR8 with 182 receiving yards, two touchdowns on 16 targets and looks like he’s becoming a lock for your lineups every week. We know that some receivers take some time to adjust to the NFL game and Brown is probably that guy. It also helps that he’s becoming a focal point of the passing game (28 per cent target share) while rookie Rashod Bateman is on the sidelines and Mark Andrews has scuffled a bit out of the gate (eight catches for 77 yards) because this Ravens team is still going to need to have some success in the passing game to make a run in the AFC. Hollywood has arrived. 10. The Weekly “Mike Tolbert Vulture Awards” Ricky Seals-Jones This is one of those rare occasions where a player vultures a touchdown and it was on a great play. Seals-Jones made the most of his lone catch, going for 19 yards and a touchdown but making a great grab in the corner of the end zone on a pass from Taylor Heinicke. I’m sure Logan Thomas managers were thrilled by this. Andy Janovich The Browns fullback not only vultured a rushing touchdown from both Nick Chubb and Kareem Hunt, but he also outscored Clyde Edwards-Helaire, James Conner, Nyheim Hines and was decimal points behind Jonathan Taylor, Alvin Kamara and Miles Sanders. Janovich’s two carries resulted in zero yards and a touchdown. Can’t make this stuff up. Jauan Jennings Jennings is outscoring Brandon Aiyuk in fantasy scoring just like you all predicted. He had two catches for 17 yards and a score in the Niners win over the Eagles and followed up the San Francisco train of touchdown vultures after they doubled up on the award last week thanks to Trey Lance and Trent Sherfield. Darrell Williams This one was easily my favourite vulture line of the week. Williams was a pre-season sleeper to take away work from Clyde Edwards-Helaire (and even outscored him this week), but you’re not going to get very far with his line of three carries for -2 yards and a touchdown. He averaged 0.7 yards per carry and still outscored the RB1 on his team. I love fantasy football. Read the full article

[fortey]

Traumatized by Horror

Maybe this will be fun for someone.  This is my draft of an article I wrote recently.  This is pre-editing, as I submitted it.  You can find the published version right here.  Just an interesting contrast between what I write and what gets published.  Sometimes you get edited a lot, sometimes you get edited a little.  But if you’re interested in the creative process at all and how publishing works sometimes, it’s a nice comparison.  

There’s probably all kinds of psychology behind why people enjoy watching horror movies that range from things like the adrenaline rush you get from being scared to the fact that the Leprechaun is clearly awesome.  That’s all fine and dandy like sour candy except for when horror goes a little beyond the usual thrill and maybe wonks your brain six ways from Sunday. Because those kind of shenanigans actually happen now and then - sometimes people get so traumatized by horror they have to get medical professionals involved.

127 Hours Grossed Out Audiences En Masse

Some might argue that 127 Hours isn’t a horror movie at all, but it does star James Franco and you can’t spell “James Franco is terrifying” without James Franco, so let’s not speak of it again.  In the movie 127 Hours, there’s an extremely disturbing scene in which Franco, realizing Seth Rogen is nowhere to be seen, has to take matters into his own hands and save himself by performing an impromptu field amputation of his own arm with a Swiss Army knife.  This scene was at least as disturbing as Franco’s entire performance in Why Him?

The cutting scene lasts for about 3 minutes but it’s a bloody, intense, Francoscream-filled endurance test for the audience and some audience members were not able to withstand it. In fact, there’s a remarkable list of audiences who suffered a number of side effects which in some cases may have been hammed up a little since they couldn’t be confirmed, but others were making the whole ordeal sound like 127 Hours was used to punish people Clockwork Orange style.

A reviewer who saw the film at the Toronto International Film Festival mentions 3 people passed out and one had a seizure during the movie and goes out of their way to express they didn’t think it was a PR stunt as some people suggested - the audience was genuinely grossed out by the scene and had maybe never seen movies before.  Weird one to pick for their first try.

History repeated itself when the director of Toy Story 3 had a private screening of the movie and two more people passed out.  Did Buzz and Woody steal their wallets and take compromising photos while they were out?  We can only assume.

The editor of Vanity Fair held a screening with Franco and the director on hand.  People reportedly wept during at that one and, yeah, another dude went face down, ass up over it.

