#bruce: how do i show affection after not having received it in over a decade? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bigskydreaming · 4 years

Note

I’m literally in love with the way you write Dick and Jason’s dynamic

Thanks, glad to hear that! Personal preferences aside, I honestly do think it just opens up SO many more potential stories if you go with the idea that they did have a brotherly relationship before Jason died, just they didnt get together around Bruce because Dick was still hoping Bruce would make the first move in reaching out to him. Rather than just stick with the usual assumption that because it wasn’t seen on the page, they had barely any interactions and both resented each other for various reasons.

But those reasons all trace back to Bruce, and if you look at them as two people who are united by the common experience of being fish out of water, adapting to the same environment after coming from DRAMATICALLY different origins, able to connect over that and understand each other in a way nobody else really can because nobody else has ever really had to straddle two worlds as definitively as Dick and Jason had to in their formative years....

Like, the big sticking point for me in the Dick vs Jason: The Grudge theory was just that....at the end of the day, these are two boys who grew up with very few loved ones to start with, or having had to deal with the loss of those loved ones.....

But one way or another......are these two specific characters really ones that make sense as wanting to reject the possibility of more family?

They’re connected through Bruce, like it or not, that was never going to change even from before they ever met......and the idea that Dick Grayson and Jason Todd would each be content to waste literal YEARS never even TRYING to connect with the person who was probably most like him and who by all accounts was already his brother in most ways just by way of Bruce...not even to see if maybe they COULD actually be brothers? To have family beyond just Bruce and Alfred?

Me @ every fic or headcanon that says Dick had Only Child Syndrome and resented Jason because of that: right because Dick Grayson of all people is anti-family. He’s full up with that one guy whose legal guardianship of him has been expired for a couple years and who he hasn’t spoken to since long before then.....nah, why would he want any more or any other family beyond that?

I mean, I absolutely believe that Dick was upset and hurt that Bruce adopted Jason while he’d never even offered to adopt Dick......but Dick has never been one to pass around blame instead of focusing it on its true point of origin. That’s his and Bruce’s issue. And honestly, there are TONS of reasons for Dick to be upset about that, without making it about Jason at all.

There’s literally no reason for Dick to take it out on Jason ever, if his biggest issue or grievance is that like....it feels like Bruce was just so done with Dick and considered him so out of his life, something like “just added a new kid to the family” didn’t seem like relevant information he should pass on to Dick despite the tenseness between them. When you have to find out from the NEWS that your old family unit just full on up and adopted this kid you’ve never heard of before now without even so much as a phone call.....there’s plenty of cause to feel like this is a message that you’re not really considered part of that family unit anymore, so why would you need to know?

Or like, the fact that Bruce didn’t consider hey I’m thinking of adding another kid to my family that consists of me and the kid I’m so afraid to tell I think of him as a son in case he doesn’t feel the same way, that I’ve sat back and let things get this bad between us and fester.....hey maybe before I issue adoption papers for a second kid, I should think about putting in an equivalent effort at fixing things with my first kid first?

Or why not write Bruce thinking: “Hey if I can’t even fix things with the kid I raised for almost a decade and think of as my own no matter how long its been since I talked to him.....what on Earth makes me think I’m qualified to take on a SECOND child?”

Like....Bruce was the one who held all the power and all the options, Dick had no other option but to go along with whatever Bruce decided Bruce was going to do, and neither did Jason really.....so there’s no real reason in my head that should be a point of contention between them or a reason to resent each other instead of just stressing to them the importance of having significant family ties beyond just Bruce because history clearly showed even at that point that best intentions aside, the man is fallible.

If anything, that should have been common ground!

I think there was like, an initial negative reaction of maybe one night, the first time they met and Dick even though he was prepared for it still had to adjust to the reality of actually seeing this stranger he was irrevocably connected to now by both his names, even if neither was technically his anymore....like to actually SEE him standing there in his old role....that’s gonna hit anybody hard.

But he also would have clearly been able to see that whatever else he may have been, this twelve year old Robin was still a kid, and one who hadn’t had a lot of time to ever be a kid in the first place.....which again, instant camaraderie, because boy could Dick relate.....remember, Dick may have had a happy childhood with his parents before they were murdered but it was also a childhood where he WORKED. He loves being an acrobat, he loved being in the show, but that didn’t mean that it wasn’t WORK, that his childhood didn’t consist of training as long and as regularly as any adult acrobat while everyone else his age was running around playing outside and making friends. And after Bruce took Dick in, most of Dick’s free time was spent being Robin, training as Robin, etc?

Which IMO would have made him take one look at this kid in his old costume, literally standing where he had once stood, stepping into his old shoes.....and I think Dick’s real honest reaction once he brushed aside any kneejerk feeling of pain or bitterness the way he brushes aside all the physical pain he feels when out as Nightwing but refuses to let get in the way of him doing what he has to, doing what’s right....

Nah, Dick would have taken one look at this tiny kid full of fire and bravado but also so clearly eager to please, to be praised, to be told he was doing a good job and even without that he was worth something, his life had value, the world was better just because he existed......

And I think Dick’s bitterness about the situation would have crystallized into him resentfully thinking well B’s not exactly the best about dishing out affection or praise so I’m gonna make sure this little Mini-Me standing there in my old colors looking just as young and small as I must have looked then even if I didn’t realize it at the time....I’m gonna make sure I keep him supplied with a steady diet of “Nice Words and Gestures That Kids Should Grow Up Receiving Regularly.”

Dick has always been a firm believer that the best way to make sure something gets done is to do it yourself.

So yeah, I honestly do think that back during those days, Dick and Jason were thick as thieves when their schedules allowed for it, with it being simultaneously painful and unspoken that they had to like....work around Bruce’s presence so Dick could avoid him, but somewhat softened by the challenge and thrill of two brothers scheming to pull one over on the Big Bad Batdad every time the older brother wanted to take the little brother to go somewhere or do something, like, even just to spoil him rotten.

Cuz really....isn’t that a lot more interesting than ‘oh they barely ever even met back then and it wasn’t great, that’s it, the end’? There’s so much you could do with even just that, from them sneaking Jason out for a fun adventure that’s layered with just a hint of poignant angst because of the unspoken why of him needing to sneak out instead of them just saying hey Bruce, we need some bro time, Jason’s hanging with me this weekend? Or you dial up the angst and layer it with lightness or literally anything between those two points on a spectrum.

There’s so much Secret History potential buried back in those years....adventures they had together and never told anyone about, secrets shared between brothers they never shared elsewhere.....maybe Dick opening up to Jason more than he usually likes to, but here felt it might be the only way to get Jason to do the same, with Dick thus offering up some painful tidbit from his past that he never told even Bruce or Alfred for some reason, if he thinks Jason’s upset about something and needs to vent but will just keep insisting he’s fine unless Dick leads by example and goes first.

There’s so much potential for in-jokes that only the two of them know and everyone else is ENDLESSLY curious about, because everyone always forgets that those two have so much history because it was literally kept out of sight, out of mind, so they could keep it free of the friction that was bound to come of adding Bruce to the mix before their father cleared the air with his eldest first.

So its an easy thing to forget about or overlook, especially since it rarely comes up....but everytime it does rear its head via some private joke only they know or a reference to some event back then that everyone else is kept boxed out of having any context for....that’s the kind of stuff that would drive a family of detectives craszy, because they want to know! What’s the joke??

And yet its likely they’d never ask, because as curious as they are to hear about the mysterious missing years of the first two Wayne children, back when there was literally nobody else present to ask for details.....they never can figure out HOW to ask those questions, not when they’re equally aware of the swiftly hidden expressions of pain or bitterness that flash across the two eldests’ faces after each unearthing of some long-buried treasure they shared between them. Unable to ever escape the fact that each of those treasured moments would forever be followed with an inevitable reminder of why there were so few of those moments, in the end.

Why those years ended far earlier than they should have, and why their reunion upon Jason’s return was hindered and complicated by Dick’s obligation to other siblings Jason hurt while dealing with Pit after-effects and the lack of a strong support system while swayed to League sympathies...

And of course, ultimately there’s the reality that after the Adventures of Young Dick and Tiny Jason were cancelled far ahead of schedule, and that several year long intermission....by the time everything else was gotten out of the way, the stars of those earlier adventures were as long gone as the adventures themselves. Dick and Jason were both entirely different people by now.....still containing within each of them enough of who they were back then that those memories are kept carefully protected and hidden away, all the more valuable for how few and sparse they are, and how rarely they’re brought out to look at and enjoy.....

But with those vaults buried deeply enough within who Dick and Jason both are these days, that there’s a lot of blood and loss and pain you have to cut through just to reach that vault. There’s no retrieving anything from it without a cost. A cost worth paying, given that they can’t help themselves from calling back to it every now and then, even though they know the inevitable result is going to be end negative and not end positive. But still high enough to give them pause before actually doing so....holding back sometimes so the toll is doled out sparingly and over time. Getting greedy and trying to bring out/back/up too much too fast is far more daunting than either can afford to pay at the moment.

So that’s how I like to view the two of them and their dynamic back during and because of those early years before Jason’s death. Bittersweet and shaded by nostalgia.....temptation and warning both, in how much they want to revisit it but how much they fear ruining what they’ve managed to cobble together now by bringing the past too much into the light, comparing past and present too clearly and risking that being reminded too strongly of the brothers they were back then, will just make it impossible to ever be content with anything but that bond replicated in full and they’re not sure it can be, are both too afraid too much has happened since then and trying too hard, putting too much pressure on the dynamic they’ve built now could risk shattering the relative fragile bond completely.

Pretty much everything I write with the two of them, unless I specifically state otherwise via context, is generally written through that lens, with me viewing that as the backstory for their dynamic that I’m running with.

73 notes · View notes

beyondthecosmicvoid · 5 years

Text

Afterword of First Book of Dune, "Dune"

“I knew Frank Herbert for more than thirty-eight years. He was a magnificent human being, a man of great honor and distinction, and the most interesting person at any gathering, drawing listeners around him like a magnet. To say he was an intellectual giant would be an understatement, since he seemed to contain all of the knowledge of the universe in his marvelous mind. He was my father, and I loved him deeply. Nonetheless, a son’s journey to understand the legendary author was not always a smooth one, as I described in my biography of him, Dreamer of Dune. Growing up in Frank Herbert’s household, I did not understand his need for absolute silence so that he could concentrate, the intense desire he had to complete his important writing projects, or the confidence he had that one day his writing would be a success, despite the steady stream of rejections that he received. To my young eyes, the characters he created in Dune and his other stories were the children of his mind, and they competed with me for his affections. In the years it took him to write his magnum opus, he spent more time with Paul Atreides than he did with me. Dad’s study was off-limits to me, to my sister Penny, and to my brother Bruce. In those days, only my mother Beverly really understood Dad’s complexities. Ultimately, it was through her love for him, and the love he gave back to her, that I came to see the nurturing, loving side of the man. By that time I was in my mid-twenties, having rebelled against his exacting ways for years. When I finally saw the soul of my father and began to appreciate him for the care he gave my mother when she was terminally ill, he and I became the best of friends. He helped me with my own writing career by showing me what editors wanted to see in books; he taught me how to construct interesting characters, how to build suspense, how to keep readers turning the pages. After perusing an early draft of Sidney’s Comet (which would become my first published novel), he marked up several pages and then wrote me this note: “These pages…show how editing tightens the story. Go now and do likewise.” It was his way of telling me that he could open the door for me and let me peek through, but I would have to complete the immense labors involved with writing myself. Beverly Herbert was the window into Frank Herbert’s soul. He shared that reality with millions of readers when he wrote a loving, three-page tribute to her at the end of Chapterhouse: Dune, describing their life together. His writing companion and intellectual equal, she suggested the title for that book, and she died in 1984 while he was writing it. Earlier in Dune, Frank Herbert had modeled Lady Jessica Atreides after Beverly Herbert, with her dignified, gentle ways of influence, and even her prescient abilities, which my mother actually possessed. He also wrote of “Lady Jessica’s latent (prophetic) abilities,” and in this he was describing my mother, thinking of all the amazing paranormal feats she had accomplished in her lifetime. In an endearing tone, he often referred to her as his “white witch,” or good witch. Similarly, throughout the Dune series, he described the heroic Bene Gesserit women as “witches.” Dune is the most admired science fiction novel ever written and has sold tens of millions of copies all over the world, in more than twenty languages. It is to science fiction what the Lord of the Rings trilogy is to fantasy, the most highly regarded, respected works in their respective genres. Of course, Dune is not just science fiction. It includes strong elements of fantasy and contains so many important layers beneath the story line that it has become a mainstream classic. As one dimension of this, just look at the cover on the book in your hands, the quiet dignity expressed in the artwork. The novel was first published in hardcover in 1965 by Chilton Books, best known for their immense auto-repair novels. No other publisher would touch the book, in part because of the length of the manuscript. They felt it was far too long at 215,000 words, when most novels of the day were only a quarter to a third that length. Dune would require immense printing costs and a high hardcover price for the time, in excess of five dollars. No science fiction novel had ever commanded a retail price that high. Publishers also expressed concern about the complexity of the novel and all of the new, exotic words that the author introduced in the beginning, which tended to slow the story down. One editor said that he could not get through the first hundred pages without becoming confused and irritated. Another said that he might be making a huge mistake in turning the book down, but he did so anyway. Initial sales of the book were slow, but Frank Herbert’s science fiction–writing peers and readers recognized the genius of the work from the beginning, awarding it the coveted Nebula and Hugo awards for best novel of the year. It was featured in The Whole Earth Catalog and began to receive excellent reviews, including one from the New York Times. A groundswell of support was building. In 1969, Frank Herbert published the first sequel, Dune Messiah, in which he warned about the dangers of following a charismatic leader and showed the dark side of Paul Atreides. Many fans didn’t understand this message, because they didn’t want to see their superhero brought down from his pedestal. Still, the book sold well, and so did its predecessor. Looking back at Dune, it is clear that Dad laid the seeds of the troublesome direction he intended to take with his hero, but a lot of readers didn’t want to see it. John W. Campbell, the editor of Analog who made many useful suggestions when Dune was being serialized, did not like Dune Messiah because of this Paul Atreides issue. Having studied politics carefully, my father believed that heroes made mistakes…mistakes that were simplified by the number of people who followed such leaders slavishly. In a foreshadowing epigraph, Frank Herbert wrote in Dune: “Remember, we speak now of the Muad’Dib who ordered battle drums made from his enemies’ skins, the Muad’Dib who denied the conventions of his ducal past with a wave of the hand, saying merely: ‘I am the Kwisatz Haderach. That is reason enough.’” And in a dramatic scene, as Liet-Kynes lay dying in the desert, he remembered the long-ago words of his own father: “No more terrible disaster could befall your people than for them to fall into the hands of a Hero.” By the early 1970s, sales of Dune began to accelerate, largely because the novel was heralded as an environmental handbook, warning about the dangers of destroying the Earth’s finite resources. Frank Herbert spoke to more than 30,000 people at the first Earth Day in Philadelphia, and he toured the country, speaking to enthusiastic college audiences. The environmental movement was sweeping the nation, and Dad rode the crest of the wave, a breathtaking trip. When he published Children of Dune in 1976, it became a runaway bestseller, hitting every important list in the country. Children of Dune was the first science fiction novel to become a New York Times bestseller in both hardcover and paperback, and sales reached into the millions. After that, other science fiction writers began to have their own bestsellers, but Frank Herbert was the first to obtain such a high level of readership; he brought science fiction out of the ghetto of literature. By 1979, Dune itself had sold more than 10 million copies, and sales kept climbing. In early 1985, shortly after David Lynch’s movie Dune was released, the paperback version of the novel reached #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. This was a phenomenal accomplishment, occurring twenty years after its first publication, and sales remain brisk today. * * * In 1957, Dad flew to the Oregon coast to write a magazine article about a U.S. Department of Agriculture project there, in which the government had successfully planted poverty grasses on the crests of sand dunes, to keep them from inundating highways. He intended to call the article “They Stopped the Moving Sands,” but soon realized that he had a much bigger story on his hands. Frank Herbert’s life experiences are layered into the pages of the Dune series, combined with an eclectic assortment of fascinating ideas that sprang from his researches. Among other things, the Dune universe is a spiritual melting pot, a far future in which religious beliefs have combined into interesting forms. Discerning readers will recognize Buddhism, Sufi Mysticism and other Islamic belief systems, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Hinduism. In the San Francisco Bay Area, my father even knew Zen Master Alan Watts, who lived on an old ferryboat. Dad drew on a variety of religious influences, without adhering to any one of them. Consistent with this, the stated purpose of the Commission of Ecumenical Translators, as described in an appendix to Dune, was to eliminate arguments between religions, each of which claimed to have “the one and only revelation.” When he was a boy, eight of Dad’s Irish Catholic aunts tried to force Catholicism on him, but he resisted. Instead, this became the genesis of the Bene Gesserit Sisterhood. This fictional organization would claim it did not believe in organized religion, but the sisters were spiritual nonetheless. Both my father and mother were like that as well. During the 1950s, Frank Herbert was a political speechwriter and publicity writer for U.S. senatorial and congressional candidates. In that decade, he also journeyed twice to Mexico with his family, where he studied desert conditions and crop cycles, and was subjected unwittingly to the effects of a hallucinogenic drug. All of those experiences, and a great deal from his childhood, found their way onto the pages of Dune. The novel became as complex and multilayered as Frank Herbert himself. As I said in Dreamer of Dune, the characters in Dune fit mythological archetypes. Paul is the hero prince on a quest who weds the daughter of a “king” (he marries Princess Irulan, whose father is the Emperor Shaddam Corrino IV). Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam is a witch mother archetype, while Paul’s sister Alia is a virgin witch, and Pardot Kynes is the wise old man of Dune mythology. Beast Rabban Harkonnen, though evil and aggressive, is essentially a fool. For the names of heroes, Frank Herbert selected from Greek mythology and other mythological bases. The Greek House Atreus, upon which House Atreides in Dune was based, was the ill-fated family of kings Menelaus and Agamemnon. A heroic family, it was beset by tragic flaws and burdened with a curse pronounced against it by Thyestes. This foreshadows the troubles Frank Herbert had in mind for the Atreides family. The evil Harkonnens of Dune are related to the Atreides by blood, so when they assassinate Paul’s father Duke Leto, it is kinsmen against kinsmen, similar to what occurred in the household of Agamemnon when he was murdered by his wife Clytemnestra. Dune is a modern-day conglomeration of familiar myths, a tale in which great sandworms guard a precious treasure of melange, the geriatric spice that represents, among other things, the finite resource of oil. The planet Arrakis features immense, ferocious worms that are like dragons of lore, with “great teeth” and a “bellows breath of cinnamon.” This resembles the myth described by an unknown English poet in Beowulf, the compelling tale of a fearsome fire dragon who guarded a great treasure hoard in a lair under cliffs, at the edge of the sea. The desert of Frank Herbert’s classic novel is a vast ocean of sand, with giant worms diving into the depths, the mysterious and unrevealed domain of Shai-hulud. Dune tops are like the crests of waves, and there are powerful sandstorms out there, creating extreme danger. On Arrakis, life is said to emanate from the Maker (Shai-hulud) in the desert-sea; similarly all life on Earth is believed to have evolved from our oceans. Frank Herbert drew parallels, used spectacular metaphors, and extrapolated present conditions into world systems that seem entirely alien at first blush. But close examination reveals they aren’t so different from systems we know…and the book characters of his imagination are not so different from people familiar to us. Paul Atreides (who is the messianic “Muad’Dib” to the Fremen) resembles Lawrence of Arabia (T. E. Lawrence), a British citizen who led Arab forces in a successful desert revolt against the Turks during World War I. Lawrence employed guerrilla tactics to destroy enemy forces and communication lines, and came close to becoming a messiah figure for the Arabs. This historical event led Frank Herbert to consider the possibility of an outsider leading native forces against the morally corrupt occupiers of a desert world, in the process becoming a godlike figure to them. One time I asked my father if he identified with any of the characters in his stories, and to my surprise he said it was Stilgar, the rugged leader of the Fremen. I had been thinking of Dad more as the dignified, honorable Duke Leto, or the heroic, swashbuckling Paul, or the loyal Duncan Idaho. Mulling this over, I realized Stilgar was the equivalent of a Native American chief in Dune—a person who represented and defended time-honored ways that did not harm the ecology of the planet. Frank Herbert was that, and a great deal more. As a child, he had known a Native American who hinted that he had been banished from his tribe, a man named Indian Henry who taught my father some of the ways of his people, including fishing, the identification of edible and medicinal plants in the forest, and how to find red ants and protein-rich grub worms for food. When he set up the desert planet of Arrakis and the galactic empire encompassing it, Frank Herbert pitted western culture against primitive culture and gave the nod to the latter. In Dune he wrote, “Polish comes from the cities; wisdom from the desert.” (Later, in his mainstream novel Soul Catcher, he would do something similar and would favor old ways over modern ways). Like the nomadic Bedouins of the Arabian plateau, the Fremen live an admirable, isolated existence, separated from civilization by vast stretches of desert. The Fremen take psychedelic drugs during religious rites, like the Navajo Indians of North America. And like the Jews, the Fremen have been persecuted, driven to hide from authorities and survive away from their homeland. Both Jews and Fremen expect to be led to the promised land by a messiah. The words and names in Dune are from many tongues, including Navajo, Latin, Chakobsa (a language found in the Caucasus), the Nahuatl dialect of the Aztecs, Greek, Persian, East Indian, Russian, Turkish, Finnish, Old English, and, of course, Arabic. In Children of Dune, Leto II allowed sandtrout to attach themselves to his body, and this was based in part upon my father’s own experiences as a boy growing up in Washington State, when he rolled up his trousers and waded into a stream or lake, permitting leeches to attach themselves to his legs. The legendary life of the divine superhero Muad’Dib is based on themes found in a variety of religious faiths. Frank Herbert even used lore and bits of information from the people of the Gobi Desert in Asia, the Kalahari Desert in Southwest Africa, and the aborigines of the Australian Outback. For centuries such people have survived on very small amounts of water, in environments where water is a more precious resource than gold. The Butlerian Jihad, occurring ten thousand years before the events described in Dune, was a war against thinking machines who at one time had cruelly enslaved humans. For this reason, computers were eventually made illegal by humans, as decreed in the Orange Catholic Bible: “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.” The roots of the jihad went back to individuals my parents knew, to my mother’s grandfather Cooper Landis and to our family friend Ralph Slattery, both of whom abhorred machines. Still, there are computers in the Dune universe, long after the jihad. As the series unfolds, it is revealed that the Bene Gesserits have secret computers to keep track of their breeding records. And the Mentats of Dune, capable of supreme logic, are “human computers.” In large part these human calculators were based upon my father’s paternal grandmother, Mary Stanley, an illiterate Kentucky hill-woman who performed incredible mathematical calculations in her head. Mentats were the precursors of Star Trek’s Spock, First Officer of the starship Enterprise…and Frank Herbert described the dangers of thinking machines back in the 1960s, years before Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator movies ...

