Blake Lively is often referred to as one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood, but if anyone thinks that the former “Gossip Girl” actress is just a pretty face, her new movie “The Rhythm Section” is bound to challenge that shortsighted assumption.
Lively is hardly recognizable in “The Rhythm Section,” sporting shorter hair, a number of disguises, and a lot of makeup to make her appear like an “average” woman rather than a head-turning dame. However, as it should be with any actor or actress, it is the performance that matters, not the looks—leave praise for the latter to the hair and makeup department.
In the film, Lively plays Stephanie Patrick, a woman who loses her family to a plane crash. After learning that the crash was no accident, but an orchestrated event, she goes on a vengeful quest to violently punish those responsible. It is a long way from “Gossip Girl” or “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants,” and is a rare example of Lively taking the leading role in a blockbuster movie.
The movie comes in part from Eon Productions, one of the companies that produces the James Bond films. Thus, “The Rhythm Section” is presumably in good hands. Unfortunately, unless it is adapted from a Hunger Games book or attached to a DC, Marvel, or Star Wars franchise, female led action movies do not have a great track record for success. Even when backed by experienced producers and offering star-studded casts, movies like “Columbiana,” “SALT,” “Lucy,” or this year’s “Charlie’s Angels” all missed their critical or commercial marks.
This is likely due to the fact that the American action genre is deeply rooted in masculinity, emerging from the James Bond suaveness of the 1960s and becoming manlier throughout the 1980s with Rambos, Terminators, and John McClanes filling the screen with muscles. Developing a strong female action hero is thus a novel thing that runs somewhat contrary to the genre’s conventional iconography. Even the action movies that do employ female leads often sexualize them or contrarily place them into the overused woman-who-is-too-good-for-womanly-things archetype.
Emancipated Production Concept?
It is almost as if Hollywood is afraid of mixing femininity and action. “The Rhythm Section,” however, may test that notion, for Blake Lively’s character is a mother seeking revenge after losing her children. From Arnold Schwarzenegger in “Commando” to Liam Neeson in “Taken,” the vengeful or savior parent role is often allocated to the father figure. Perhaps “The Rhythm Section” will finally offer audiences a much needed touch of maternal badassery.
It also helps that Reed Morano directs the film. Known for her work on Hulu’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” Morano has been quite effective at blending feminist themes and action-packed content on the small screen. Hopefully, she can carry this same affinity over to a feature film.
Jude Law and Sterling K Brown support Lively’s performance in “The Rhythm Section.” The movie is an adaptation of Mark Burnell’s 1999 novel of the same title—the first of four books he wrote about Stephanie Patrick. Burnell also wrote the screenplay for the film, and if it is a hit, there could be future sequel adaptations in store for Lively and the team. The movie comes out on January 31st.
In the beginning of 2020, e-commerce tech conglomerate Amazon issued a new policy aimed at preventing its employees from speaking publicly without company approval. Now, the company is threatening to reprimand or even terminate employees who attend climate action rallies or speak out about Amazon’s carbon emissions.
The Amazon workers, however, are not reacting passively to these threats. Instead, they are banding together to form the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ) to show solidarity and pressure the higher-ups to change their energy-related business practices.
The AECJ was only recently formed, but has already extended invitations to thousands of Amazon employees. In an email disseminated by the organization, Amazon workers were asked a number of questions about the company’s ethics. In particular, the note asks employees how they feel about Amazon’s sustainability practices—the issue at the center of the AECJ’s agenda.
Controversies Continue to Build at the eCommerce Giant
In recent years, Amazon has been in hot water on a number of political issues. Climate change is just one of them. CEO Jeff Bezos has been highly criticized for his business dealings with major oil and gas companies, buying into and financially supporting a number of fossil-fuel burning juggernauts. Although Bezos has expressed plans for Amazon to go carbon neutral by 2040 and has hinted at halting donations towards climate-denying politicians, all outlooks are shrouded in noncommittal uncertainty and effectively dodge the question of Amazon’s ongoing relationships with the fossil fuel industry.