Movieline actually put together an entire timeline of people losing their shit over the movie. Some are given the side-eye treatment, suggesting maybe a few of these were played up to hype the movie given all the other stories of people passing out, but enough of them were legit that it’s safe to assume if you want the family to leave the house quick after Thanksgiving this year while still being able to pretend you weren’t doing it on purpose, this is the movie you want to put on.

Freaks Was Accused of Causing a Miscarriage

Have you ever seen the movie Freaks from 1932? It’s one of the earliest most controversial horror films and is famous for this completely baffling scene;

To this day, I won’t agree to anything during a work meeting without chanting “I accept it! I accept it! Gooble gobble! Gooble gobble!”  That went over like gangbusters when I was asked to start wearing pants again.

Back in 1932, a movie about murderous circus people was pretty cutting edge and, if we’re being honest, it still is.  No one would make this movie today because those actors all were actual circus performers and modern audiences tend to frown on exploiting people by calling them freaks. To fully appreciate just how well this movie went over when it premiered though, you just need to dig into the lore around it.  While it seems to have ruined the career of the director, it had much more harrowing repercussions in the real world where one woman claimed to have had a miscarriage while watching a test screening. She threatened to sue the studio and their response was to recut the movie to make it less horrifying. Try to imagine that working today.

The newer version of the film had fewer murderous scenes and also got rid of a castration because that was a thing that someone thought was necessary to film in the first place.  Word is those scenes are lost for all time, so if you ever wanted to see a circus strongman get his dong cut off, you’re going to have to wait for that episode of Big Bang Theory like the rest of us.

The Exorcist Straight Up Ruined People

If you haven’t seen the Exorcist then your mother and I are extremely disappointed in you.  Please go watch it immediately. It came out in 1973 and it still holds up as an amazing and effective horror movie and the reason so many of us masturbate with crucifixes.  The story and the acting really produce an undeniable sense of dread and terror that forces you to make sure the blanket covers your feet at night because the monsters can’t touch your ankles if they’re covered, and that’s a rule. It also seriously fucked up a whole bunch of people.

Any time a movie causes someone’s heart to malfunction, and not in that “three sizes bigger” Grinch way, it’s pretty noteworthy. A New York Times article from January 1974 recounts people standing in massive lines to get into the theater to see the film, with scalpers selling tickets for upwards of $50 which is ironically what it costs to get a drink, popcorn and a movie ticket for IMAX today.  It also mentions the number of people who vomited while watching the movie, and some who walked out, or fainted.  And then, apparently, several people had heart attacks.

Is it possible the stories of heart attacks is just someone blowing pea soup up our asses? Maybe.  In the pre-internet world all kinds of shit happened without people idly filming it on their phones in the hopes the suffering of a stranger would make them go viral. But the influence of The Exorcist does go beyond the mass pukings and odd heart attack.

If you’ve never heard the term cinematic neurosis then welcome to your crash course.  It’s what a psychologist might call the phenomenon of a patient developing anxiety, dissociation and potentially psychotic symptoms because of a movie, requiring the intervention of a mental health professional to overcome.  There’s a study that mentions a case caused by Jaws, one by Invasion of the Body Snatchers and 5 separate incidents caused by The Exorcist because a pre-teen girl whose head spins is always slightly more disturbing than pod people and Richard Dreyfuss.

Patients affected by The Exorcist suffered insomnia, panic attacks, PTSD and more. One had dreams about the Devil with a dick in his mouth.  And sure, we all have dreams about the Devil or Elmer Fudd or whomever with a dick in their mouth sometimes, but this was to the point that the person needed psychotherapy to deal with it, so you can assume that was a hell of a devil dick.

Dracula and Eyes without a Face Caused Mass Faintings

To the best of my knowledge I have never fainted. Once I drank so much at a party in college that I woke up in the parking lot of a bagel deli next to an exceptionally large pool of drool, but I don’t think that’s the same thing. I can say for certain no horror movie has ever made me faint though, because of my robust constitution.  And maybe that’s a product of the times because back in the day, people were dropping like flies watching movies like Eyes Without a Face and Dracula.  