By the time we complete those stories, there will be a wealth of Dune novels, along with the 1984 movie directed by David Lynch and two television miniseries—“Frank Herbert’s Dune” and “Frank Herbert’s Children of Dune”—both produced by Richard Rubinstein. We envision other projects in the future, but all of them must measure up to the lofty standard that my father established with his own novels. When all of the good stories have been told, the series will end. But that will not really be a conclusion, because we can always go back to Dune itself and read it again and again, ” -Brian Herbert

This shows the appreciation that Brian had for his father. Many fans are still on the fence regarding Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson continuation of Frank’s work. Some think some of their sequels and prequels are good while others think their attempt to expand on the Dune lore is a failed attempt and don’t believe they have based their works on Frank Herbert’s alleged unfinished manuscripts. I fall somewhere in the middle. There are things I like from the Dune Expanded Universe and other things that I could care less about. Nevertheless, I love that Brian Herbert has continued with his father’s passion and is currently working with director Denis Villeneuve and others to bring his father’s vision on the big and small screens and stay loyal to it.

#frank herbert #dune #brian herbert

4 notes · View notes

your-dietician · 3 years

Text

Psychotherapy on the couch

New Post has been published on https://depression-md.com/psychotherapy-on-the-couch/

Psychotherapy on the couch

Studies show talk therapy works, but experts disagree about how it does so. Finding the answer could help professionals and patients.

Say you’re feeling depressed, distressed, helpless or anxious. Whom should you turn to for professional help? A cognitive behavioral therapist, who’d challenge your dysfunctional thoughts? An old-fashioned Freudian analyst, who might have you lie on a couch, spending months, maybe years, and thousands of dollars delving into your unconscious responses to the ways your parents raised you? But what if all you need is a much less expensive social worker — or even a life coach?

These questions have fueled a fierce debate among researchers and clinical practitioners. The argument isn’t whether “talk therapy” is helpful. Hundreds of clinical trials have shown that various mainstream forms of psychotherapy can help treat many mental afflictions, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, obsessive-compulsive disorder and eating disorders. Indeed, most Americans prefer talk therapy to medication, and talk therapy alone may work just as well and in some cases last longer than medication for some mental health problems. The argument is more about how and why these treatments work, and, accordingly, which therapeutic approaches are most likely to achieve the best results at the lowest cost.

On one side are those who say choosing the right approach is essential, implying that some strategies are clearly better than others. The other side argues that any good therapist will do, because factors common to most psychotherapies — especially a strong bond between patient and therapist — are what’s most important. In between these two camps, but just as involved in the debate, are agnostics who argue that it’s too soon to choose sides — we still just don’t know enough about how therapy works.

There are high stakes in this dispute. “This isn’t just about a bunch of academics fighting each other,” says Bruce Wampold, a psychologist now retired from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “There are tremendous implications for how mental health care is delivered and managed.” More and more mental health patients are being treated solely with medication prescribed by general practitioners, with many talk therapists voicing concern that insurance firms and health plans are threatening their profession in their efforts to cut costs. And even when patients are given access to talk therapy, insurers tend to push for the cheapest, most time-limited strategies, which are often “not in the interest of patients,” Wampold says.

The dodo bird verdict

People have been trying to talk other people into feeling better for more than 3,000 years. Ancient Greeks counseled patients suffering from addictions and psychoses. For nearly 2,500 years, Buddhists have handed down a canon of advice to people struggling with day-to-day emotional suffering. But it was only at the end of the nineteenth century that the Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud popularized the “talking cure.”

These days, more than 130,000 licensed US psychiatrists and psychologists provide what is often a blend of Freudian-ish psychodynamic therapy (focused on childhood experiences) and cognitive behavioral therapy (focused on challenging negative thought patterns). But you can also receive some version of talk therapy from a social worker, counselor or marriage and family therapist — or conceivably even from a life coach, mentor, hypnotist, neurofeedback practitioner or shaman (see sidebar below).

In 1936, the eminent US psychologist Saul Rosenzweig proposed that a therapist’s preferred method was all but irrelevant. Instead, he wrote, factors common to most therapies will determine the outcome more strongly than any of the therapy’s specific features.

“Given a therapist who has an effective personality and who consistently adheres in his treatment to a system of concepts which he has mastered and which is in one significant way or another adapted to the problems of the sick personality, then it is of comparatively little consequence what particular method that therapist uses,” he wrote.

Rosenzweig began his iconic paper with a passage from Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland in which a dodo bird, judging contestants in a race, declares that all have won “and all must have prizes.” He thus set the stage for the long-running debate over what has since been known as the dodo bird verdict.

In subsequent years, researchers identified several potential “common factors,” ranging from the therapist’s office environment to the placebo effect, which has a strong role in both talk therapy and medication. Yet at the top of the list of factors is the relationship, what’s called the therapeutic alliance, between patient and therapist.

The reasoning is that this positive emotional bond, made up of trust, respect, affection and high expectations for improvement, inspires each member of the pair to keep showing up and doing the hard work that therapy demands. Specifically, researchers have found, a strong alliance will help the therapist and patient reach consensus on their goals, as well as on what sort of tasks — such as free association, Socratic questioning, or homework — will help achieve them.

Sixty years after Rosenzweig put his stake in the ground, Wampold and colleagues reviewed more than 200 scientific studies comparing the effectiveness of mainstream therapies, mostly variants of psychodynamic and cognitive-therapy tactics used by well-trained practitioners. They found only minimal differences between outcomes, concluding that “bona fide treatments are roughly equivalent.” (That conclusion may not extend to outlier therapies such as shamanism, Wampold and other researchers warn, which haven’t been sufficiently evaluated.)

The bottom line, according to Wampold, is: “You can’t have psychotherapy without a relationship. Every patient knows that. And every psychotherapist knows it.”

In recent decades, researchers have published scores of papers emphasizing the importance of the bond between patient and therapist. In 2018, a task force for the American Psychological Association concluded: “The psychotherapy relationship makes substantial and consistent contributions to outcome independent of the type of treatment.”

In 2019, however, psychologist Pim Cuijpers, a leading agnostic, weighed in with a paper in the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology arguing that we’re still far from knowing how talk therapy works.

Earlier studies have been inconclusive, wrote Cuijpers and two colleagues at Vrije University Amsterdam. They cited flaws including researcher bias in favor of particular therapies and an excess of papers that show an association between a treatment and an outcome without proving which facet of the treatment caused the outcome. What’s more, they suggested, some studies purporting to compare different therapy types tip the scales by comparing the researchers’ favorite with another form of therapy “designed to fail” — in other words not a tested, bona fide strategy.

Solving the mystery once and for all will require much more work, they wrote, adding: “It is as if we have been in a pilot phase of research for five decades.”

In a 2007 review, Yale psychologist and child psychiatry researcher Alan Kazdin voiced a similar complaint, urging researchers to focus their studies on the ways that the patient-therapist relationship may be helpful rather than simply determining that it helps. “How does one get from ‘my therapist and I are bonding’ to ‘my marriage, anxiety, and tics are better’?” Kazdin asked in his paper. “This is a leap with the intervening steps unspecified or untested, at least to my knowledge.” Reached by Knowable, Kazdin said that after 13 years, he still sees this gap in the research.

In recent years, some professional organizations have vouched for some psychotherapies over others, based on a preponderance of evidence that certain methods lead to good outcomes for specific diagnoses. The treatments most often touted as having strong research support have been versions of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which one organization, the Society of Clinical Psychology, recommends for everything from adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder to obsessive-compulsive disorder to irritable bowel syndrome.

Critics note, however, that CBT’s clear rules and comparatively brief time frames have made it easier to study experimentally than more complex, open-ended therapies, thus yielding more net evidence that it gets results without proving that it is better or worse than any other therapy. Indeed, in recent years, some experts have challenged CBT’s reputation as the “gold standard,” with research suggesting that longer-term, psychoanalytic therapy can be more effective in some cases.

Wampold argues that a greater diversity of options will allow therapists and patients to find the approach that works best for them. “Unless there’s convincing evidence that one treatment is superior,” he says, “you should allow therapists to give the treatment they can deliver most effectively and patients should have the right to choose the treatments they prefer.”

Patient preferences do make a difference. In a 2018 meta-analysis of 53 studies involving more than 16,000 patients, researchers called such preferences “crucial” to outcomes. The authors advised that psychotherapists should educate patients about different types of talk therapy and elicit their preferences as to the therapists’ strategies.

Bring in the scans

Any resolution to this long-running conflict may ultimately come from the lab, and its so-far elusive promise of delivering indisputable biological evidence of the most effective treatments.

Some researchers are now using functional magnetic resonance imaging scans to track subtle changes in certain brain regions during and after psychotherapy. One day, perhaps, therapists will be able to post before-and-after scans of patients’ brains, highlighting the improvements, much as plastic surgeons do today. But not yet. The studies so far have mainly focused on laying the groundwork by determining which areas of the brain are affected by therapy, says University of Pittsburgh psychiatrist Jay Fournier. Researchers want to pinpoint how the brain changes in each patient as a result of different treatments and what sorts of changes best predict long-term recovery. They also hope to gain a more nuanced understanding of which characteristics in a patient might predict response to different sorts of treatments.

Others searching for concrete markers of a patient’s progress have been measuring neurochemical changes during therapy. “We don’t just ask the depressed patient if he’s feeling better,” says Sigal Zilcha-Mano, a clinical psychologist and expert on the patient-therapist bond at the University of Haifa in Israel. She and her team also measure levels of the stress hormone cortisol, the bonding hormone oxytocin, body temperatures, and the synchrony of speech and movement between patient and therapist.

These measurements, which capture changes many patients and therapists aren’t aware of in the moment, may eventually present a detailed portrait of what can be among the most intense of human relationships. One day, Zilcha-Mano says, they may also enable more precise, individualized, tailored treatments for each patient. It’s a matter of traits and states, she explains. Patients may come to therapy with the trait of being more or less able to trust and form relationships. But depending on the skill of the therapist, they may enter a state of being more open to such a bond. The real-time portrait of chemical changes and movements could someday illuminate this process, particularly in the case of oxytocin, considered to be an important biological marker of trust.

In whatever way it might happen, breaking through the current impasse over what makes psychotherapy effective could help practitioners do a better job, Cuijpers and his colleagues argue. Psychotherapeutic treatments for depression haven’t improved in decades, they note.

They also hope that more cogent explanations for how talk therapy works could help revive the approach, which other critics say has long suffered from a reputation of lacking scientific credibility.

“Understanding how therapies work,” write Cuijpers and his colleagues, “may make it possible to develop treatments that focus on the core processes and are, therefore, more effective and efficient, and more acceptable to patients.”

Skepticism about how psychotherapy works was a problem long before Freud came on the scene. It’s at least as old as the charismatic German physician Franz Anton Mesmer, born in 1734. His practice of “mesmerism” relied on claims that he could manipulate an invisible bodily fluid through “animal magnetism.” Mesmer established a strong rapport with his patients with nervous disorders, many of whom ended up feeling they had been cured.

But he alienated other doctors, and in 1784, while Mesmer was practicing in Paris, King Louis XVI appointed an international commission of scientists and physicians, including Benjamin Franklin, to investigate his methods. They concluded that he couldn’t support his claims of invisible fluids or animal magnetism, ruining his reputation.

Mesmer’s treatment worked — at least for some — but not his explanation of how it did so. Psychotherapy’s quest for legitimacy continues.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews. Sign up for the newsletter.

Source link

0 notes

hellyeahheroes · 6 years

Text

Ten Winners and Losers of DC Rebirth:

DC has dropped the Rebirth logo out of their titles. That is usually the sing they consider that the transition period for their books is over. They have built their status quo and what they have built during it is the new DC Universe. While I doubt fans will stop calling DC books Rebirth titles from now on (same as they didn’t stop using New 52 name long after DC dropped it from the covers), I want to look at what they managed to fix and bring to new fresh in this period, this last 1,5 year and also on what has failed. What were the winners and losers of DC Rebirth. Enjoy:

Winner: Superman Family

Out of all lines, I don’t think any has made as much of an improvement as Superman’s. While there were good stories in New 52 Era, that time’s take on Superman has been generally seen with negative reception. Bringing back married Superman and Lois AND their son Jon has been a brilliant move, that quickly launched both Superman and Action Comics to some of the most popular in the era. The emphasis on Superman as a father made him more relatable to growing audience, several well-written Lois moments helped remind people why she is a belowed character and Jon quickly gained love of older fans and kids alike. That success was then quickly capitalized on with Super Sons, giving the spotlight to Jon and his new friend, Damian Wayne. The return of classic Superman villains like Eradicator, Metallo, Doomsday, Hank Henshaw, Mr. Mxyztplk, Manchester Black and General Zod with a new, interesting antagonist in Mr. Oz, helped make it an era that will certainly be remembered.

Adding to it three new books - Superwoman, Supergirl and New Super-Man only cements the lines’ status as probably the best quality-wise of the entire Rebirth. While Superwoman was sadly the shortest-living of them all, it still left us with Traci Thirteen and Natasha Irons as a couple, a move fans approved so much we now hope for Traci’s sexuality to be addressed in her upcoming show and Young Justice Season 3. Meanwhile, new take on Supergirl, taking clues from the show, but making Kara a high-schooler with adopted parents, has been well-regarded by the fans and New Super-Man became a minor fan-favorite, to the point DC took back the decision to cancel the series and let it continue as New Super-Man & the Justice League of China.

Loser: Blue Beetle

Poor Jaime. One of the few characters that Rebirth set to fix after New 52 made him into a hot mess. The premise was solid - Jaime getting a mentor in form of previous Blue Beetle, Ted Kord, written by Keith Giffen, who shaped Ted into a comedic character and helped launch Jaime’s 2006 book. It had the potential for success. But the creative team (which J.M.DeMatteis joining in the middle) clearly didn’t believe in it and tried to launch a stealth team book they should have pitched in the first place. This resulted in a chaotic story that has lead to Blue Beetle’s cancellation and many plotlines left unresolved.

Winner: Damian Wayne

Rebirth was a good time to be Damian fan. Between his appearances in not one but two books, leading new Teen Titans and forming great friendship with Jonathan Kent as well as having a handful guest issues, be it in Nightwing or Superman or Batman, Damian has received a tremendous push. While the quality of some of these titles remains debatable among the fans and some are unhappy with him not being pushed as Batman’s partner, it is undeniable they have a lot of fresh Damian content to choose from.

Loser: Tim Drake

By contrast with Damian, Tim Drake has spent most of the Rebirth imprisoned by Mr. Oz and presumed dead. While his spirit was hanging over his friends in Detective Comics and his perceived loss affected them greatly, he himself was almost not present at all, really having a chance to shine only in two stories, Rise of the Batmen and A Lonely Place Of Living. In a way it feels as if James Tynion IV even knew he likes Tim too much and moved him away to give everyone else the spotlight - spotlight they undeniably needed, may I add.

Winner: Batman

It’s bizarre for me to even put him on this list. Batman is the golden child of DC, the fortunate son, the star, the fan-favorite. He always gets best writers, the spotlight, the books, the guest appearances. And yet, DC Rebirth did something unbelievable, something I would never bet to see with Batman. They let him be weak. When over the years Batman has amassed reputation that earned him nicknames and memes like “Prep Time”, “BatWank” or “Batgod” over how perfect, always right and invincible he became, in Rebirth this feels toned down.

Batman in Rebirth was allowed to have flaws and vulnerabilities. His moments of super-competence are now contrasted with his emotional vulnerability. Batman was allowed to be a father who needs his children maybe even more than they need him, he was allowed to take serious beatings from Bane and Reverse Flash, to grieve after Tim, to seek happiness in marriage with Selina, to see his fears and regrets exposed in monstrous forms of Seven Dark Knights. All these things like tiny woodpeckers chipped little bits away from the image of BatGod and brought back Bruce Wayne, Batman the human. And boy did he needed to come back and remind people why this character is popular, to begin with. I mean, if even my bitter and cold heart started feeling a bit more sympathy for the guy whom last few decades made me despise, you know DC is doing something right.

Loser: Raven

One of the biggest mistakes of DC Rebirth was Marv Wolfman’s Raven book. Not the book itself, but the fact it was only a miniseries. Being limited to only six-issue format have visibly constrained the potential the story had and forced the writer to rush things. The fact that in January DC launches new Raven book only makes it that much more infuriating. DC had little faith in the character and while I’m grateful they were willing to try at all and they clearly are testing waters for her potential ongoing, I wish we could see how things would turn out, had she been given one in the first place. Or at least a twelve-issue miniseries, I’d rather have that than 12 issues of Chuck Dixon slamming his head against the wall in Bane: Conquest.

Winner: Green Lanterns

That was the book I doubt that many people believed in. Two relatively new members of Green Lanterns being given their title that early and made to work together. A book written by Sam Humphries, who didn’t gain that much of a good reputation for his works at Marvel. And yet...it worked. The series earned peoples’ love with an honest approach to subjects like anxiety disorder and extremely relatable portrayal of main characters. Jessica Cruz, in particular, seems to have grown into a fan-favorite to the point she’s going to be Green Lantern in DC Superhero Girls Universe and may even find a way into DC Comics Bombshells. This book opened a path of bright future to both Jessica and Simon, seeing how it still steadily continued as a bi-weekly series when other books with seemingly more famous character have been reduced to a monthly series. It opened Sam Humphries a way to his dream work at Nightwing. It thinks out of all Rebirth books this one might be one of the biggest breakout hits.

Loser: Gotham Academy

It feels cruel to put Gotham Academy in that category. The creative team truly gave their all to this title. But sadly, the second book they got managed only last for twelve issues, enough to wrap the dangling plot threads. While other DC books benefitted from a new beginning, this one seems to have suffered what restarts did to Marvel books - diminished sales. But I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again - the combined amount of issues Gotham Academy had is an impressive number of 38. Let the fans never allow anyone tell them this title failed. I need to also praise DC for the amount of faith they’ve put into this series and how hard they tried to make it take off and become popular. This effort is worthy of respect. And something that I’d never been expecting from Marvel, so kudos for trying to do better.

Winner: New 52 Wally West

When Old Wally West from before Flashpoint came back, many people feared this means his New 52 counterpart, now revealed to be a cousin with the same name, will drop into comic book limbo and never be mentioned again. Thankfully DC had a better idea - they kept both of them around. And through a string of writers who wanted to use him, Young Wally has not only been prominently featured as a supporting character in Flash but also joined Teen Titans, had appearances in his cousin’s book Titans and even managed to become a cast member in Deathstroke’s series. While I have complained his life probably sucks with an amount of bad stuff happening, he did leave his mark on larger DC Universe, had a chance to win fans’ love and established relationships with other characters. Hell, he even managed to send Raven’s heart...racing.

I’m sorry, no more puns, I swear, don’t hurt me!

Loser: Conner Kent and Bart Allen

Another case where it feels outright cruel to call them losers. Both of them were erased with the reboot and replaced with versions that can be respectively called a hot mess and an outright identity theft (no, seriously, New 52 Bart turned out to be some asshole using his name). Since Rebirth launched the books started to tease fans with their returns. First, it was who might be in Mr. Oz prison next to Tim Drake’s in Detective Comics. Then the very clear erasure of Conner from Superman’s memories of Reign of Supermen, with Clark noting something is missing on the same page. Then Batman of Tomorrow bringing up Conner and finding out present Tim doesn’t remember him. The Murder Machine telling Barry there was a Bart in his reality. James Tynion IV and Joshua Williamson being very clear they want them back. And of course that Geoff Johns himself seems to want pre-flashpoint Conner back. And now the upcoming appearance of their evil future selves, Titans of Tomorrow in Super Sons of Tomorrow crossover. On the one hand, it appears DC wants to play a long game with setting up their return. On the other, many fans are probably having enough of constantly being shown a carrot on the stick and I hope DC will manage to bring those two back before fandom’s patience runs out.

Winner: Christopher Priest

If you read his essay The New Black Mambo, you will know that Christopher Priest has a complicated history with Big 2. After his successful, character-defining, run on Black Panther, he started to feel the publishers are seeing him as “black guy to write black people” and he felt they’re denying him their A-List characters and jerking him around whenever he tries to pitch a non-black book (he tried to launch an all-female Avengers series almost a decade before A-Force, for example). He also felt his books that do feature black and other poc protagonists are thrown to the assholes on the Internet, even back then ready to declare them a “black propaganda” and other bullshit, which killed his project the Crew before the first issue was even out. This had led him to reject offers on DC and Marvel books for nine years.

Thankfully, during Rebirth DC was pulling its collective head out of its collective ass so well, they finally noticed why he keeps saying no and pitched him a different character - Deathstroke. On that book, Priest not only managed to rebuild mythos destroyed by New 52, but also built around Slade a diverse cast of complex, multi-layered characters and showed exactly how much of an awful, destructive person somebody like him would be. This opened him the door to Justice League, which he is currently writing, glad he can finally get his hands on all those characters he was always denied.

Loser: Cyborg

The news on Christopher Priest taking over Justice League was quickly followed by reveal he will make Cyborg the new leader of the team. This sadly quickly became ironic, as DC announced the cancellation of Victor’s own series. Cyborg was another one of those characters DC tried to push even before Rebirth, during DC You, but to no success. Cyborg still retains his role in Justice League so his fans can see him there, but it’s a shame Rebirth didn’t manage to save his book.

Winner: Stjepan Sejic

Stjepan Sejic has become fairly popular on the Internet and in indie in the last few years. Yet, despite years of outstanding work and even solid portfolio of Image Comics books he worked on, he never managed to land a work for the Big 2 outside few covers for Marvel. In Rebirth DC has changed that by giving him not only an arc on Aquaman but bi-weekly Suicide Squad series as well. Hopefully, this will finally give him the spotlight and help land more prestigious jobs in the future, both of which he certainly deserves.

Loser: Frank Cho and Jonboy Meyers

Not all artists managed to capitalize on the success of Rebirth and made their own. Incredible talented Jonboy Meyers was on his way to make his art become the face of new Teen Titans, with his animesque style and modernized designs of the team members gaining a lot of attention. Yet he fell off the project due to “creative differences” after just a few issues. While creators leaving DC books and cursing the editorial was a common occurrence in New 52, it didn’t follow his departure. What’s more he also quickly had the same thing happen to his job at Marvel’s series Royals. I have not been privy to what were his reasons, but I just hope it wasn’t any serious health issues, as he gives an impression of a man too nice to lose two jobs due to acting like a primadonna, unlike some creators in the past.

Frank Cho, on the other hand, DID lose his Rebirth gig due to acting like a primadonna. Being put on variant covers for the first 24 issues of Wonder Woman, he has quit after just six, because Greg Rucka asked him to remove a pantyshot - a reasonable request especially during the time when DC tried to avoid controversies that haunted New 52. Cho, however, decided Diana’s underwear is a hill he will die on and threw a colossal temper tantrum that made him look extremely immature. Ever since his output involving Big 2 characters was a series of “fan” pinups of the same woman in different costumes with some characters screaming “OUTRAGE!” in the background, a sad attempt at pissing people off to feed his persecution complex.

Winner: Jack Kirby

In the seventies Jack “the King” Kirby gave DC several books and characters who maybe never rose to the popularity of their core heroes or his Marvel creations, but became iconic fan-favorites none the less. Were he still alive, 2017 would be his 100th birthday and DC went out of their way to honor him. Kamandi Challenge, Mister Miracle, Bug! the Adventures of Forager and Demon: Hell is Earth all are limited series that allowed some of King’s creations shine once again. Then DC gave others special issues that are now collected in a sweet trade. Not to mention some of those titles featuring Kirby’s heroes meeting each other (I mean, Forager outright went and resolved cliffhanger of Kirby’s original OMAC series) and his other characters and concepts are being featured in ongoing books like Superman or Green Lanterns. DC went out of their way to celebrate Jack Kirby during Rebirth. This is especially poignant at the time when all Marvel managed to do are some cheap variant covers and putting a bunch of his Monsters into one event because they were too busy spending most of the year shitting on one of his most beloved characters in Secret Empire.

Loser: Justice Society America and Legion of Super-Heroes

These two teams have been on everybody’s mouths ever since DC Rebirth Special teased their return. Yet outside of occasionally throwing us a bone here or there, teasing their returns in Batman and Flash, nothing had materialized out of this. I heard rumors there was a plan to launch JSA book, but it appears to have fallen through. Meaning currently both teams are in Comic Book Limbo with Shazam and Martian Manhunter.

Winner: Grant Morrison

Rebirth has become a time when you could notice more and more references to works of certain creator popping up - crazy Scott, Grant Morisson. Be it use of his characters like Aztek in Justice League of America or Doctor Hurt and Professor Pyg in Nightwing or concepts like Hypertime or his Multiversal ideas. With writers like Joshua Williamson, Tom King, Scott Snyder, Gerard Way, Tim Seeley or James Tynion IV it is clear that right now DC Universe is put in hands of creators who have been influenced by Morrison’s body of work and even others, like Gene Yang, while not directly touching on his ideas still add more pieces having similar feel. I’ve been saying Grant Morrison would be proud several times during this era and for a good reason. It feels he has achieved a similar position Warren Ellis had at Marvel for some time before 2015 - maybe not directly affecting the company, but having enough people who learned from or were inspired by him working on it, that he is present in spirit even when he isn’t writing anything.

Loser: Eddie Berganza

This might be a bit cheating since this has little to do with DC Rebirth itself. But it needs to be pointed out that during this era position of Eddie Berganza, an important editor and a serial sexual harasser who was seen as too big to be dealt with, started to tremble. Greg Rucka made DC ensure his new Wonder Woman book will not be edited by Berganza and neither he nor any member of his team will have to even interact with the guy. I like to see it as the first sing the industry was ready to deal with this pathetic, painful ulcer of a man. A thing that indeed has happened, when on the wave of allegations of sexual harassment in Hollywood his name has been brought up. DC and Warner decided to take a look at his case and he was promptly, in their own words, terminated. Good riddance.

Winner: Imprints, Crossovers, and Elseworlds

One of the greatest successes of Rebirth for me was that DC took serious attempts at bringing back Wildstorm and Vertigo characters, whom they have mistreated by forcing into one Universe with rest of DC in New 52. Warren Ellis’ Wild Storm rebooted the 90′s Universe in a new flavor, giving us a fantastic science-fiction take on their heroes.Gerard Way brought back the feel of early Vertigo in his imprint Young Animal with great series like Doom Patrol, Shade: the Changing Girl, Mother Panic, Cave Carson Has a Cybernetic Eye and Bug! the Adventures of Forager. They are not stopping there, seeing how they are working on the return of Milestone Media, launching Dark Matter and working on an all-ages imprint.

At the same time DC launched an imprint for reinventing properties under their Hannah-Barbera license. Which, admittingly, gave us two baffling books in Scooby Apocalypse and Wacky Raceland but also fan-favorite Future Quest, Flinstones or new Dastardly & Muttley. DC seems to have enjoyed working on those books so much they made series of one-shots crossing over other HB characters with their heroes. And enjoyed THAT so much they did it again with Looney Tunes, which were much more entertaining I think anyone would have suspected. Speaking of which, DC has a blast with doing crossovers and you can always see them doing some sort of it - He-Man/Thundercats, Batman/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Shadow/Batman, Wonder Woman/Conan, Justice League/Power Rangers or several Batman ‘66 crossovers. It seems to have even rubbed on their games, with Hellboy and Turtles making their way to Injustice 2.

And finally, DC had a lot of fun with Elseworlds lately. Including Nightwing: New Order, Green Lantern: Earth One, Gotham City Garage, DC Superhero Girls, DC Comics Bombshells or Batman: White Knight. All of it contributed to a new image of DC as ever-expanding as both the world and the publisher. Which I feel greatly helped their success.

Loser: Marvel Comics

Oh come on, you’ve seen this one coming. When DC wins, Marvel is the biggest loser and vice-versa. But to say that DC suddenly cleaning their act caught Marvel by surprise would be an understatement. It might even be said that their own behavior allowed Rebirth to succeed - after all the big plot twist if Rebirth Special, the big reveal that could have easily turned people against DC, has been overshadowed by Marvel turning Captain America into a Nazi. Compared to THAT what DC did seemed much less outrageous and many people seem to be more open-minded to the Rebirth as a whole as a reason.

After consistently losing in sales for months, Marvel tried to desperately try to shift the blame on diversity, bloat their sales, copy Rebirth with Legacy, while also making a ton of fuckups and see their bad past decisions finally catching up to them. It is shocking how badly they took the beating, culminating probably with a kick to the balls in form of DC nabbing Brian Bendis, Marvel’s best-selling writer - and even he was just one of the many creators who jumped ships by that point. Things have gotten so bad at Hosue of Ideas they let go their Editor-In-Chief Axel Alonso and replaced him with C.B. Cebulski. And even in that, they manage to come under fire.

While in general, both companies seem to be in the constant back and forth, when one is on top and the other starts fucking up, how drastically had the landscape shifted from New 52 era, when Marvel was seen as a dominant one even if DC was beating them at sales is, to me, a testament to how big success DC had with Rebirth. Now the question remains if they manage to keep it up going forward - which I sincerely wish to them. Because let me say something - DC Rebirth made me fall in love with so many aspects of DC Universe I didn’t care about before and it even made me seek some older DC titles. And that, I feel is the best testament to Rebirth’s success.

If you feel I have missed any winner or loser or just want to call me an idiot for something I’ve said, comments and reblogs are welcome.

- Admin

122 notes · View notes

reads29 · 3 years

Text

Chasing the Scream: The Search for the Truth about Addiction

By Johann Hari

Johann Hari has witnessed the pain and destruction wrought by drugs - his family members and his ex-boyfriend experienced addiction. It was primarily these circumstances that motivated him to learn more about the so-called “war” on drugs - this book is a product of that process. Hari writes about how the war on drugs began and how it has evolved over the decades. He includes the conversations he has with researchers, politicians, families, health professionals and police (https://chasingthescream.com/ includes a comprehensive listing of the interviewees and various recordings) - he talks with individuals who have had substance use problems in the past, individuals who continue to use, those whose loved ones have died as a direct result of substance use, and those whose loved ones have died as an indirect result of the war on drugs itself. For the book, Hari travelled to many places including Portugal, Mexico, the US, the UK, Vietnam, Switzerland, Sweden and Uruguay. He explores the various policies and histories of these countries.

The book has received considerable attention, it has been praised but also criticized. It was not difficult to find criticisms online from esteemed people challenging Hari’s approach, data, citations, and various historical examples. For example, one of Hari’s aims in this book, is challenging the pharmaceutical theory of addiction (i.e. drugs are “so chemically powerful they hijack your brain”). Hari cites the Rat Park experiment and relies on it heavily to argue this point. But his perspective, analysis and interpretation of this experiment is oversimplified - the experiment itself is flawed, has not been able to be replicated, and has been widely criticised. Hari argues that the experiment shows environment is the key (if not only) factor in addiction, but he overstates its influence and disregards the significance of biological contributors in addiction. Either way, his writing has definitely added to and encouraged discussion about: whether drug use should be dealt with as a health issue or a criminal/legal issue, how and why people use drugs, and how and why different people, governments and countries have implemented different ways to change drug use in society. He writes extensively about the trauma and disconnection faced by individuals struggling with substance use - how the repression and punishment of addicts arguably pushes them deeper into their addictive behaviours as they become further ostracised and disengaged.

Hari is both thorough and moving in his writing about how and why shame and stigma become further entrenched when addiction is made a crime, and how the cycle of trauma, drug use and punishment becomes endless without adequate and effective treatment and prevention. He juxtaposes the US (as an example of how policing and punishment dominate over treatment/prevention) with Portugual to illustrate how differing approaches to drug use affect stigma and a person’s ability/willingness to seek help and support for addiction. Punishing someone, shaming them, caging them and making them unemployable “traps them in addiction” whereas with the correct treatment team in a safe, trusting environment, that person can instead “do something [they] have been running away from for years - express [their] emotions, and tell [their] story truthfully.” While in parts confronting, what I found most interesting to read about was the social, emotional and cultural underpinnings of drug use - how drugs may be used in desperation, after trauma, or for pain to “fill the emptiness that threatens to destroy” someone. Below are some of the quotes from the book that I found most though-provoking:

“A kid who is neglected or beaten or raped finds it hard to trust people and to form healthy bonds with them, so they often become isolated... Professor Peter Cohen writes that we should stop using the word “addiction” altogether and shift to a new word: “bonding”. Human beings need to bond. It is one of our most primal urges. So if we can’t bond with other people, we will find a behaviour to bond with, whether it’s watching pornography or smoking crack or gambling. If the only bond you can find that gives you relief or meaning is with splayed women on a computer screen or bags of crystal or a roulette wheel, you will return to that bond obsessively. One recovering heroin and crack addict on the Downtown Eastside, Dean Wilson, put it to me simply: “Addiction,” he said, “is a disease of loneliness.”

“Could it be that these hard-core addicts were all terribly damaged before they found their drugs? What if the discovery of drugs wasn’t the earthquake in their life, but only one of the aftershocks?”

“If your problem is being chronically starved of social bonds, then part of the solution is to bond with the heroin itself and the relief it gives you. But a bigger part is to bond with the subculture that comes with taking heroin - the tribe of fellow users all embarked on the same mission and facing the same threats and risking death every day with you. It gives you an identity. It gives you a life of highs and lows, instead of relentless monotony. The world stops being indifferent to you, and starts being hostile - which is at least proof that you exist, that you aren’t dead already... the heroin helps users deal with the pain of being unable to form normal bonds with other humans. The heroin subculture gives them bonds with other human beings.”

“The wonder of nicotine patches, then, is that they can meet a smoker’s physical need - the real in-your-gut craving - while bypassing some of the really dangerous effects of smoking tobacco. So if the idea of addiction we all have in our heads is right, nicotine patches will have a very high success rate. Your body is hooked on the chemical; it gets the chemical from the nicotine patch; therefore, you won’t need to smoke anymore. The pharmacology of nicotine patches works just fine - you really are giving smokers the drug they are addicted to. The level of nicotine in your bloodstream doesn’t drop if you use them, so that chemical craving is gone. There is just one problem: even with a nicotine patch, you still want to smoke. The Office of the Surgeon General has found that just 17.7% of nicotine patch wearers were able to stop smoking. How can this be? There’s only one explanation: something is going on that is more significant than the chemicals in the drug itself. If solving the craving for the chemical ends 17.7% of the addictions in smokers, the other 82.3% has to be explained some other way... that the chemicals themselves are the main cause of drug addiction - that assertion doesn’t match the evidence... with the most powerful and deadly drug in our culture, the actual chemicals account for only 17.7% of the compulsion to use [difficult to quantify this directly, but won’t unload about that here...]... a [key] distinction... physical dependence occurs when your body has become hooked on a chemical, and you will experience some withdrawal symptoms if you stop... but addiction is different. Addiction is the psychological state of feeling you need the drug to give you the sensation of feeling calmer, or manic, or numbed, or whatever it does for you... you can nurse addicts through their withdrawal pains for weeks and see the chemical hooks slowly pass, only for them to relapse months or years later, even though any chemical craving in the body has long since gone. They are no longer physically dependent - but they are addicted. As a culture, for one hundred years, we have convinced ourselves that a real but fairly small aspect of addiction - physical dependence - is the whole show. “It’s really like,” Gabor told me one night, “we’re still operating out of Newtonian physics in an age of quantum physics. Newtonian physics is very valuable, of course. It deals with a lot of things - but it doesn’t deal with the heart of things.”

“The answer doesn’t lie in access. It lies in agony. Outbreaks of drug addiction have always taken place, he proved, when there was a sudden rise in isolation and distress - from the gin-soaked slums of London [1700s] to the terrified troops in Vietnam... deep driver of the prescription drug crisis [in the US]?... The American middle class had been painfully crumbling even before the Great Crash produced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Ordinary Americans are finding themselves flooded with stress and fear. That, Bruce’s [Professor Bruce Alexander] theory suggests, is why they are leaning more and more heavily on Oxycontin and Vicodin to numb their pain.”