In 1928, Dracula starring Bela Lugosi was like if Hereditary and The Exorcist humped and had a baby with a remarkably distinct hairline. That shit scared the bejeezus out of people and in 1928, it was very hard to replace bejeezus. The San Francisco Chronicle talked about a nurse on hand with smelling salts to help handle an average of 14 faintings per night.  Now the movie-makers of 1928 weren’t above maybe hiring some people to engage in a little bullshittery to help hype a movie but there’s not any indication that these faintings were not legit either. In fact. Lugosi played Dracula on stage before playing the role on film, and 110 faintings were reported in the first week of the theater production.  His accent was that good.

In 1960, the French film Eyes Without a Face busted out a repeat performance of the Dracula phenomenon by making audience members buckle like belts thanks to one particular scene involving a face transplant which was a little much for 1960s sensibilities. It’s about 6 solid minutes of screentime featuring a doctor just cutting a face off and peeling it away like a goddamn banana.  You’d probably snicker at the effects today but back in 1960 people were all made of cotton candy and golly gosh so this probably hit people like a bag of grapefruits to the groin. Seven audience members fainted during the film’s showing at the Edinburgh Film Festival, and those were Scots, for God’s sake.  They eat haggis on purpose there.  

It’s worth noting that faintings not strictly limited to impressionable audiences of yesteryear, either.  Four audience members fainted during a showing of Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist in 2009, possible because they saw Willem Dafoe’s dong.  In 2016, EMS had to be called to a Toronto showing of Raw when a person fainted, because some people still aren’t down with cannibalism.

Ghostwatch Was the Worst Idea the BBC Ever Had

There’s a good chance you’ve never heard of Ghostwatch as it originally aired on the BBC in 1992 and 1992 British TV was the entertainment equivalent of a bag of scones to the jimmies. All you need to know about the show is that it aired at 9 PM, it featured recognizable TV personalities (if you’re British) and it was filmed like a typical live broadcast investigative TV show.  If you’ve ever watched Live PD, the format would be very familiar - in studio host talking to people out on the scene.  The on-scene hosts were at a particular home alleged to be haunted, investigating the claims and more or less mocking the idea.  Or so it seemed!  

The show was presented as a real documentary like so many current ghost hunting shows are, but this was well before that era.  This was new, and early enough in the evening that families were watching it with the kids.  And remember, it was 1992 in Britain so you probably could either watch this or some guy painting cricket balls on TV that night.

As the show progressed, the tenor went from goofy “this is a bullshit waste of time” to something more menacing.  Calls from viewers, which were actually fake but no one knew that at the time, began to incorporate elements from the “real” haunting that was being presented on the show. People professed to have had similar experiences with a ghost knocking on their pipes and shit started going down on camera until the studio went full apocalyptic ghostsplosion.  One of the hosts gets dragged off and presumably ghost murdered and the studio lights explode as the main host gets possessed on camera and threatens to rain holy hell down on the viewing audience before the how cuts out.  Sounds kind of cool, right?  Well, the 30,000 people who called the BBC within an hour didn’t think so.  And that was the least of their problems.

11 million people watched Ghostwatch and it fucked them up royally.  It went from silly  to disturbing very quickly, however, when an 18-year old boy with some learning difficulties who watched the broadcast committed suicide days later.  His parents said he had been obsessed with the broadcast and believed the same ghost haunted their house.  He left a note saying that if ghosts are real, then he’ll be with them “always as a ghost.”

[listeningpostnola-blog]

The Industrial Canal Lock Project: Plans & Objections

The last public meeting held by the U.S. Army Corps to engage with community stakeholders on the planned Industrial Canal Lock project was held last night. Details on the project from Nola.com: 

'The proposed $951.3 million project involves building a shallow-draft structure to allow more barge traffic to enter the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway east of the Mississippi River, according to corps documents on the project. It would be 900 feet along the Canal between Tonti and Johnson streets with a channel 22 feet below sea level and 110 feet wide north of the Claiborne Avenue Bridge and south of the Florida Avenue Bridge. The lock has been in use since the Port of New Orleans completed it in 1923.' 

Doing as we do, we asked our Listening Posters what they thought about this proposal, and how big industry communicates with those affected by such large projects. Here's what y'all had to say: 

How much say should community members have on big industry projects like this? 

-  A significant  amount if any of their property is to be expropriated.

-Naturally it depends on whether you think the  decision to turn the world into a fetid cesspool should be based on the whims  of the lords of industry and their bootlicking toadies such as the USACOE.  That this is even a question shows our nation's inability to conceive, let  alone manifest democracy.