Substance abuse is “only a symptom of some suffering, and we have to reach the reasons that make addicts want to be out of their heads much of the time... You can stop using drugs for a while, but if you don’t solve the problems you have in your mind, things will come back. We have to work [on] the trauma in your life, and only then can you change the way you deal with it.”

0 notes

shitmodelmanagement-blog · 6 years

Text

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/style/mario-testino-bruce-weber-harassment.html

Male Models Say Mario Testino and Bruce Weber Sexually Exploited Them

For a fashion model, success is the ability to incite desire. The job requirements often include nudity and feigning seduction; provocation is a lever for sales. In the industry, boundaries between the acceptable and the unacceptable treatment of models have been etched in shades of gray.

This has allowed prominent photographers to cross the line with impunity for decades, sexually exploiting models and assistants. The experience, once seen as the price models had to pay for their careers, is now being called something else: abuse of power and sexual harassment.

Fifteen current and former male models who worked with Bruce Weber, whose racy advertisements for companies like Calvin Klein and Abercrombie & Fitch helped turn him into one of the foremost commercial and fine art photographers, have described to The New York Times a pattern of what they said was unnecessary nudity and coercive sexual behavior, often during photo shoots.

The men recalled, with remarkable consistency, private sessions with Mr. Weber in which he asked them to undress and led them through breathing and “energy” exercises. Models were asked to breathe and to touch both themselves and Mr. Weber, moving their hands wherever they felt their “energy.” Often, Mr. Weber guided their hands with his own.

“I remember him putting his fingers in my mouth, and him grabbing my privates,” said the model Robyn Sinclair. “We never had sex or anything, but a lot of things happened. A lot of touching. A lot of molestation.”

In accounts going back to the mid-1990s, 13 male assistants and models who have worked with the photographer Mario Testino, a favorite of the English royal family and Vogue, told The Times that he subjected them to sexual advances that in some cases included groping and masturbation.

Representatives for both photographers said they were dismayed and surprised by the allegations.

“I’m completely shocked and saddened by the outrageous claims being made against me, which I absolutely deny,” Mr. Weber said in a statement from his lawyer.

Lavely & Singer, a law firm that represents Mr. Testino, challenged the characters and credibility of people who complained of harassment, and also wrote that it had spoken to several former employees who were “shocked by the allegations” and that those employees “could not confirm any of the claims.”

Those who said they were on the receiving end of unwanted attention felt the choice was clear: acquiesce and be rewarded with lucrative ad campaign work, or reject the approach and risk hobbling, or destroying, a career. Many said they still would not speak publicly.

In fashion, young men are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Male models are “the least respected and most disposable,” said the former model Trish Goff.

“It was general practice to give a model a heads-up about a specific photographer who we knew had a certain reputation,” said Gene Kogan of his time working as an agent at Next Management between 1996 and 2002.

But, he said, “If you said you were not going to work with someone like Bruce Weber or Mario Testino, you might as well just pack it in and go work in another industry.”

As in Hollywood, allegations of harassment and assault have been aired periodically over the decades with little lasting effect. From agents to stylists to fashion brands, the system has traditionally seemed more invested in preserving its image of perfection and glamour than in recognizing its bad actors.

Regular revelations of abuse of female models — as far back as a “60 Minutes” investigation of modeling agencies in Paris in 1988 — faded away. Agents accused of raping young models in their charge continued to work. The photographer Terry Richardson, after being accused in one documentary of sexual assault of female models, continued to work for major fashion brands until reporting on the producer Harvey Weinsteinchanged the landscape.

The Mentor

When Madonna had her first daughter, the person who photographed her baby pictures for Vanity Fair was Mr. Testino, 63. He was also the man who immortalized the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton. In 2014 he received an OBE. He recently photographed the February cover of Vogue, featuring Serena Williams and her daughter. Known for his ebullience and charm, he is adored by celebrities, and has worked with such brands as Michael Kors, Burberry and Dolce & Gabbana.

Two models have also complained about his behavior in the course of photographing Gucci campaigns in the ’90s.

“If you wanted to work with Mario, you needed to do a nude shoot at the Chateau Marmont,” said Jason Fedele, who appeared in those campaigns. “All the agents knew that this was the thing to excel or advance your career.”

The nude work bothered him less than what he believed were sexual come-ons. It was as if Mr. Testino were gauging which “moves” might work, Mr. Fedele said — “whether it was a comment or a reach for the towel, and he definitely reached.”

“He was a sexual predator,” said Ryan Locke, who succeeded Mr. Fedele with Gucci.

Mr. Locke said that when he told other models that he was going to meet Mr. Testino, “everyone started making these jokes — they said he was notorious, and ‘tighten your belt.’”

The casting took place at Mr. Testino’s hotel. Instead of greeting Mr. Locke in the lobby, Mr. Testino was in his room, where he opened the door in a loose robe, Mr. Locke said. Then they got into a stalemate about whether the model needed to go fully nude for test pictures.

After Gucci hired Mr. Locke for an ad campaign, Mr. Testino was aggressive and flirtatious throughout, Mr. Locke said. On the last day of the shoot, as they were taking photographs on a bed, Mr. Testino said, “I don’t think he’s feeling it. Everybody out,” Mr. Locke recalled.

“He shuts the door and locks it. Then he crawls on the bed, climbs on top of me and says, ‘I’m the girl, you’re the boy.’ I went at him, like, you better get away. I threw the towel on him, put my clothes on and walked out,” Mr. Locke said.

Tom Ford, then the designer for Gucci, said he had not been present and could not know what happened. He said he was sympathetic to anyone who had been harassed, but also cautioned that if a photographer needs a shot of a model’s face on a bed, there are very few angles to get it from.

Former assistants said that Mr. Testino had a pattern of hiring young, usually heterosexual men and subjecting them to increasingly aggressive advances.

Hugo Tillman was not long out of Occidental College when he started freelancing as a photo assistant for Mr. Testino in 1996. Mr. Testino took him and his mother to lunch and told them he wanted to mentor him. “I really liked him — I really looked up to him,” Mr. Tillman said.

He moved to Paris and began working full time as Mr. Testino’s fourth assistant, and was soon promoted to third. “It seemed like what Robert Altman would show, a fantasy of fashion.” But, he said, “I was often made to feel uncomfortable on shoots, asked to massage Mario in front of other assistants, models and fashion editors.”

One night after a dinner, Mr. Tillman said the photographer grabbed him on the street and tried to kiss him. A few weeks later, while on a business trip, Mr. Tillman met Mr. Testino in his hotel room. Mr. Testino demanded that the assistant roll him a joint, then threw him down on a bed, climbed on top of him and pinned down his arms, Mr. Tillman said. Mr. Testino’s brother came into the room and made the photographer get off Mr. Tillman.

Lawyers for Mr. Testino said Mr. Testino’s brother “is adamant that no such incident ever took place.” Mr. Tillman’s former girlfriend confirmed in an interview that he relayed this story to her at the time. He also submitted testimony regarding the experience to the New York City Commission on Human Rights last December.

“I was scared,” he said of the hotel room experience. “I didn’t know what was going to happen.” Mr. Tillman quit the next weekend, and is now a fine art photographer, who has been exhibited at the National Portrait Gallery in London and the Shanghai Biennale.

Taber, a model who worked with Mr. Testino for much of the late ’90s and early 2000s (he used only his first name professionally), described Mr. Testino as a friend until he stuck his hand down the back of Taber’s pants, and showed up at his hotel room asking for sex. “He was a mentor who took it a step too far,” he said.

“Sexual harassment was a constant reality,” said Roman Barrett, an assistant to Mr. Testino in the late ’90s who said the photographer rubbed up against his leg with an erection and masturbated in front of him.

“He misbehaved in hotel rooms, the backs of cars and on first-class flights,” he said. “Then things would go back to normal, and that made you feel gaslighted.”

Another assistant to Mr. Testino, a decade later, said he had his pants pulled down and buttocks fondled while on the job. Yet another said that Mr. Testino masturbated on him during a business trip. Both were granted anonymity because they feared career repercussions.

Even those who worked for Mr. Testino without experiencing the most direct harassment were affected. “I saw him with his hands down people’s pants at least 10 times,” said Thomas Hargreave, a shoot producer who worked frequently with Mr. Testino between 2008 and 2016. “Mario behaved often as if it was all a big joke. But it wasn’t funny. And the guys being placed in these situations wouldn’t know how to react. They would look at me, like, ‘What’s going on? How do I deal with this?’ It was terrible.”

Lavely & Singer, the law firm that represents Mr. Testino, said in a letter in response to these accounts that the individuals who spoke with The Times “cannot be considered reliable sources.” They wrote that Mr. Tillman had spoken well of Mr. Testino before, and called his mental health into question, so it “would be extremely reckless” to rely on him as a source. Regarding Mr. Fedele, who complained about private nude shoots, Mr. Testino’s lawyers said that the model had been photographed nude by others and had posted a nude picture of himself, taken by Herb Ritts, to Instagram in 2015. They also wrote that Mr. Hargreave and Mr. Barrett were disgruntled former employees.

“I was pushed around, overworked, underpaid and sexually harassed daily,” Mr. Barrett said. “That’s why I was disgruntled.”

“I’m telling the truth because this needs to stop now,” Mr. Hargreave said.

Selling Sex

As Calvin Klein, who created a hypersexual image for his brand with the help of Mr. Weber, recently told The Times, “I picked the images the same way I always did: what got my heart racing.” (Mr. Weber has not worked with the brand that bears Mr. Klein’s name since 2008.) Whatever it takes to get that shot has been acceptable.

“We sell sex,” Mr. Ford said.

Jessie English, a female photographer who spent three years as an assistant primarily to male photographers before going out on her own, described the attitude she saw on fashion shoots this way: “If I need to touch you between your legs or grab your breasts so you get the right look on your face, that’s just the way it is.”

Fashion and media brands say it is up to agencies to protect models, while the agencies say it is up to the brands not to hire photographers with bad reputations. For their part, the photographers say they do what they do to get the best picture — which is what the clients want.

And no union exists for models, whose youth and eagerness for a measure of stardom make them disinclined to complain.

“Models are not educated about what is or is not acceptable behavior, and often don’t even have the vocabulary to express their experiences,” said Edward Siddons, a model turned journalist.

“Male models are paid much less and they do not become icons, because the culture is about objectifying women to sell things, and people are deeply uncomfortable with that happening to men,” Mr. Ford said.

“I knew that if people didn’t want to have sex with you and people didn’t find you beautiful, you weren’t much inspiration,” Taber said. “The models that got jobs are the ones stylists and photographers are into. I also wanted people to like me, especially the most powerful people in the business. I would almost get offended if they didn’t want to have sex with me. That’s how I got groomed. That’s how it worked in my mind.”

Advances often take place in casting sessions and private photo shoots, Mr. Fedele said, reflecting partly on his experience with Mr. Testino. “Those are the pivot points for photographers to test the waters on whether or not it’s going to be a challenge for them to get to you,” he said. “Because if you do get the job, the majority of the time you’re not naked and you’re not in a swimsuit. So what’s really happening is that these guys are gauging whether you’re open or shy or close-minded or, quite frankly, whether you’re gay or hetero and willing either to flirt with them or to submit to an advance.”

Breathing Exercises

Since the 1970s, Mr. Weber, 71, has been one of the most important commercial and fine art photographers. His name has become “synonymous with erotically charged depictions of good-looking young men,” The Times wrote in 1999.

In 2005, he photographed the model Robyn Sinclair for Ralph Lauren. They worked together on numerous other jobs. According to Mr. Sinclair, “breathing exercises” — both in person and over the phone — were a repeated feature of their relationship.

“It’s like I was willing and unwilling at the same time,” he said. “I wanted to work.”

Models say that Mr. Weber was given to private audiences with young men, on long walks during lunch breaks and private visits in his room.

“They even have a term for it: ‘He’s going to get Brucified,’” said Rudi Dollmayer, a Swedish model who shot with Mr. Weber three times.

“It’s presented as an option, but it isn’t really,” Erin Williams, a female model on two of Mr. Weber’s campaigns for Abercrombie & Fitch, said of working nude. In testimony to the New York City Commission on Human Rights, she wrote: “The models that didn’t go nude were always cut on day two, and those who did would stay for additional shoot days. The boys who would socialize with Bruce after the shoots, alone in his hotel room, would get booked for longer with the carrot of a major campaign being dangled in front of them.”

In 2011, during a shoot for Vogue Hommes International in Miami, Mr. Weber summoned the model Josh Ardolf, then 20, to a private room. Mr. Weber photographed him in the nude and then, when Mr. Ardolf seemed uncomfortable, led him through an exercise.

“I was guiding his hand,” Mr. Ardolf said. “We did the chest, the shoulders, the head. Then I finally put his hand on my abs. Did the breathing. Right after that, he forced his hand right on my genitals. I was first in shock. I didn’t know what to think. I backed up. I felt very, very uncomfortable and very sick.”

“I felt helpless,” Mr. Ardolf said. “Like my agency said, he has a lot of power. He’s done a lot of large campaigns. That was in the back of my mind. ‘I can’t screw this up. I already made it this far.’”

Mr. Weber mentioned future campaigns when he followed up with Mr. Ardolf in a series of phone calls in subsequent months. He repeated the exercises over the phone and asked Mr. Ardolf to touch his genitals and stimulate himself, Mr. Ardolf said.

“The first thing I was told about Bruce was that he puts people in really precarious situations,” said Terron Wood, a model who shot several ad campaigns with Mr. Weber between 2007 and 2010.

His first job was for Ruehl, a now defunct Abercrombie brand, when he was summoned alone to Mr. Weber’s hotel room.

Mr. Weber put his hand on Mr. Wood’s forehead and told him to close his eyes and breathe in deeply. Then Mr. Weber moved back and began taking pictures, telling Mr. Wood to grab his shirt, which he was to pull up or down. From there, Mr. Weber instructed him to do the same thing with his shorts.

“After going as high as Steve Urkel, the only option was down,” Mr. Wood said.

Eventually, Mr. Wood’s genitals were displayed, with Mr. Weber continuing to photograph him.

“It unfolded slowly,” Mr. Wood said. “He’s directing you, and the peak moment is when you’re fully exposed and being told to hold it. ‘Hold that pose.’ And you’re wondering what the pictures are even for. Because you’re not on set. You’re thinking, ‘This isn’t what I’m getting paid for.’”

He also felt guilty, he said, knowing that he’d agreed to show Mr. Weber his penis only because “he was the photographer for Ralph Lauren.” Mr. Weber did end up booking him for a Ralph Lauren campaign.

Bobby Roaché, a model who went for a casting with Mr. Weber in 2007 and left after he said the photographer tried to “stick his hands down my pants,” described the reaction from one of his agents: “That’s all he did? You should have gone further.”

The model Monty Hooper said Mr. Weber told him he had “to learn to be more vulnerable” at a test shoot at the photographer’s TriBeCa studio in 2014. At the shoot, Mr. Hooper stopped undressing before revealing his genitals, so Mr. Weber led him through a breathing exercise. “If I’m more vulnerable,” Mr. Hooper said he was told, “I’ll go a lot farther in my career modeling.”

“He was hugging me really closely,” Mr. Hooper said. Disturbed, he thanked Mr. Weber and left. After that, he said, the amount of work he was sent for dried up immediately.

Mr. Hooper was roommates with a number of models in an apartment maintained by Soul Artist Management, many of whom worked with Mr. Weber. “This is big for you. You have to nail this,” the agency’s founder, Jason Kanner, told one of them, Jason Boyce, before a test shoot, according to a lawsuit Mr. Boyce filed in December in New York State Supreme Court against Mr. Weber, Mr. Kanner and Little Bear Inc., the production company run by the photographer’s companion and agent, Nan Bush.

In his complaint, Mr. Boyce said that Mr. Weber groped him and kissed him. In a response filed in late December, lawyers for Mr. Weber described the entire complaint as “false.” (Mr. Kanner indicated he would respond as well this month.) Mr. Boyce’s lawyer is Lisa Bloom, who represented Harvey Weinstein at the time he was first accused of sexual misconduct but who more often represents harassment claimants.

At the lawsuit’s announcement — which Mr. Weber’s lawyers described as a “defamatory press conference” in their filing — Ms. Bloom produced another roommate, Mark Ricketson, who said that Mr. Weber also led him through an inappropriate exercise in 2005, when he was 18.

“I have used common breathing exercises and professionally photographed thousands of nude models over my career, but never touched anyone inappropriately. Given my life’s work, these twisted and untrue allegations are truly disheartening. I’ve been taking pictures for over 40 years and have the utmost respect for everyone I’ve ever photographed. I would never, ever, try to hurt anyone or prevent someone from succeeding — it’s just not in my character,” Mr. Weber said in his statement to The Times.

Jeff Aquilon, a longtime muse whom Mr. Weber discovered in 1978, said in December that he had never had a bad experience with the photographer.

“What I’ve heard over the last couple of days is so uncharacteristic of what I would expect out of him that it kind of blew my mind,” Mr. Aquilon said. “I did speak to him a day or two ago. I said: ‘Bruce, I can’t believe what is out there. Sorry to hear what you’re going to have to go through here.’ He just said, ‘Will you pray for us?’ I said I definitely would.”