-A lot of say.

-It affects them, so their input should be  considered.

-They should have an influential voice as a  main stakeholder in the project's outcome because it will directly affect  their day to day lives during construction and their potential futures in  sustainability during a storm

-A ton. Is this the new bridge project too?

-They should have say to the extent that  project impacts their property.

-None. You want to be heard? Have your local  representative at the meeting and make THEM do the work. That's the only way  you stand a chance.

-They should be involved in step by step  planning and execution

-A LOT because  of its close location and potential for change. The design should be  critiqued - especially that of the bridge - to ensure it becomes a beautiful  and accessible asset for the community and not another fast 4-lane highway  across the canal. Shipping is down around the world now and there should also  be a discussion of the traffic level it will generate. The larger barges  themselves are potential threats. What will they carry?

-I don't think they are interested in hearing  from us. They keep scheduling meetings with short notice and at times that  are inconvenient to most. Then a day or so before the meeting, they  reschedule it. I think it's a tactic to make it seem like residents of our  neighborhood aren't interested in having a say.

-Lots! We pay for them, after all--and suffer  the long impacts during their construction. The ACOE has failed to account  for a number of significant variables and risks related to the project that  could put our communities in peril. (Their past work speaks volumes of its  quality.) Even they have said the Lock Replacement will have *no* benefit for  our communities. A healthy public is an inquisitive, Truth-demanding one. We  MUST speak up.

-A lot when it involves a main connection point  to the rest of the city

-Residents and Stakeholders should ask the  Corps, "How can we help?"

-I would certainly want to know if and how my  property might be affected.

New Orleans is often under construction/undergoing improvements. How can this be done responsibly, so that those impacted by the duration of such projects feel compensated? 

-They are compensated by the eventual safety.

-If there is no actual taking of their property  not related damage to their property, I feel no compensation in the name of  progress and improvement.

-Stick to a schedule when at all possible

-Oh, I don't know. It'll never happen so I  don't know how it Should Be.

-Better representation

-To assume that such construction is an  improvement demonstrates the toxic ideology which is causing NOLA to sink  into the sea forty times faster than expected. However, people can easily be  made to "feel" compensated with baubles or trinkets. Maybe some  limited edition Zulu coconuts would suffice.

-Scratch replacing the existing lock. Reroute  the ICWW to the Violet Cut.

-Can quality of like be quantified? And for  those that may lose their jobs due to transportation issues caused by  construction, will the Army Corps pay for lost wages?

-Cash money honey

-Imposing strict completion deadlines, to  ensure projects don't drag on, would be a good start.

-The project should fulfill its goal, first of  all. Having an industry representative that speaks to the public would be a  nice touch too. But the community will also have to make sacrifices of their  own, especially if the project is for the public good.

-More routine and preventative maintenance  should be done so that the impact is minimal

-Other neighborhood leaders and design  professionals aside from engineers, who have tunnel vision, need to be  included at the very beginning of the process. Not at the end!

-Transparency, transparency, transparency. And  mitigation efforts must be inclusive and transparent, too!

What would you advise someone going to tomorrow's meeting to ask the Army Corps? What should the Army Corps be asking these stakeholders?

-How will it affect access to the  neighborhoods.

-What time frame do you think is reasonable for us to accomplish our job, and  your general complaints and suggestions

-I would advice a stakeholder ask for a paper  trail to determine the chain of graft which is compelling the project. I  would advise the army corps to ask forgiveness for decades of lies and  criminal incompetence

-Ask for other alternatives to lock replacement.

-The Army Corps should be 100% transparent  about who the construction benefits and why the construction would require a  minimum of 13 years.

-Can we just get rid of the canal?

-Expect to be talked down to!

-The corps should seek to understand the community  and find out what the community's expectations are

-Is 15 years life span worth this sort of  disruption? Potential traffic? Design details?

-I'm going, and I plan to ask about the so-called demand for the use of the  Canal, itself. They've claimed again and again that there Re hours-long waits  for barges, but I live next to the St. Claude bridge and know that passages  are scheduled and that there are significant and regular lulls. I think we  should all ask about Bob Bea's independent findings that their previous work  on the lock expansion compromised our levees--evidence they have denied--and  ask why they are pushing this project if they have a commitment as servicemen  and women in the Army to protect ordinary citizens from harm.