#shitmodelmgmt #shitmodelmanagement #Mario Testino #Bruce Weber #Abuse of power #Mentor

2 notes · View notes

mfmagazine · 5 years

Photo

Nazanin Boniadi

Article by Star Noor

Photo by Sean Costello

Charismatic and beautiful Nazanin Boniadi is the epitome of a collective awareness, the poster child of what today' artist should be, and a damned good actor to boot. More than just a captivating beauty with attention grabbing tricks up her sleeve, Nazanin is an award winning performer and honor role brainiac. The epitomy of a modern woman with a broad spectrum of artistic talents she is both a reliable and relatable voice we all need in those who drive our popular culture. With roles in blockbuster films like Charlie Wilson's War and Iron Man, and in TV shows such as 24 Season 8, The Deep End, and Hawthorne- Nazanin is rapidly becoming a shining star in Hollywood Land. She was born in Tehran, Iran at the climax of the Iranian Revolution causing her family to relocate to London where she grew up. From an early age her passion for the arts was apparent receiving a merit from the Royal College of Music for playing the violin, a certificate in ballet from the Vaccani School of Dance, and winning the British "Yamaha Electone Festival" for her proficiency on the electric organ. But, in her college years Nazanin decided to forgo the arts for the more "stable and secure" lifestyle of a physician and so she relocated to the U.S. to attend the University of California, Irvine. During her years at the university Nazanin not only graduated with Honors but also won the competitive "Chang Pin Chun" Undergraduate Research Award for her work in heart-transplant rejection and cancer research. Suffice it to say, being satisfied in her abilities, Nazanin felt free to put down the microscope and pursue her first and truest calling- the performing arts. Since then she has become the first actor in a contract role to portray a Middle Eastern character in U.S. daytime history, a role that won her the 2008 NAACP Image Award Nomination for Outstanding Actress in a Daytime Drama Series. But, perhaps more impressive than her collegial and performing resumes are her global humanitarian efforts. Lending her voice as an Official Spokesperson for Amnesty International Nazanin has been working both at the grassroots level and appearing on numerous international TV and radio programs to campaign for human rights. Her most current and perhaps effective efforts have been to bring attention to the unjust conviction and treatment of Iranian youth, women, and prisoners who have been targeted maliciously in the past decades. In her outreach she has worked to create and support acts which will help ensure the end to the injustices of this world meeting globally with political leaders, prominent human rights attorneys, and addressing the United Nations while continuing to create an impressive body of work as a groundbreaking artist. With Amnesty International turning 50 next year, a mega mix of sadness for the continuance of tragic human rights violations and a celebratory year for the many good works the organization has been able to accomplish, the time has come to get to know what being a tireless activist with a face of celebrity is all about and for that we turned to one of the most determined and talented artists striving for those freedoms we all should possess. You are an Amnesty International Spokesperson, why did you choose this organization to work with as opposed to others? Growing up in London, I remember watching entertainers I admired like John Cleese, Rowan Atkinson and the guys of Monty Python, Bob Geldof and Sting perform in the Secret Policeman’s Ball, an annual televised benefit concert that raised money for Amnesty International so I was very aware of this great organization. When personally considering a philanthropic partner who could use my voice most effectively, I was inspired by the way they educate and engage millions of individuals to advocate those in need, and because of their strong history of support from musicians such as Sting, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Nicolas Cage, and Jennifer Hudson I knew they are able to work within the entertainment industry to appropriately utilize artists to rally the widest group of people possible to affect positive change, that is really what being a spokesperson is all about. Artists and entertainers were the first group of people to make me aware of what human rights are. Now, if I can have just a fraction of the impact on future generations through my human rights advocacy that the artists I grew up watching and admiring had on me, I would be thrilled. In the broad spectrum of Amnesty's reach which issues have you tried to advocate personally and why? Over the past two years I have focused my attention on 3 main areas. The first has been general human rights advocacy, using my platform to help educate new generations on the 30 articles of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and how we are all compromised when human rights are violated. It is my dream to have human rights education be part of every high school curriculum across the world, because knowledge is power and you cannot defend what you do not know. The Second has been lending my support to the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA), the only piece of legislation I have read that provides an effective solution to the global epidemic of violence toward women and girls. I believe it is a vital step toward world peace. I am pleased to say that this important bill was re-introduced in the 111th Congress by bipartisan teams in the House and the Senate on February 4th, 2010. The third and most intense area of focus has been campaigning for human rights in my homeland of Iran. Most recently, I had the pleasure of partnering with the wonderful rock band The Airborne Toxic Event on ‘The Neda Project’ respectfully named after a young Iranian woman Neda Agha-Soltan who was brutally shot while peacefully protesting the election results in the streets of Tehran. This was a series of events held in conjunction with the one year anniversary of the disputed presidential election, and in support of the human rights movement in Iran. Neda has become the face of the resistance and symbolizes the struggle for freedom in that country. The Neda Project culminated on June 20th, 2010, the anniversary of Neda’s death, in one massive online demonstration at nedaspeaks.org, in solidarity with the people of Iran. Numerous celebrities from Academy Award winning writer/director Paul Haggis, to recording artists such as Sting, Ne-Yo, Jay Z, and the Dixie Chicks, and actors such as Alyssa Milano and Cary Elwes supported the campaign. Tell me about any one issue you wish the world knew more about and focused more on. There is a growing child prostitution and sex slavery crisis in Iran that has been exasperated by its discriminatory treatment of women. Since sex is such a taboo subject in much of the Middle East, there is no room for public discourse on how women and girls can protect themselves against sexual predators, unwanted pregnancies, and infectious disease. Unfortunately, one of the tragic consequences has been a spike in HIV/AIDS infection in recent years. Education and awareness would go a long way in helping solve this devastating problem worldwide. As a woman what would you say to the Iranian women fighting for their rights in the country today? Women in Iran have proven their tenacity and steadfast devotion to human rights. Not only have they been at the forefront of the protests against the disputed presidential election of 2009, but for years they have been the driving force in campaigns for democracy, equality, and freedom. That’s why they have been dubbed “Shir-Zan” or “lioness”, because of their incredible fearlessness in the face of tyranny. I am in awe of these women. They are true heroines, each and every one. And when the women of a country are this brave, they set an incredible example for their children to follow, and there can only be optimism for the future of that society. The majority of rapes in Iran go unreported to the authorities because of the lack of public knowledge in victim advocacy and the government's inability to adopt laws which protect women instead of wrongfully persecuting them for allowing themselves to get caught in a situation where they might lose their chastity. As an ambassador for human rights, would you agree with this statement and what are your thoughts on the matter? The accusation of rape is a very sensitive subject for public discussion in Iran for several reasons: Firstly, the Islamic Republic’s penal system views the testimony of women as having half the value of a man’s. Such discrimination has had terrible repercussions on how women are perceived and treated by society. Secondly, rape does not constitute a separate criminal offense in the Iranian Penal Code and the rape of women is dealt with by the Judiciary under the zena provisions of the Code, or “penetrative sexual relations outside marriage”. Under Islamic law, such offenses are considered crimes against God, rather than crimes against a person, and are thus punishable by the death penalty. So, even if a woman can prove that penetration did in fact occur, she would be in danger of being executed due to the loss of chastity and a “crime against God”. The cumulative effect of these oppressive laws, make it almost impossible for women to speak out and seek justice when raped. Any kind of meaningful victim advocacy can only exist once these unjust laws have been rewritten to protect rape victims, rather than to punish them. What do you think about Hollywood as a place for Iranian performers? When I first started auditioning in 2006, Hollywood had a post-9/11 mentality toward Middle Eastern actors. There was an abundance of casting calls for terrorists, battered wives and store clerks. However, with the unfortunate political climate also came an ever increasing demand for Iranian actors, which seems to have encouraged more of our youth to study the performing arts and join the auditioning pool. So, over time the number of Iranian actors working in Hollywood has increased, which I count as a blessing. Fortunately, the roles are becoming far more mainstream, and less stereotypical. For example, ABC recently shot a pilot episode for Funny in Farsi, based on the book by Firoozeh Dumas, so it seems we are being more accepted in the social consciousness of the industry. I look forward to the day when an Iranian actor can open a movie in the U.S. and across the world. I don’t think we are too far away from that day. What can you tell us about your latest film? I had the good fortune of working on a wonderfully smart and witty short film last year, called Diplomacy, which is currently playing in the international film festival circuit. Diplomacy was written and directed by Jon Goldman, who last directed Grey’s Anatomy’s Sandra Oh, in the 2005 short film Kind of a Blur. It is a political comedy that examines the possibility of diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, and how subtle changes in rhetoric can potentially change the course of history, for better or worse. It was a blessing to work with my co-stars: Michelle Forbes, Omid Abtahi and Navid Negahban, all extremely talented actors. The film won The Audience Award at The Paris International Film Festival in 2009, and received Special Jury Awards at Aspen Shorts Fest, and the USA Film Festival in Dallas in 2010. I also feel humbled to have received a Best Actress Nomination for my portrayal of Azar, the Persian Interpreter in this film, from the 2010 Short Shorts Film Festival in Tokyo, Japan. It’s been a fun ride! If you could play the lead in any film based on any Persian fable which story would it be and why this one? I would love to play the role of Manijeh in the love story Bijan and Manijeh, from Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh. It is an Iranian Romeo and Juliet story, except for there is a happy ending: Bijan falls in love with Manijeh, daughter of the king of Turan and enemy of Iran, Afrasiyab. After Afrasiyab punishes Bijan by ordering him to be imprisoned in a deep well in the desert, and banishes Manijeh to that same dessert, Manijeh digs a tunnel to Bijan’s prison, begs for food every day and takes it to him to keep him alive. She later helps the great Iranian hero, Rostam rescue Bijan from the pit. Her strength, determination, loyalty and love for Bijan are unwavering throughout. It would make a beautiful epic feature film. What do you think about the state of Iranian cinema today? The excellent caliber of Iranian filmmaking over the last few decades at the hands of such incredible directors as Abbas Kiarostami, Jafar Panahi, and Bahman Ghobadi, has secured Iranian cinema as one of the most respected and critically acclaimed artistic cinemas. It is amazing that such artistic excellence can exist under Iran’s severe censorship rules. Imagine how much more they could flourish if they were afforded the same artistic freedom of self-expression that we enjoy, and often take for granted. It would be a dream and an honor to work with these esteemed Iranian directors, in an environment where they face no governmental interference or restrictions on the stories they wish to tell. Which performers do you admire the most who have influenced you as an actor? I fell in love with the idea of acting when I first watched Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. Her on-screen charm is simply unparalleled. What is your dream role? I love playing powerful women with an underlying frailty and a complex inner conflict to resolve. I’m particularly drawn to period pieces. There’s something very magical about being able to transport an audience to another era, whether it is Biblical, set during the Persian or Roman Empires, or the Renaissance. I am also passionate about taking on a role in a film with a strong human rights theme, such as Rachel Weisz’s character in The Constant Gardner. It would be an exceptionally fulfilling way to fuse my work as an activist with my craft as a performer. If Azar Nafisi’s memoir, Reading Lolita in Tehran, should ever be turned into a feature film, it would be a dream to play any one of Ms. Nafisi’s students, each of whom possesses the type of free-thinking bravado and inner conviction needed to challenge an oppressive society and eventually break the chains of tyranny. Any upcoming projects we should be looking out for? I will be appearing in Paul Haggis’s upcoming movie, The Next Three Days, which is scheduled to hit theaters in November 2010. It is a remake of the 2008 French film, Pour Elle. It was such an honor working with Paul. He is incredibly nurturing and supportive of his actors. He is also a devoted human rights activist whom I have a ton of respect for. And the experience of acting opposite Russell Crowe was incredibly powerful.

0 notes

drcolumbosnotepad · 7 years

Text

Muhammad Ali | Michael J. Fox | Pope Saint John Paul II | Maurice White | Charles Schultz

Muhammad Ali (January 17, 1942 – June 3, 2016)

“Float like a butterfly sting like a bee – his hands can’t hit what his eyes can’t see.”

When we think of boxing we only think of one name - that man is Muhammad Ali. Quite simply, the greatest of all time (G.O.A.T). Though he was before my time (even the heyday of 90′s boxing was before my time - sorry to make you feel old), his name persisted in the history books and Guinness World Records and became something of a legendary figure much like how Bruce Lee was (see Bruce Lee post) It was until I decided to watch some old youtube clips with some friends did I realise how incredible this man was. I’m writing this after witnessing Roger Federer’s truly amazing resurgence as an 35 year old elder statesman in tennis and cementing his position as the G.O.A.T in his sport. His boxing wins in his twilight years - brashly and sensationally named Rumble in the Jungle (1974) and Thriller in Manilla (1975) were just that.

Muhammad Ali became equally famous for popularising the trash talk - hilarious and brutal at the same time. Something we hear from Premier League football managers and cocky rappers endlessly. His death in 2016 crowned off what became the obituary year - it is unlikely we’ll ever see a force like him again.

Rumble in the Jungle (1974)

youtube

For more of Muhammad Ali’s amazing collection of quotes and trash talking see here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/boxing/2016/06/03/muhammad-ali-best-quotes-boxing/85370850/

Michael J Fox

Back to the Future (1985)

youtube

Think of the 80′s and you’ll think of Spielberg, Cold War and Back to the Future and Michael J Fox. Is there a better icon for the teenager everybody wanted to be than Marty McFly? The confident kid that made us fellow short kids proud, there was always that crack in the voice in times of standing up to Biff and that wide eyed bewilderment to Doc Brown’s crazy antics that made him feel even more relatable. Although Back to the Future is the movie he’ll always be remembered for - and quite rightly, it’s a classic. Teen Wolf holds a special place in my heart. Also check out his episode on Curb Your Enthusiasm which became one of my favourites on the whole show. Here’s an additional video of Marty McFly’s Chuck Berry tribute: RIP

youtube

Pope Saint John Paul II (18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005)

If there’s one Pope that people will remember in the modern age, it’s Pope John Paul II. The first Polish pope whose youthfulness reignited a call towards faith and virtues to your fellow man. He became the second most travelled Pope in history following Pope Pius IX and warmed relations between peoples of the world during some patchy moments in history. No matter what your religious affiliation, we still all aspire for the same virtues and betterment of our fellow man and woman. Something that Pope John Paul II represented with his whole self.

Maurice White (December 19, 1941 – February 4, 2016)

youtube

Some call Earth, Wind & Fire cheesy, I call them inspiring (I mean just look at those dance moves!). Their lead singer, Maurice White died during the obituary year of 2016 and left behind a catalogue of funky soulful gold, just as pop music is turning its fickle head in that direction again. I’ll leave ‘September’ here, their finest hit, complete joyful nostalgia composed in one song with the continual sixth chords as its pulsing beat. Genius.

Charles Schulz (November 26, 1922 – February 12, 2000)

If there’s someone who understood kids so well - their innocence, their humour, their cruelty and their genius, it was Charles Schultz - a man who was essentially a child at heart. There’s this biting wit in Peanuts which I grew up reading in the comics section of the newspapers that I’ve only grown to appreciate with an element of world-weariness. The themes can be depressing, but always with an uplifting message. We can all learn from Charlie Brown, the heart and soul of Peanuts - a lovable loser who no matter how many times he’s failed, keeps getting up and trying again.

Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s Disease (PD) was first christened shaking palsy or paralysis agitans by Dr James Parkinson in 1817 in his ‘An Essay on the Shaking Palsy’ which came from his observations walking down a London street which was a regular habit of his – something that Charles Dickens would do some forty years later. The sheer opportunism and raw curiosity of James Parkinson to approach and follow up on the six cases mentioned in the essay is quite something. In doing so he managed to make a medical breakthrough by diagnosing a new condition. Parkinson’s contribution to this condition was made permanent being renamed in his honour by the revered neurologist, Jean-Martin Charcot. Nowadays Parkinson’s Disease (PD) is something that is ubiquitous in medicine affecting 4-20 per 100,000 each year in the UK, being twice as common in men with the mean age of diagnosis of 65 years. Yet our understanding of the disease is something we have known in the past few decades. First, PD constitutes one disease of the spectrum of Parkinsonian disorders (Parkinsonism) – which are neurodegenerative, movement disorders. Parkinsonism consists of a cardinal triad: • Tremor – worse at rest/ stressed or tired. Pill rolling in nature between thumb and forefinger (see link below)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-t4RTQ0EsM

• Rigidity/ Hypertonia – clasp knife/ cogwheel rigidity during rapid pronation/supination. (see linkbelow)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xxe2WWWoYI

• Bradykinesia/ Hypokinesia – slowness in initiating movement and repetitive actions – slow blink rate, slow arm swing, shuffling gait etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j86omOwx0Hk

Figure 1: Parkinsonian syndrome subdivisions

We will discuss the most common cause of Parkinsonism – Parkinson’s Disease

What is Parkinson’s Disease?

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurogenerative condition caused by degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. The cause of PD is unknown but certain genetic mutations in the PINK1, PARKIN or alpha synuclein genes have been attributed. In rare cases PD can be caused by MPTP, a prodrug of the neurotoxin MPP+ a drug which can be found in drugs such as desmethylprodine and recreational drugs. PD has historically been considered a motor disease linked to degeneration of midbrain dopaminergic neurons. However, because of new research that this theory isn’t so clear cut - now we know that are numerous symptoms which affect multiple, non-dopaminergic neuronal cells which we will not mention here. Dopaminergic neurons The loss of dopaminergic neurons in PD is selective in the midbrain where it particularly affects the substantia nigra pars compacta (80-90%), ventral tegmental area (40%). This loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta is the reason for deficiency in the striatum (made up of two brain regions: the caudate and putamen.

Figure 2: Neuroanatomy of the striatum

https://beyondthedish.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/basal-ganglia.jpg

Figure 3: Neuroanatomy of the Ventral-Tegmental area

http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_03/d_03_cr/d_03_cr_que/d_03_cr_que_1a.jpg

Therefore, the pathway most affected is the nigrostriatal dopaminergic pathway which leads to the disruption of the nigrostriatal dopaminergic pathway. This in turn leads to the disruption of the control of motor functions with the classic PD motor triad of: rest tremor/ bradykinesia (or akinesia) and rigidity. The reasoning for this is dopamine is necessary for stimulating the cortex and initiating movement, with low dopamine levels – there is low movement. As a rule of thumb, over 50% of the dopaminergic neurons in the substantia pars compacta need to degenerate before symptoms appear – this is an oversimplication of course, specific areas are affected and the striatal dopamine levels need to be considered as well.

Figure 4: Nigrostriatal pathway

https://journeywithparkinsons.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/nigrostriatal-pathway.jpg

In death of dopaminergic cells, Lewy bodies which are eosinophilic cells comprised of alpha synuclein protein replace them. Another disease characterised by Lewy bodies such as Lewy body dementia (which the late Robin Williams had).

Figure 5: Lewy bodies

There are other dopaminergic systems affected ranging from the CNS to the gut which can lead to other symptoms such as anosmia (loss of smell)

Figure 6: Pigmented substantia nigra

Basal ganglia motor circuit model

The basal ganglia is a collection of part of the brain: made up of the striatum (caudate and putamen), globus pallidus, ventral pallidum, substantia nigra and subthalamic nucleus. that controls movement and connects to the motor cortex. It is this circuit that the pathology of PD derives from.

Figure 7: Basal ganglia motor circuit

http://physiologyonline.physiology.org/content/nips/17/2/51/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

This model proposes the striatum, the major input region of the basal ganglia is connected to the major output region: the globus pallidus (internal part) and the substantia nigra* (pars reticulata) by a direct pathway – considered to be D1 receptor dependent; and by an indirect pathway – considered to be D2 receptor dependent that has synaptic connections with the globus pallidus (external part) and the subthalamic nucleus.

* The substantia nigra is divided into two regions: pars reticulata – receives signals from the striatum and relays messages to the thalamus via GABA. Pars compacta – relays messages to the striatum via dopamine

In normal subjects, dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra act to excite inhibitory neurons in the direct pathway and inhibit the excitatory influence of the indirect pathway.

In PD dopamine depletion leads to overactivity in the globus pallidus (internal part) and substantia nigra (pars reticulata) with excess inhibition of the thalamus and reduced activation of cortical motor regions which translate into the development of parkinsonian features.

HOWEVER this model has many errors, while the hypoactivity of the direct pathway has been confirmed by research , the hyperactivity of the indirect pathway remains a subject of debate. Given recent research reporting larger amounts of collateralisation between both pathways in primates than that reported for rodent basal ganglia, the clear distinction between the two pathways is called into scrutiny. Also, recent studies show motor, associative and limbic territories within the basal ganglia territories are separated by functional areas and not physical sharp boundaries. The difficulty of PD is that there isn’t a blanket one size fits all way approach since there are different subgroups and different aetiologies. So far there are 3 different clinical categories to classify PD patients: those responding well to levodopa ~15%, those who do not ~15%, and those whose initial good response diminishes with time ~70%. Future research is needed in this area.

Clinical features

The diagnosis of PD relies heavily on clinical examination with TWO different situations needing to be distinguished whether the examination is early in progression or later. The clinical examination and history cannot diagnose PD with 100% certainty – it is said in theory the only way to confirm a diagnosis of PD is by autopsy (which of course is a little too late). However, the prediction of the pathological findings with high certainty. PD is usually asymmetrical, characterised by the presence of akinesia and rigidity, often associated with rest tremor and is responsive to dopaminergic treatment. Motor symptoms The cardinal feature of PD is akinesia – difficulty in initiating a movement which can be measured by increased reaction time. Bradykinesia or hypokinesia is less specific than akinesia. Akinesia is also influenced by decreased motivation and mood and is thus a complex symptom whose origin is not strictly sensorimotor but also psychological. In clinical practice, these symptoms are revealed by reduced arm swing when walking, micrographia, difficult execution of fine movements e.g. fishing a coin out of pocket) The patient’s face is unexpressive, walking is slow and the feet are not raised sufficiently. Rigidity – detectable in distal joints e.g. wrist. Cogwheel rigidity – parkinsonian rigidity is plastic giving way in a series of small jerks. This rigidity can be increased following the Froment manoeuvre – active mobilisation of the contralateral limb. Lead pipe rigidity must be distinguished from pyramidal (clasp knife) rigidity and oppositional rigidity (gegenhalten) the latter being provoked or increased by movements and owing to diffuse cerebral lesions. Rest tremor – usually first symptom noticed by patient. Regular (4-6Hz frequency) and increases with emotional and mental stress (e.g. counting backwards) and when patient is walking. Postural instability – is non-specific, absent early in disease particularly in younger patients. Often the consequence of non-dopaminergic brain lesions as seen in patients with Parkinson plus syndromes. Motor symptoms in advanced PD patients can also result from non-dopaminergic lesions called axial symptoms because they evolve around the body’s central axis. Nine typical axial symptoms can be distinguished: memory impairment (subcorticofrontal syndrome), abnormal ocular movements, nuchal rigidity, dysarthria, swallowing difficulties, posture abnormalities, sphincter problems, postural instability, and abnormal gait. In addition, autonomic symptoms – sexual dysfunction, constipation, orthostatic hypotension, seborrhoea (overactive sebaceous glands) and sleep disturbances may be present.

Tests for diagnosing PD • Sequential movements (for instance drinking which associates grasping a glass followed by flexion of the elbow) or concomitant movements (executing two movements at the same time in different limbs) are altered.

• The Wisconsin Card Sorting test is used to assess executive function which is heavily affected in PD where the patient is told to match cards of different patterns and form a sense of order without being told the pattern.

• Hypometria or incomplete movement is revealed by alternate movements of the extremities. • Response to levodopa since motor symptoms result from the degeneration of the nigrostriatal dopaminergic pathway. • Four further tests may contribute to the diagnosis: neuropsychological examination, ocular movement recording, cystamanometry, brain MRI. Non-motor symptoms • Depression – most common psychiatric symptom of PD • Apathy – decreased motivation • Cognitive impairment – 40% of all PD patients develop dementia, a rate ~6x higher than in healthy individual matched for age. Subcortical type of cognitive impairment characterised by a dysexecutive syndrome including attention deficits, cognitive slowing and decreased concentration abilities. Moderate memory impairment can be observed defined by a retrieval deficit rather than an impairment in information storage. • Most if not all patients suffer from insomnia. Causes are multifactorial. Nocturnal akinesia often associated with painful dystonia (usually during bouts of severe anxiety) is a major contributive factor. • REM sleep behaviour disorder is a pathological sleep structure (parasomnia) characterised by the loss of REM sleep muscle atonia allowing patients to physically act out their dreams which are often violent. Vocalisations (talking, shouting, threats) and abnormal movements (waving arms or legs about, falling out of bed, violent outbursts are present. Excessive daytime sleepiness affects up to 50% of PD patients – likely to be a combination of the disease process and antiparkinsonian drugs. Diagnosis of sleep disorders may be achieved by polysomnography to quantify the length of insomnia periods, to evaluate potential dangers derived from daytime sleepiness and sudden onset sleep and the confirm the existence and the semiology of REM sleep behaviour disorder. • Autonomic dysfunction results mainly from reduced sympathetic noradrenergic innervation of the heart and baroreflex failure (nucleus vagus lesions). Symptoms only tend to become severe in late disease stages. Treatment with dopaminergic agents – which induce peripheral vasodilation may exacerbate orthostatic dysfunction but is rarely the main contributor. GI dysfunction manifests as impaired swallowing, impaired gastric motility and constipation. Degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the mesenteric plexus causing colonic sympathetic denervation is one of the underlying mechanisms for constipation. Constipation does not respond well to dopaminergic treatment suggesting non-dopaminergic mechanisms are also implicated. • Urogenital symptoms include impaired bladder function leading to urinary emergencies and incontinence. Patients suffer either from hypoactive bladder or hyperactive bladder most commonly. Hypoactive bladder is correlated with nigrostriatal denervation since physiological basal ganglia output has an overall inhibitory effect on the micturition reflex is decreased in PD. • Sexual dysfunction affects up to two thirds of PD patients. Erectile dysfunction may occur. Libido can be reduced but can be enhanced by antiparkinsonian dopaminergic medications dopamine agonists which can result in hypersexuality which is part of the dopaminergic dysregulation syndrome. • Sensory symptoms – can be distinguished into painful cramps related to ‘off’ period dystonia and diffuse painful sensations also usually associated with off periods. The cerebral structures involved in altered pain processing are poorly characterised but may comprise mesencephalic dopaminergic projections to the caudal thalamus. • Other symptoms include: mask like facies, flexed posture, micrographia, drooling of saliva

Treatment of Parkinson’s disease

Figure 8: Decision pathway for drug treatment

Figure 9: Combination treatment

Antiparkinsonian agents

Dopaminergic agents are the drugs that are most effective in improving the motor deficits of PD and include levodopa, dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors. There are a cocktail of drugs available that are the source of a lot of confusion – we will go through each class in turn. Currently the management of PD consists of delaying treatment until the onset of disabling symptoms then to introduce a dopamine receptor agonist. If the patient is elderly, then levodopa is sometimes used as an initial treatment. The rationale for this was because treatments available were considered symptomatic only and incapable in modifying the course of the disease. However more recent research has shown that there are novel approaches in the management of PD with treatments initiated available upon diagnosis.

Dopamine receptor agonists

• Bromocriptine • Ropinirole • Cabergoline • Apomorphone Two groups: ergot (fungal) and non-ergot Ergot derived dopamine receptor agonists (bromocriptine, cabergoline) have been associated with pulmonary, retroperitoneal and pericardial fibrosis. Non-ergot agonists (apomorphine, ropinirole) Similar side effect profile of levodopa due to dopaminergic related symptoms: nausea, vomiting, postural hypotension but with a higher rate of peripheral oedema, somnolence and hallucinations especially in the elderly An echocardiogram, ESR, creatinine and CXR should be obtained prior to treatment with close monitoring. Side effects: Dopamine receptor agonists have the potential to cause impulse control disorders and behavioural abnormalities such as obsessive traits and hypersexuality (more dopamine to seek out more risky behaviour) and excessive daytime somnolence. Nasal congestion and postural hypotension are also seen in some patients. There is a significantly reduced risk for the motor complications in comparison to levodopa. Antioxidant activity because of their hydroxylated benzyl ring structure

Levodopa

Levodopa was the first treatment developed for PD and is considered the gold-standard of treatment where the efficacy of all other drugs are measured against. Dopamine cannot cross the blood-brain barrier but the precursor levodopa can where it is converted to dopamine in the brain by dopa decarboxylase. It is usually combined with a decarboxylase inhibitor e.g. carbidopa, benserazide to prevent PERIPHERAL metabolism of levodopa to dopamine. This in turn increases absorption up to 10% and decreases side effects such as dyskinesia (involuntary writhing movements) and palpitations (peripheral metabolism of dopamine into adrenaline or noradrenaline

Side effects of levodopa include on-off effect: on periods complicated by dyskinesias (side effect of levodopa) and off periods (side effect of PD) dry mouth, anorexia, palpitations, postural hypotension, psychosis, drowsiness

There is reduced effectiveness with time ~2 years. 70% of patients develop motor complications within 6 years of initiation of the drug and wearing off there is the re-emergence of dopamine related symptoms which requires careful monitoring of the dosage and frequency. Because of this limited effective period, the other drugs in the inventory for PD treatment often work by delaying the need for levodopa. In neuroleptic (antipsychotic drugs) induced parkinsonism there is no use of levodopa

MAO-B (Monoamine Oxidase-B) inhibitors

• Selegiline • Rasagiline Two compounds of the porpargylamine group: selegiline and rasagiline are both irreversible MAO-B inhibitors. They work by the breaking down of dopamine secreted by the dopaminergic neurons. Selegiline patients with levodopa vs levodopa patients with placebo were found to have a significantly slower decline, less wearing off, on off and freezing but more dyskinesias.

Rasagiline – is a relatively selective irreversible MAO-B inhibitor, it is ~10-15 times more potent than selegiline.

COMT (Catechol-O-Methyl Transferase) inhibitors • Entacapone • Tolcapone COMT: enzyme involved in breakdown of dopamine therefore may be used as an adjunct to levodopa therapy especially in patients with established PD. This is because most levodopa is still metabolised in the gut by COMT which produces 3-O-methyldopa. Therefore, COMT inhibition increases levodopa absorption and improves the drug kinetics by increasing its bioavailability and elimination half life. This allows more stable levodopa plasma levels to be obtained via the oral route and hence more sustained brain dopaminergic stimulation to be attained.

Entacapone is a selective, reversible COMT inhibitor, it does not cross the blood brain barrier and acts primarily in the gut. Why entacopone is so effective is because it increases both the peripheral and the central availability of levodopa. It is particularly effective in patients with wearing off type motor fluctuations and produces an increase in the on time and decrease in the off time. However, the most troubling side effect is dyskinesia which reflects central dopaminergic activity. Stavelo ® combination of levodopa, carbidopa, entacapone in one tablet.

Antimuscarinics • Procyclidine • Benzotropine • Trihexyphenidyl (benzhexol) Before levodopa was discovered to treat PD, antimuscarinic drugs were used to treat the symptoms of PD. Antimuscarinics work by blocking cholinergic receptors. Normally dopamine levels and acetylcholine levels are in equilibrium in the body but because of decreased dopamine levels in PD, acetylcholine levels increase. Nowadays they are used to treat drug induced parkinsonism rather than idiopathic PD, help tremor and rigidity. Studies have shown that there are improvements in bradykinesia and rigidity though at the expense of impaired cognitive function. In drug-induced parkinsonism, motor symptoms are generally rapid onset and bilateral with rigidity and rest tremor being uncommon

Amantadine Antiviral drug, mechanism is not fully understood, most likely increases dopamine release and inhibits its uptake at dopaminergic synapses Side effects – ataxia, slurred speech, confusion, dizziness, livedo reticularis

Figure 10: Diagram showing the mechanism of action of Parkinson's drugs

Motor complications

Dyskinesias are typically choreiform – occasionally dystonic involuntary movements induced predominantly by exposure to levodopa or other short acting dopaminergic drugs. Monitoring of the dru Management of non-motor complications Depression and to some extent apathy/ anhedonia may respond to tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Pramipexole may be useful as an antidepressant separate from its action to improve the motor features of PD. Additional anxiolytics may be required for patients with anxiety and panic attacks. Hallucinations if due to drugs usually respond to a reduction in dose. In some patients, this is difficult due to the re-emergence of motor features. Alternatively hallucinations may respond to clozapine or quetiapine. Hallucinations are an important symptom of diffuse Lewy body disease and its emergence early in the course of PD is a risk factor for dementia. In terms of improving nighttime sleep and daytime alterness in PD, improving sleep hygiene, treating nocturnal motor problems, better management of nocturia, modifying medication, and the use of modafinil in patients with refractory daytime drowsiness. Viagra or apomorphine can manage the sexual dysfunction associated with PD. Bladder problems may be treated with oxybutynin, tolterodine or amitriptyline in patients with concomitant depression. Siolorrhea and drooling is often the result of reduced frequency of swallowing and may be helped simply by chewing gum or sucking sweets. Anticholinergics may be used but with consideration of side effects. Botulinum toxin can be used for refractory cases. Constipation and orthostatic hypotension are less common and are seen more often in the elderly population. Constipation usually responds to standard treatments including increased fluid, bowel training timing of evacuation to the patient being on and increased fibre intake. Symptomatic orthostatic hypotension may respond to simple advice regarding postural change, maintain hydration, the use of pressure stockings, antidiuretic hormone, midodrine or fludrocortisone.

Non medical management

Surgery Since the discovery of dopamine depletion and the subsequent introduction of oral levodopa and deep brain stimulation, surgery such as thalamotomy posteroventral pallidotomy, subthalamotomy have become a less attractive option. have been reported following this procedure however. DBS – Benabid first proposed this technique as a treatment based on high frequency stimulation as means of confirming the target site for an ablative lesion.

Other/future treatment options

As seen there is currently no cure for PD, only management for symptoms however novel techniques being researched into a more complete treatment of PD include: Cell therapy – fetal nigral transplantation Growth factors – Glial derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) has attracted interested given its capacity to protect or rescue dopaminergic neurons in tissue culture and in MPTP treated monkeys. Coenzyme Q10 Creatine Antiapoptotic drugs

References

Schapira A, Hartmann A & Agid Yves. Parkinsonian Disorders in Clinical Practice. Wiley Blackwell. 2009.

#parkinson's disease #muhammad ali #michael j fox #pope john paul ii #maurice white #charles schulz

2 notes · View notes

deniscollins · 4 years

Text

FedEx Made a Demand Dan Snyder Couldn’t Afford to Dismiss

In 2013, Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins football team told a reporter that “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.” Although Native-Americans complained that the nickname was a slur, Snyder insisted that the team’s fans supported the name. Since the 1990s, FedEX has committed more than $200 million for its affiliation with the team, including $8 million a year for naming rights to the team’s stadium in Landover, Maryland. If you were Dan Snyder what would you do if FedEx demanded you change the nickname or FedEx will back out of its deal with the team: (1) maintain the offending nickname, (2) change the nickname? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

After decades of controversy, it took a serious threat to Dan Snyder’s team’s finances, and those of the rest of the N.F.L., to get the owner of the Washington Redskins to consider changing the team’s name, which Native Americans (and many dictionaries) consider to be a slur.

The final straw? FedEx, which pays about $8 million a year for the naming rights to the team’s stadium in Landover, Md., and whose chairman has been trying to sell his shares in the team, said that it would back out of the deal if the name was not changed in a letter that The New York Times was allowed to review.

On July 2, the legal counsel for FedEx sent a letter to his counterpart with the team saying the company would demand its name be removed from the stadium, where it has been displayed since 1999, if the team name was not changed.

“We are hopeful that a name change and a new head coach will help move public perception in a positive direction, restore the team’s reputation and lessen our deep concerns,” the letter said.

A day later, Snyder said that the team “will undergo a thorough review” of its name, bending to a company that committed to paying more than $200 million for its affiliation with the team.

FedEx’s push “was really a turning point,” said an N.F.L. owner who requested anonymity to speak publicly about another owner. “At this point in time, you can’t be insensitive because it affects all of us.”

The majority of, though not all, the N.F.L.’s owners now agree that the name should be changed, the person said, and Snyder has “reached the point where he’s moved on.”

It is unclear how long the team will take to review an issue it has known about for decades. Changing team names, logos and colors — a process that requires navigating trademarks and the league’s many licensing deals with partners — can often take years. The team declined to make Snyder or any team officials available for this article, saying it would address any questions after the review is complete. The N.F.L. also did not respond to a request for comment.

But Snyder’s shift from total resistance to grudging recognition in a matter of weeks has been remarkably swift in a league that often moves deliberately, if at all.

‘We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER.’

For years, Snyder faced little financial pressure to change his team’s name because sponsors were all but silent on the issue. N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell, who has said he grew up rooting for the team, in the past publicly stood by Snyder’s argument that the club’s name and logos are meant to honor the team’s heritage and Native Americans.

Activists have opposed the name for decades, filing lawsuits that Snyder fought vociferously. Politicians have called him out and friends have privately appealed to his sense of decency, all to no avail.

Still, Goodell had tried to prevent the controversy from bubbling into a full-blown crisis. In 2013, when Snyder inflamed the debate by emphatically telling a reporter, “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps,” the commissioner hosted a meeting at the league’s headquarters in New York to clear the air.

According to two people who attended the meeting, Snyder brought with him Bruce Allen, then the team’s president; a strategist; investors in the team; and Lanny Davis, a lawyer who represented Snyder. Goodell was joined by several deputies, including Adolpho Birch, then a senior vice president.

Snyder’s group presented surveys that showed that the team’s fans supported the name, and several other justifications for sticking with it. Goodell questioned Snyder without pushing a viewpoint, one person said. Near the end of the meeting, Charlie Black, a political consultant hired by the team, told Goodell that if he convinced the N.F.L.’s other owners to endorse the name, the problem would go away.

Goodell pointedly explained that he did not speak for the league’s owners and that Snyder needed to communicate with them directly if he wanted their support. The meeting ended as it started, with Snyder still in control of the destiny of the team’s name.

Several departments at the headquarters, though, were quietly doing trademark searches and taking other steps to prepare for the day when the team might be renamed.

‘All of a sudden, after this letter, they’re saying, “Change the name.”’

The hands-off approach crumbled quickly amid the protests that followed George Floyd’s death in police custody this May. Goodell apologized last month for not listening to the concerns of African-American players years before, in response to some of the league’s biggest stars calling on him to address systemic racism.

Faced with growing public demands, companies across the country have issued statements expressing their commitment to undo racist policies, promote diversity in their hiring and fight injustice in their communities. In late June, FedEx, Nike and Pepsi received letters from dozens of investment funds that hold shares in those companies, urging them to distance themselves from the Washington team.

“It was clear to us that those racial justice statements implicated their relationship with the Washington football team,” said Carla Fredericks, the director of First Peoples Worldwide, who led the letter-writing campaign.

Still, FedEx joining the fight against the team name came as a surprise to those who have led it. Suzan Shown Harjo, who for decades has pushed high school, college and professional teams to abandon names and logos with Native American imagery, said she and other activists have pressured FedEx and other team sponsors in the past, with little success.

On June 26, dozens of activists and investment groups sent FedEx’s chairman, Frederick Smith, a letter urging the company to terminate its relationship with the team because its name “remains a dehumanizing word characterizing people by skin color and a racial slur with hateful connotations.”

Smith is part of a trio of investors who hold about 40 percent of the team’s shares. He and the other limited partners, Dwight Schar, the chairman of a major homebuilder, and Robert Rothman, the chairman of a private equity firm, have tried to sell their shares for many months.

FedEx declined to make Smith available for comment, and efforts to reach Schar and Rothman were unsuccessful. John Moag, who reportedly represents them in the sale, said he does not “talk on or off the record during a transaction.”

After years of standing by the team, the companies finally bent.

“All of a sudden, after this letter, they’re saying, ‘Change the name,’ and what’s the difference — George Floyd was murdered before the world and corporate America woke up,” Harjo said.

Harjo said she was hopeful that the pressure from the team’s corporate sponsors would result in a new name but was skeptical that Snyder was only trying to buy time and once again let the controversy pass.

“What they’ve done is try to take control of the issue, and that’s what they’ve done all along, and that’s what they mean by process and review,” she said.

Lost trust and a business imperative

Changing the team name would ease tensions between Snyder and lawmakers in Washington, many of whom oppose his goal of building a new stadium in the district. Snyder keeps a close circle of friends that includes the team’s investors, and he bristles at any suggestion that he change the team name, according to several people who have worked with him. Over the years, Snyder has pulled back from speaking publicly, convinced that there is no upside to trying to improve his image.

“His bad media, which has been terrible, bordering on horrible, is a result of a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: They hate me, therefore I hate them and I won’t talk to them,” said Davis, the Washington lawyer who said he encouraged Snyder to get his side of the story out. “It’s circular.”

The team’s lack of competitive success has not helped. They have made the postseason only five times since Snyder bought the team in 1999, and off-the-field controversies have made things worse.

Snyder has sued an impoverished longtime season-ticket holder and a reporter who published an article he didn’t like, charged fans to watch training camp and cut down trees on federally protected land to improve the view from his house. Many of the team’s cheerleaders have described an uncomfortable work environment, including a photo shoot in which cheerleaders were topless at an event for sponsors and ticket holders.

Then there is the name, which even some die-hard fans reject. Eddie Huang, the celebrity chef and author of the memoir, “Fresh Off the Boat,” grew up in suburban Washington in the 1980s idolizing the team. But as a teenager, he said, he began to question why white fans dressed up as Native Americans.

“It got to a point where I was old enough to recognize that if someone had done this with a name about Asians or Blacks or Mexicans, it wouldn’t be accepted,” said Huang, who stopped wearing the team’s jersey several years ago. “If you called a team the ‘yellow skins’ or ‘Black skins,’ it would be lights out.”

Attendance has suffered. The team drew an average of 65,500 fans last year, less than 80 percent of the capacity at FedEx Field, one of the lowest percentages in the league. Over the last few years, the team has ripped about 10,000 seats out of the stadium.

Within and outside of the N.F.L., observers note that Snyder could benefit from changing the team’s name. Longtime fans would scoop up old merchandise and buy new jerseys and caps when the makeover was complete.

A new name would also help pave the way for the team to build a stadium in the district. Snyder’s favored location is the site of Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, referred to locally as R.F.K., where the team played for 35 years, until 1996. The land is owned by the National Park Service, which has leased it through 2038 to Events DC, a quasi-public organization that manages several Washington sports sites.

Muriel Bowser, the city’s mayor, has said in the past that the team should not be allowed to build inside the district without changing the name, but allowed this week that the name was not the only issue in deciding whether to grant the team access.

Snyder has over two decades lost trust with fans, politicians and Native American groups, but in a moment of societal change, he finally faces a business imperative to alter the team’s future.

Fredericks, who led the group challenging sponsors, said that only a complete name and mascot change was acceptable. “The investors are very clear that a half measure is not going to put these issues to bed,” she said.

#FedEx #Washington Redskins

1 note · View note

preciousmetals0 · 4 years

Text

Dow 25,000? Get Real; Robinhood’s Most Wanted … Is Carnival?

Dow 25,000? Get Real; Robinhood’s Most Wanted … Is Carnival?:

Enema of the State

I’m in a mood today, dear reader, so let this be a warning that a rant is incoming.

First, let’s start out with today’s astonishing development that sparked this Great Stuff mood.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average topped 25,000 today — the culmination of a 35% rush off its March lows. The S&P 500 Index is also on fire, gaining a similar 35% to trade north of 3,000.

Remember when everything tanked back in March? Wall Street was worried about the coronavirus’s impact on the U.S. economy and corporate earnings — and stocks took a roughly 35% haircut. (35% again? Is that like the new 42?)

The markets are now less than 12% from their February pre-pandemic plunge highs, and you need to ask yourself some critical questions as an investor…

Are things really that good right now?

People are going back to work with the “Grand Reopening,” but tens of millions remain unemployed. Business activity is picking up, but many consumers choose to stay home and stay safe from the virus. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said last week that the economy might not fully recover until the end of next year.

On the corporate earnings front, first-quarter profits fell by the fastest rate in more than a decade.

Due to the coronavirus’s impact, S&P 500 companies saw earnings collectively plunge 13% on a per-share basis. And that data includes at least two months of a fully open U.S. economy. What will the next quarter look like? The one after that?

This certainly doesn’t look like a “12% away from all-time highs” market or economy to me. Does it to you?

So, Mr. Great Stuff, why are stocks rallying?

That’s an excellent question, and I have an answer: hope and unlimited stimulus.

In the movies, billionaires like Bruce Wayne step in with their snazzy PJs to save humanity from crises like these. They swoop down, solve the problem and everything goes back to normal in less than three hours on the big screen.

Despite what you might think about Elon Musk and his ilk, they aren’t pushing to reopen the U.S. economy for your benefit. They haven’t solved the coronavirus crisis. It’s still out there. It’s still rampaging across the country. More than 1.6 million are infected, and the numbers are rising. Nearly 100,000 are dead.

These supposed modern-day “superheroes” push to reopen the economy because they’ve seen profits plunge 13%. It’s hitting their bank accounts, and that’s serious.

Serious enough to push an economic reopening without a cure or approved treatment in place. That push fuels hope that things aren’t as bad as they seem.

Meanwhile, with unlimited stimulus propping up the whole shebang (and driving interest rates through the floor), what else will you do with your money? Save it? Pay down debt?

Lol, as if. This is America.

You’d buy stocks. You’d help drive the Dow and the S&P 500 back to their all-time highs — whether the economy reflects those gains or not.

But how long can you, the retail investor, hang on? Will you last through the coming second wave of coronavirus infections? Can you withstand a second economic shutdown?

One is coming. COVID-19 can lay dormant for two weeks without showing symptoms. We will all know just how sideways things have gone with the reopening in about a month. The question is: Will you be prepared for the fallout?

Click here to make sure you know what lies ahead … whether you think you’re prepared or know that you’re not.

The Good: [Insert Neo and The Matrix Joke Here]

Chinese electric-vehicle (EV) maker Nio Inc. (Nasdaq: NIO) clambered back into the headlines this week on positive sales data. According to China Daily, Nio CEO William Bin Li livestreamed a presentation on the company’s EVs, which led to 320 vehicle orders and $21 million in sales.

Not too shabby for a CEO livestream. Now imagine if he did it on TikTok!

The bigger excitement surrounding Nio, however, is the company’s deal with China’s Anhui province. Nio will reportedly move to Anhui’s capital city, Hefei, in exchange for $981 million in new funding. Anhui will also take a 24.1% stake in Nio.

There are two massive caveats for investors here:

First, as part of the deal, Nio and Anhui will create a new company that holds all of Nio’s assets. What that means for U.S. investors remains unknown.

Second, there’s that pesky U.S. Senate bill targeting Chinese companies listed on U.S. exchanges. The disclosure of foreign-government ownership could directly affect Nio under this new deal.

So, while Nio has become one of the most popular stocks on Robinhood, buyers really need to beware of the fine print on this Chinese stock.

Besides, we have better opportunities stateside — especially with Trump’s “Re-Declaration of American Independence,” his mission to bring manufacturing and growth back to American soil from overseas. Click here for the scoop.

The Bad: Robinhood’s Most Wanted

Coming in at No. 8 on Robinhood’s most wanted list, Carnival Corp. (NYSE: CCL) has seen an unnerving bout of enthusiasm lately.

The stock saw a significant boost this week following the Memorial Day holiday weekend, after throngs of people threw caution to the wind and rushed out into bars and local watering holes. Once again, we’re looking at you Lake of the Ozarks partygoers.

The idea is that once the CDC lifts its No Sail Order in July, Carnival ships will once again flood with passengers looking to party and forget weeks of at-home quarantine. I’m not sure what gives investors this level of confidence — especially since there’s no vaccine or cure for COVID-19 right now.

But CCL stock certainly is popular.

Even today’s announcement that AIDA Cruises (a Carnival subsidiary) would extend its pause in operations through July 31 didn’t faze CCL investors. AIDA said that international regulations surrounding the pandemic remained unclear, preventing its return to business as usual.

The easing of pandemic-related lockdowns is one thing. It’s another thing entirely to be locked up on a boat at sea for weeks (or potentially longer) if your ship happens to be unlucky enough to have an outbreak.

Once again, buyer beware.

The Ugly: Luckin Nuts

Shares of Chinese caffeine purveyor Luckin Coffee Inc. (Nasdaq: LK) have surged more than 89% in the past two days.

Why? Because investors be crazy. That’s why.

If you don’t remember Luckin, it’s the Chinese coffee company that fabricated roughly $300 million in sales. It just made up cash out of thin air like it was the U.S. Federal Reserve or something.

CEO Jenny Zhiya Qian and Chief Operating Officer Jian Liu were both fired over their roles in the scandal. Luckin faces the very real threat of bankruptcy. LK’s trading was suspended, and the company received a delisting notice from Nasdaq.

Seriously, though … why are people buying this garbage stock?

Well, according to a Reuters report, there’s a chance that Yum China Holdings Inc. (NYSE: YUMC) and other competitors are interested in buying Luckin’s assets, including the company’s popular smartphone app and its customer data.

Now, that sounds nice and all, but it doesn’t mean that the proceeds raised will save Luckin from insolvency. Furthermore, if the company sells its most valuable assets to stay afloat, what exactly are investors left with?

No, dear readers, avoid this coffee nightmare like the plague.

Debates over free speech? Whack.

Completely nonsensical market environments? Whack.

A Wednesday without your Poll of the Week? Now that would be whack.

It’s Poll of the Week time!

With all the divisive news out there, let’s talk about something that definitely won’t ruffle any feathers or split any political hairs — regulations! (OK, I could hardly keep a straight face there.)

Love it or hate it, the regulation pendulum could swing ‘round soon for overseas companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. At least, if the House picks up what the Senate is putting down.

With the Luckin calamity top of mind, we want your take on Chinese stocks in particular today.

Are you buying up Chinese stocks amid the talks of tighter regulations or have you steered clear completely? Let us know below!

By the way, boy was last week’s Poll a blowout! We asked you whether or not you’ve invested in the biotech sector — you know, that whole medicine-making lifesaving shtick?

By and large, Great Stuff readers are gung ho about biotech investing, with about 82% of you having ventured into the sector.

Another 14% want to see what all the Big Pharma hoopla is about — and for good reason. I mean, Great Stuff readers have already seen an insane 117% gain on our trade with Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: INO) … not that I’m bragging or anything. Seriously, I’m proud of all of you who got in on that win!

Now, I can’t say when the next biotech opportunity will come up … you know, uncertain markets and whatnot. But trust me, you’ll be the first to know if a Great Stuff Pick comes along!

In the meantime, if you’re still want to chase the biotech bounty, just remember that it can be treacherous terrain until you find treasure.

Don’t go into the great biotech market alone — Click here!

Great Stuff: You Write, We Listen!

Another week, another edition of Reader Feedback! If we’re being honest here, this is one of my favorite parts of the week…

It’s simple: Every email you send us … every message you write … we appreciate it all! From the rants to the raves, you have the entire Great Stuff team in stitches sometimes.

So, why not drop us a line this week?

Send us a message at [email protected], and you might see your email in tomorrow’s edition of Reader Feedback! Remember, you can always catch up on the latest Great Stuff on social media: Facebook and Twitter.

Until next time, stay Great!

Joseph Hargett

Editor, Great Stuff

0 notes

goldira01 · 4 years

Link

Enema of the State

I’m in a mood today, dear reader, so let this be a warning that a rant is incoming.

First, let’s start out with today’s astonishing development that sparked this Great Stuff mood.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average topped 25,000 today — the culmination of a 35% rush off its March lows. The S&P 500 Index is also on fire, gaining a similar 35% to trade north of 3,000.

The markets are now less than 12% from their February pre-pandemic plunge highs, and you need to ask yourself some critical questions as an investor…

Are things really that good right now?

On the corporate earnings front, first-quarter profits fell by the fastest rate in more than a decade.

This certainly doesn’t look like a “12% away from all-time highs” market or economy to me. Does it to you?

So, Mr. Great Stuff, why are stocks rallying?

That’s an excellent question, and I have an answer: hope and unlimited stimulus.

These supposed modern-day “superheroes” push to reopen the economy because they’ve seen profits plunge 13%. It’s hitting their bank accounts, and that’s serious.

Serious enough to push an economic reopening without a cure or approved treatment in place. That push fuels hope that things aren’t as bad as they seem.

Meanwhile, with unlimited stimulus propping up the whole shebang (and driving interest rates through the floor), what else will you do with your money? Save it? Pay down debt?

Lol, as if. This is America.

You’d buy stocks. You’d help drive the Dow and the S&P 500 back to their all-time highs — whether the economy reflects those gains or not.

But how long can you, the retail investor, hang on? Will you last through the coming second wave of coronavirus infections? Can you withstand a second economic shutdown?

Click here to make sure you know what lies ahead … whether you think you’re prepared or know that you’re not.

The Good: [Insert Neo and The Matrix Joke Here]

Not too shabby for a CEO livestream. Now imagine if he did it on TikTok!

There are two massive caveats for investors here:

First, as part of the deal, Nio and Anhui will create a new company that holds all of Nio’s assets. What that means for U.S. investors remains unknown.

Second, there’s that pesky U.S. Senate bill targeting Chinese companies listed on U.S. exchanges. The disclosure of foreign-government ownership could directly affect Nio under this new deal.

So, while Nio has become one of the most popular stocks on Robinhood, buyers really need to beware of the fine print on this Chinese stock.

The Bad: Robinhood’s Most Wanted

Coming in at No. 8 on Robinhood’s most wanted list, Carnival Corp. (NYSE: CCL) has seen an unnerving bout of enthusiasm lately.

But CCL stock certainly is popular.

Once again, buyer beware.

The Ugly: Luckin Nuts

Shares of Chinese caffeine purveyor Luckin Coffee Inc. (Nasdaq: LK) have surged more than 89% in the past two days.

Why? Because investors be crazy. That’s why.

Seriously, though … why are people buying this garbage stock?

No, dear readers, avoid this coffee nightmare like the plague.

Debates over free speech? Whack.

Completely nonsensical market environments? Whack.

A Wednesday without your Poll of the Week? Now that would be whack.

It’s Poll of the Week time!

Love it or hate it, the regulation pendulum could swing ‘round soon for overseas companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. At least, if the House picks up what the Senate is putting down.

With the Luckin calamity top of mind, we want your take on Chinese stocks in particular today.

Are you buying up Chinese stocks amid the talks of tighter regulations or have you steered clear completely? Let us know below!

By the way, boy was last week’s Poll a blowout! We asked you whether or not you’ve invested in the biotech sector — you know, that whole medicine-making lifesaving shtick?

By and large, Great Stuff readers are gung ho about biotech investing, with about 82% of you having ventured into the sector.

Now, I can’t say when the next biotech opportunity will come up … you know, uncertain markets and whatnot. But trust me, you’ll be the first to know if a Great Stuff Pick comes along!

In the meantime, if you’re still want to chase the biotech bounty, just remember that it can be treacherous terrain until you find treasure.

Don’t go into the great biotech market alone — Click here!

Great Stuff: You Write, We Listen!

Another week, another edition of Reader Feedback! If we’re being honest here, this is one of my favorite parts of the week…

It’s simple: Every email you send us … every message you write … we appreciate it all! From the rants to the raves, you have the entire Great Stuff team in stitches sometimes.

So, why not drop us a line this week?

Until next time, stay Great!

Joseph Hargett

Editor, Great Stuff

#Timor Invest

0 notes

mastcomm · 4 years

Text

The Super Bowl Is Problematic. Why Can’t We Look Away?

AUSTIN CONSIDINE Friends: I know what I’m doing Sunday. I know what you’re doing Sunday. As full-time culture journalists, to ignore the Super Bowl would be a gross dereliction of duty. That’s because the Super Bowl isn’t just a game. It’s the halftime show; it’s the ads; it’s the chips and guac. It is sport but also music, dance, costumes, TV production and stage design — a pop culture event greater than the sum of its parts.

Perhaps most important, it was watched last year by roughly 100 million people: In a world of on-demand entertainment, the Super Bowl is one of the last true vestiges of an era when we all watched the same things at the same time.

But I, like a lot of sports fans, have struggled in recent years to reconcile what is beautiful about the game with what is ugly. First, there’s the degenerative brain disease linked to repeated head hits — not only to concussions — which the N.F.L. actively worked to conceal. Then there are the league’s troubles with domestic abuse and race. We could unpack those for days, but let it suffice to note that Tyreek Hill still has a job and Colin Kaepernick does not.

Some fans have learned to tolerate the cognitive dissonance, or to square their free enjoyment with the ostensible free will of the players. Others, like me, have trouble shouldering our complicity with football’s worst elements and have mostly stopped watching. But regardless, fans or not, we mostly show up for the Super Bowl. Why is that?

WESLEY MORRIS Austin, I, too, have consumed less football in the last five years because the hits can be hard to watch, because the punitive, allegedly apolitical stances of the league are themselves paradoxically political. There are many amazing physical achievements in this sport. There’s endless ridiculousness. The choreographed end-zone celebration, for instance, has gleefully migrated to other sports. And the league, in spite of itself, has a muscular charitable wing.

This is to say that loving the N.F.L. means putting up with a lot. But its outsize popularity also seems a partial answer to the moral riddle that’s so openly vexed us these past two or three years. How do we enjoy the work of bad, unpleasant, corrupt people and institutions? Of criminals? Does opting into the Super Bowl experience then condone the problems of football? Can spectatorship be anything but an endorsement? It’s the conundrum of a capitalist society to the extent that it’s truly a conundrum at all.

CARYN GANZ Football is the quintessential problematic fave. And like Michael Jackson, it’s too challenging to cancel, too big to fail, too embedded in the fabric of American leisure to rip out. (For now, at least.) The Super Bowl is drama, emotion, identity, catharsis, spectacle, skill, power: It’s nearly impossible to find a viewer beyond its scope. It’s no longer possible to keep up with everything happening in television, movies, music and digital media, but the Super Bowl is one of the last gasps of the monoculture. It’s a given and a gimme: It has almost no barrier for entry — one network channel, one block of time when nobody is expected to be doing anything other than watching the Super Bowl.

And as for the ethical conundrum, ethics are under siege in every corner of our society: on social media, in Washington, in college admissions, on the music charts. In an era of “LOL nothing matters,” where does football rank on the scale of horrors? Even if your answer is “quite high,” there are 100 million other viewers willing to share the shame.

CONSIDINE Still, let’s be cleareyed: If you watch the Super Bowl, you are financially and ethically supporting the N.F.L. And yet, I rarely hear these issues surface when we talk about the Super Bowl as pop culture. I wonder why we’re so deferential? Has any Super Bowl happening or halftime show made a truly lasting cultural impact?

GANZ Oh yes, they have. Part of the power of the halftime show is its sheer reach. Music (like sports) is a powerful uniter, but so much of the way we experience it now is in isolation: via playlists shaped by our personal listening habits that are beamed directly into our headphones. A live stadium show allows 100,000 people to share an experience; the Grammys attracted 18.7 million viewers to its live broadcast. With the exception of the Eurovision song contest (which was watched by 182 million people last year), the Super Bowl is as big as it gets now for live music.

Few people (other than me) may recall which songs Madonna played during her set in 2012, but her halftime yielded a landmark pop culture moment: M.I.A. extending her middle finger on national TV. In the past decade, halftime’s meme-able mini-events have become almost as memorable as who won the game: Adam Levine’s bare torso (2019), Lady Gaga’s leap (2017), Beyoncé’s fierce “Formation” (2016), Left Shark (2015), even Bruce Springsteen’s crotch slide (2009). And we could talk about Prince’s Super Bowl all day long.

MORRIS Caryn, don’t play. You know I know Madonna’s set list from that night.

I also remember how the emotional properties of the Boston bar where I watched that game completely changed as her halftime show began. The Patriots were about to lose another Super Bowl to the Giants, and even though they were up (by a point) going into the second half, that woman and her friends seemed to lighten the mood. Men were mouthing along to “Open Your Heart.” But they were also happy to partake in the spectacle of a 53-year-old imposing her sexual-identity gender circus (a phalanx of beefcake transported her to the stage) upon a sport whose stated orientation points, non-negotiably, one way.

This is to say that the halftime show can be received multiple ways at once. It’s an event complicit in all that dismays us about American football as a whole and the N.F.L. especially: players’ physical and mental health; compensation and exploitation; the sanctioned conflation with the league and our military; the names. Kansas City’s excellent Super Bowl team is the Chiefs; and when fans are feeling confidently vicious, half the arms in the stadium begin to tomahawk chop. They’re not the so-called Redskins, and yet the team brings with it many centuries of terrible history anytime it plays — anytime its “merch” is sold.)

But the halftime show is also an event wholly outside the problems of the sport. Its stars have been imported and occasionally seem eager to practice subversion, as Madonna and Beyoncé have; to practice an exuberant nothing, as Katy Perry has. It is what its stars fight for it to be. I’m enormously excited to see what J. Lo and Shakira have fought for.

We are, though, at a really fascinating place now. An aspect of the culture is asking these entertainers to consider what it means to partake in an event that could feature any number of problematic figures. (Tyreek Hill is a star Chief.) And on Madonna’s night, in 2012, Aaron Hernandez scored one of the Patriots’ touchdowns. Six months later, he shot and killed two men.

GANZ Halftime may hover in a space outside the problems of the sport, but it has its own crises related to football’s troubled racial and gender dynamics. Consider how the Super Bowl completely reshaped Janet Jackson’s career. Jackson had five No. 1 albums and was known as one of the biggest pop stars on the planet, but less than three seconds in 2004 — so-called “Nipplegate,” when her bare breast was exposed by Justin Timberlake during the last moments of their performance — rewrote her entire history, plunging her into years of purgatory. It only briefly affected Timberlake’s, since he has the luxury of being white and male. (Remember, he returned to headline halftime in 2018.)

CONSIDINE Does making Jennifer Lopez and Shakira the halftime show headliners — a first for Latinas — feel like a transparent scramble by the N.F.L. to virtue-signal? To be more charitable, it makes sense that the league might simply want to pay tribute to the Hispanic heritage of this year’s host city, Miami. But wasn’t the N.F.L. probably compelled to do something a little extra after the outspoken way in which multiple artists last year turned down the opportunity in support of Colin Kaepernick? And after Rihanna did the same this season?

GANZ Sports and music are two arenas in which the stars are mostly young and black but work in a structure still largely controlled by older white men. The idea that some of the most powerful players in the music industry shunned halftime last year is a compelling one. (Maroon 5 agreed to perform and paid some sort of karmic tax.) This year is the first under the partnership between Jay-Z’s Roc Nation and the league, an attempt to smooth over tensions and bring a crumb of social-justice work to the game. And it’s interesting that this year’s headliners are both Latin pop stars, and neither black nor rappers. The halftime show hasn’t had a black headliner since Beyoncé in 2013; the closest it’s come to a hip-hop headliner is the Black Eyed Peas. If football fans are perceived to be so conservative they’d switch the channel rather than watch rappers, why hasn’t country music ever been very welcome at halftime? Its last appearance came 17 years ago with Shania Twain.

CONSIDINE The dearth of country music at halftime is interesting when you consider that the singer most associated with the N.F.L. in recent years has been Carrie Underwood — and before that, Hank Williams Jr. For that reason, I suspect that country music wouldn’t actually be unwelcome by most football fans at halftime. I’m also interested in a reverse question: Why has non-country music always been welcome?

My guess is that with the exception of one Trump-fueled moment in which some conservative fans skipped a game or two, the league knows it has that demographic locked down, no matter who performs at halftime. The billing, then, is a chance for the N.F.L. to snag some extra eyeballs, and pop is a surefire way to do it.

In racial or political terms, I’ll wager many of those fans who objected to Kaepernick’s knee-taking fancy themselves quite open-minded — or at least magnanimously indifferent — regarding the race or style of the performers, same as with the players. If I’m right, then the N.F.L. risks little in ignoring those fans’ musical preferences for 15 minutes. Intolerant people make low-stakes claims to tolerance all the time. But that tolerance reveals its limits when, say, a black man takes a knee.

MORRIS Colin Kaepernick and Michael Bennett and their fellow protesting players knelt for ideals that I, too, believe in. Pleas for justice and equality are controversial coming only from black athletes expected — hired — to run, throw, catch and dunk. But the culture has moved past the protests. Kaepernick still has a sports job of sorts. He works for Nike. Meanwhile, the Super Bowl remains this idyllic vestige of who we thought we were. It’s Americana that like lots of Americana is built on a cemetery of sorts. We flock to it as we do because it’s a spectatorship department store — sports, ads, music.

A lot of us remember the alleged simpler times when it was easier to pretend that entertainment was all it was. On one Sunday, we can pause Everything Else and just enjoy a miraculous helmet catch or a commercial for a job-finding company. It’s also a stable structure. We all know it. We know it will never change and therefore never challenge most people to confront more than their losing team. There’s no M.C. to be urbane or smug or real. Setting aside the violence at its center, it’s safe, a haven from so much. History in the making but also passionately ahistorical. Americana on the one hand, sure. But also just America.

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/the-super-bowl-is-problematic-why-cant-we-look-away/

#Entertainment

0 notes

cwdcshows · 4 years

Text

Batwoman - S1 E6 - I'll Be Judge, I'll be Jury

So I realize there's arguably limited directions this dude in the cold open could go to escape, but I think it's not an unreasonably statement to say that anyone who encounters a downed power line with a rush of water intersecting said power line and heading straight towards you, trying to climb a metal fence may in fact be a demonstration of natural selection in real time.

Cut to, Kate getting briefed by her dad, wearing a red hood under a black leather jacket, only partly zipped, pretty effectively evoking her look as Batwoman; and all I can think of is how this reminds me of the days of watching Power Rangers, when each ranger would wear civilian clothes that corresponded to which color their ranger outfit was. And when they invariably received an upgrade or change or power and change of color, so too would the color pallet of their wardrobe. I mean, honestly Jacob, you boss around your people like you're a fucking cop, when really, arguably, you're barely a step up from a vigilante. The only difference between the Crows and Batwoman is that you've been sanctioned by the city, but they're still just private security firm; and as has already been established, the Crows aren't exactly doing their work for free or out of the kindness in your heart. The Crows protection is basically legal racketeering, play to pay arrangement, that has created a disparity of safety reserved for the rich. Which only makes these sort of command decisions to go after the likes of Alice or this new rogue all the more perplexing, because who's paying them to do that? Jacob asked why the GCPD didn't call them - does the Gotham police give them money as some sort of auxiliary security force? The Crows are basically an high priced, urban militia. Seriously, if they wanted to write Jacob like a cop so badly, they should have just made him a fucking cop. At least then these sort of orders would make sense. They could have put him charge of a special division or unit within the GCPD that operated more like the black-ops team they appear to be, equipped and regimented for the extreme and bizarre crimes Gothams has. Damn, Beth/Alice has some mad plastic surgery skills to apply that face more expertly than any face transplant to date has been done; and done without leaving any scars or seem..... 🙄 I guess this part of why they made the kid such an incredible mimic, so they could explain away not always hearing the one actor's voice coming out of whomever's face he takes on later. So is he supposed to be this show's take on False Face? "I don't care if it's outside our district!" You mean the district in which your authority is recognized? So you're going to go after a criminal somewhere where you have no authority to act, but you're definitely not a vigilante. Got it. Definitely calling whatever patch-work face job Beth did being able to fool face recognition, bs. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, because I've never used face recognition, but I feel like I've heard there are times, even if albeit infrequent, where some subtle change, like a minor injury or even just right after waking up, can affect appearance enough for the algorithm not to recognize a face when it's the actual person. Seeing as how this "face" he's wearing isn't even supposed to be a latex or foam rubber prosthetic, but made of actual skin, based on the last episode and somehow finessed to look like this other; his own facial musculature is going to be a lot different than the guy he's supposed to look like, which is going to distort the end result to something that probably shouldn't be recognizable by facial recognition. And then there's this guy's smile. I can't be positive, though can probably reasonably assume that "Mouse's" teeth/smile looks nothing like the guy he's now posing as - all toothy and big grin. Yet he's sure showing off those pearly whites in what might normally be a dead give away if the real guy never smiled like this or just generally had a different facial structure. This actor playing the disguised Mouse would have some serious potential playing the Joker, though, just based on his look. Seriously, Gotham used a firing squad? Like within the last few decades? Even under "Mayor Cobblepot" that seems dubious. I mean, sure, I can believe that the justice system even a city not as corrupt as Gotham might be biased or disproportionately incarcerate or even execute people of color for crimes; and that some probably aren't even guilty and some even framed. That's an unfortunate reality of our justice system that's in desperate need of reform. But all of this guy's death row inmates were framed and falsely executed? And all framed by the same three guys? That seems like something someone would have picked up on. Assuming that not all of his executions occurred within the last three years, you'd think that might be something Bruce would have looked into. My main point being, there's no need to oversell the central concept of a plot; especially if it makes it less plausible. Shit, I kind of glossed over the fact that they've established Lucius Fox is dead in this series until just now. That kind of makes Batman not knowing about these covers even more unlikely; since that's something he definitely would have looked into. But I'll admit, since I wasn't paying close enough attention to pick-up on who it was that Luke was talking about, who was victimized, I also didn't catch how recent it was or if it happened in the three years since Bruce has been gone.

0 notes

the-end-of-art · 5 years

Text

Rapid fire

Two small excerpts from two Comment pieces on attention, distraction and technology:

From Habits of Mind in an Age of Distraction by Alan Jacobs:

This passage reminds me of something the comedian Louis C.K. said a few years ago, in an appearance on Conan O'Brien's show. Louie, as his friends call him, was explaining that he doesn't want his kids to have cell phones because he wants them to be sad. And sadness comes when you are forced to be alone with your thoughts: "That's what the phones are taking away, the ability to just sit there. That's being a person."

He described a day when he was driving along as an emotionally intense Bruce Springsteen song came on the radio, and he started to feel a certain melancholy welling up in him, and his instant response to that melancholy was to want to grab his phone and text someone. "People are willing to risk taking a life and ruining their own, because they don't want to be alone for a second," he said.

But on that day when, in his car, Louie felt the melancholy welling up, he resisted the temptation to grab his phone. As the sadness grew, he had to pull over to the side of the road to weep. And after the weeping came an equally strong joy and gratitude for his life. But when we heed that impulse to grab the phone and connect with someone, we don't allow the melancholy to develop, and therefore can't receive the compensatory joy. Which leaves us, Louie says, in this situation: "You don't ever feel really sad or really happy, you just feel . . . kinda satisfied with your products. And then you die. And that's why I don't want to get phones for my kids."

FREEBASING HUMAN CONNECTION

By our immersion in that ecosystem we are radically impeded from achieving a "right understanding of ourselves" and of God's disposition toward us.

If you ask a random selection of people why we're all so distracted these days—so constantly in a state of what a researcher for Microsoft, Linda Stone, has called "continuous partial attention"—you'll get a somewhat different answer than you would have gotten thirty years ago. Then it would have been "Because we are addicted to television." Fifteen years ago it would have been, "Because we are addicted to the Internet." But now it's "Because we are addicted to our smartphones."

All of these answers are both right and wrong. They're right in one really important way: they link distraction with addiction. But they're wrong in an even more important way: we are not addicted to any of our machines. Those are just contraptions made up of silicon chips, plastic, metal, glass. None of those, even when combined into complex and sometimes beautiful devices, are things that human beings can become addicted to.

Then what are we addicted to?

In February 2016, Ben Rosen, a twenty-nine year-old writer for the massively popular website Buzzfeed, wrote a post about what he had learned about the social media service Snapchat by talking to his thirteen-year-old sister Brooke.

He got interested in this topic when he watched Brooke reply to forty snaps—that's the basic unit of Snapchat, like a tweet on Twitter—in less than a minute. So he asked her questions about how she uses, and thinks about, Snapchat. Three things emerged from that discussion.

First, for Brooke and her friends Snapchat is almost never text, it's all images, usually selfies in which they respond to one another with various facial expressions, as though they're using their faces to imitate emoticons. Second, Brooke is not unusual in being able to do forty of these in a minute. Third: When Rosen asked Brooke how often she's on Snapchat she replied, "On a day without school? There's not a time when I'm not on it. I do it while I watch Netflix, I do it at dinner, and I do it when people around me are being awkward. That app is my life."

Brooke also noted that "parents don't understand. It's about being there in the moment. Capturing that with your friends." And when her brother asked her how she could even mentally process forty snaps in less than a minute, much less respond to them, she said, "I don't really see what they send. I tap through so fast. It's rapid fire." Snapchat is a form of communication drained almost completely of content. It is pure undiluted human connection.

So there is a relationship between distraction and addiction, but we are not addicted to devices. As Brooke's Snapchat story demonstrates, we are addicted to one another, to the affirmation of our value—our very being—that comes from other human beings. We are addicted to being validated by our peers.

OUR ECOSYSTEM OF INTERRUPTION TECHNOLOGIES

If you don't believe in God, you might not think this craving for validation is a problem. But if you do believe in the God of Jesus Christ, it doesn't look good at all. As Paul the apostle asks the Galatians, "Am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ" (1:10).

Now, to be sure, there is one sense in which we should care what people think of us. Paul tells the Romans, "give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all" (12:17). But that is in order to commend Christ to the world in all that we do and say, to avoid being a stumbling block to those who might otherwise come in through the door of faith. That's a very different thing than seeking to "please man" because you so desperately crave their validation. If you measure your personal value in the currency of your Snapchat score, then you will be profoundly averse to doing or saying anything that might lower that score or even limit its growth.

A few years ago the science-fiction writer Cory Doctorow published an essay in which he referred to "your computer's ecosystem of interruption technologies." Keep in mind that Doctorow wrote that phrase before smartphones. My iPhone's "ecosystem of interruption technologies" makes the one on my computer seem like pretty weak sauce, because the latter is on my desk or in my bag while the former is ever-present. And it's ever-present because I like it that way. I choose the device that interrupts my thinking and, as Louis C.K. observed, gives me an ever-present opportunity to escape unwanted emotions.

I am a living illustration of Technological Stockholm Syndrome: I have embraced my kidnapper. Or, to change the metaphor yet again, I have welcomed this disruptive ecosystem into my mental domicile and invited it to make a home for itself here—like those poor kids who let the Cat in the Hat in.

The church who would draw such novices has a historically new task as well.

But an awareness of the potential gravity of this situation has gradually dawned on me. I have been significantly affected by this pocket-sized disruptor, even though I had decades of formation in a different attentional environment to serve as a kind of counterweight. People like Ben Rosen's sister Brooke, the Snapchat queen, clearly don't have any of that. I wonder what her future—her future as a self, as a person—will hold.

Our "ecosystem of interruption technologies" affects our spiritual and moral lives in every aspect. By our immersion in that ecosystem we are radically impeded from achieving a "right understanding of ourselves" and of God's disposition toward us. We will not understand ourselves as sinners, or as people made in God's image, or as people spiritually endangered by wandering far from God, or as people made to live in communion with God, or as people whom God has come to a far country in order to seek and to save, if we cannot cease for a few moments from an endless procession of stimuli that shock us out of thought.

It has of course always been hard for people to come to God, to have a right knowledge of ourselves and of God's threats and promises. I don't believe it's harder to be a Christian today than it has been at any other time in history. But I think in different periods and places the common impediments are different. The threat of persecution is one kind of impediment; constant technological distraction is another. Who's to say which is worse?—even if it's obvious which is more painful. But I really do think we are in new and uniquely challenging territory in our culture today, and I don't believe that, in general, churches have been fully aware of the challenges—indeed, in many cases churches have made things worse.

In his 1996 essay "Philosophy . . . Artifacts . . . Friendship," the Catholic priest and theorist of technology Ivan Illich provides numerous insights into these challenges for the church in our age of distractions. He writes:

The novice to the sacred liturgy and to mental prayer has a historically new task. He is largely removed from those things—water, sunlight, soil, and weather—that were made to speak of God's presence. In comparison with the saints whom he tries to emulate, his search for God's presence is of a new kind.

. . Today's convert must recognize how his senses are continuously shaped by the artifacts he uses. They are charged by design with intentional symbolic loads, something previously unknown.

And remember, Illich wrote all this before the Internet. What he wrote then is even more true now: the age of television and print ads for Persil now seem a very primitive endeavour indeed. If then it could be said that "our perceptions are to a large extent technogenic," they are now almost wholly technogenic, for most of us. If Illich is right to say that "the novice to the sacred liturgy and to mental prayer has a historically new task," then that means that the church who would draw such novices has a historically new task as well.

SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF—SQUIRREL!!

And what Illich says about how we "search for God's presence" is related to how we understand and talk about and preach sin.

When George Whitefield and John Wesley were preaching sermons that created the First Great Awakening, they almost always started by trying to arouse in their hearers a conviction of sin. The typical sequence of their sermons looked like this:

1. You are a sinner, though no more, or less, of a sinner than anyone else. 2. We sinners cannot rescue ourselves. 3. But God in his grace and love has come to rescue us. 4. So we need only to accept that grace and love, in penitence, to be reconciled to God.

But I don't believe we can readily reach people today with the same sequence. The very idea that I am a sinner sends me groping for my smartphone to avoid unpleasant emotions. I think this will be especially true for the majority of North Americans whose basic default theology is what the sociologist of religion Christian Smith and his colleagues call Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. For such people an awareness of sin is going to be hard to achieve—certainly at the earlier stages of their Christian lives.

But what if we tried to tell people that by disconnecting, however temporarily, they might be able to hear God? Consider these thoughts by Rowan Williams:

The true disciple is an expectant person, always taking it for granted that there is something about to break through from the master, something about to burst through the ordinary and uncover a new light on the landscape.

And I think that living in expectancy—living in awareness, your eyes sufficiently open and your mind sufficiently both slack and attentive to see that when it happens— has a great deal to do with discipleship, indeed with discipleship as the gospels present it to us. Interesting (isn't it?) that in the gospels the disciples don't just listen, they're expected to look as well. They're people who are picking up clues all the way through.

We need to put people—those who don't yet believe, those whose belief is young, those whose lives with Christ have become attenuated in a "technogenic" environment where our thoughts are largely directed by engineers— in a position to "pick up clues."

From Learning with Your Hands by Matthew Crawford with Brian Dijkema:

BD: What you mean by a political economy of attention?

MC: A few years ago I was in a supermarket and swiped my bank card to pay for groceries. I then watched the little screen intently, waiting for its prompts. During those intervals between swiping my card, confirming the amount, and entering my PIN, I was shown advertisements. Clearly some genius realized that a person in this situation is a captive audience. The intervals themselves, which I had previously assumed were a mere artifact of the communication technology, now seemed to be something more deliberately calibrated. These haltings now served somebody's interest.

Over the last ten years a new frontier of capitalism has been opened up by our self-appointed disrupters, one where it is okay to dig up and monetize every bit of private mindshare. And very often this proceeds by the auctioning off of public space; it is made available to private interests who then install means for appropriating our attention. When you go through airport security, there are advertisements on the bottoms of the bins that you place your belongings in. Who decided to pimp them out like that? If my attention is a resource, and it is, then the only sensible way to understand this is as a transfer of wealth. It is an invisible one, but the cumulative effects are very real, and a proper topic for political reflection. Maybe for political action too.

BD: And people who want to guard their inner life are forced into themselves. It forces you to put a book in front of your face.

MC: Right, that's one of the hidden costs. What's lost is the space for sociability in our public spaces. Like you say, we're driven into ourselves with sort of an arms race between private attention technologies versus the public ones.

Of course there's another solution. If you have the means you can go to the business class lounge which in some countries like France is silent, there's just nothing. That's what makes it so incredibly luxurious. When you think about the fact that it's the marketing executives in the business lounge who are using that silence to think — to come up with their brilliant schemes which will then determine the character of the peon lounge — you begin to see this in a political light. When some people treat the minds of other people as a resource, to be harvested by mechanized means, this is not "creating wealth," as its apologists like to say. It is a transfer of wealth.

#Louis C.K.#Brian Dijkema #Matthew Crawford #Alan Jacobs #Comment #comment magazine

0 notes