Amazon employees appear to have finally had enough of this. Last September, hundreds of Amazon workers participated in a climate action walkout, where they pressured the company to reassess its carbon output. Around the same time, Amazon invested in 100,000 electric vehicles—something that should be celebrated, but nevertheless remains a rather hollow gesture in light of the larger picture.
Governments and Giant Corporations must be Forced to lead the way, if Necessary
The fossil fuel industry, the benefits reaped by the human race notwithstanding, is the central cause of the climate crisis. Big oil and gas companies, backed by politicians and funded by elite organizations, are the major cause of carbon emissions in the world. Even if every individual does his or her part to live sustainably, climate change will continue to occur at a brutal pace unless there is a large-scale transformation in the energy sector. This is a change that no one person can really instigate, but an international institution such as Amazon could impact, in a positive or negative way.
Despite its name, the AECJ are working to change Amazon on more fronts than just environmental ones. Amazon has also been rightfully panned for its mistreatment of warehouse workers and its shady dealings with the government, providing data and technology to officials without user consent. The AECJ hopes to reform some of these issues as well and make Amazon a better place to work and a better institution in the world at large. So far, over 340 Amazon employees have signed with the AECJ, risking their jobs to try and create a brighter future from the bottom up.
Granted, Amazon is not alone in its high carbon emissions, data sharing, and workplace ruling unethicalities. Tech companies such as Google, Facebookand Microsoft have been accused of similar moral breaches. Similar to the society at large, though, these corporations are built upon foundations of lower-level workers. These employees are often diligent and passionate, and in many situations, they have a closer connection to common reality than those at the top of the corporate hierarchies. Even in the midst of oppression, these people can have voices, and when they band together for powerful and just causes, those voices have the potential to form a chorus that leads to significant change.
On December 11th 2019, the European Union announced its plans for a Green Deal. Proposed by EU President Ursula von der Leyen, the Green Deal daringly aims to make Europe the first carbon neutral continent by 2050, with a number of incremental goals along the way. The plan involves reducing fossil fuel reliance, transitioning to renewable energy, and promoting more sustainable infrastructures. Naturally, though, the first step is figuring out how much the plan will cost, and where the financing will come from.
Earlier in January, the EU finally crunched the numbers and reported that the Green Deal will cost a quarter of the bloc’s budget for its first ten years. On top of that, in order to keep the plan on track for 2050, the EU will also have to shift 1 trillion Euros ($1.1 trillion) in investments towards a more environmentally friendly European economy by 2030.
The European Commission claims that half of the investments will come directly from the EU’s budget, and that the other half will come from a mix of public and private funds. 100 billion Euros are expected to come from member states’ federal governments, and another 300 billion will hopefully come from the private sector.
These figures are hefty, and some leaders and businesspeople remain skeptical of the plan. Even Jonah Van Overtveld, head of the EU Budget Committee, expressed his doubts about the Green Deal’s fundraising tactics.
Rather than dodge the financial disbelief, though, the EU has addressed it head on, actively making efforts to frame the Green Deal as an economic boost for the countries involved and creating incentives for investing in a sustainable Europe.
This plan focused on stimulation principally requires frequent opportunities to invest in clean energy. Regional EU programs such as InvestEU and the European Investment Bank will be leading these opportunities, using the Commission’s budget guarantee to mobilize financial support.
Support for Lagging Economies Built into the Deal
Still, the Green Deal’s harshest critics remain the pac’s countries that rely heavily on fossil fuels. Poland, for example, refuses to comply with the plan due to its ongoing dependence on coal. The country produces 80% of its electricity from coal and would suffer disproportionately if expected to cut coal from its energy economy.
Once again, however, the EU has not ignored the plights of countries like Poland and has proposed a 100 billion Euro “Just Transition Fund” to financially help the nations hit hardest by giving up fossil fuels. The Fund will not just support those countries through the transition, but it will also help their laborers remain afloat after the reformation.
Part of the Green Deal’s economic incentive features a large number of jobs created for the clean energy economy. The Just Transition Fund would help former employees of fossil fuel companies become versed in new eco-friendly trades. Turning Europe into a continent dependent on renewable energy will require a new, learned workforce as well as lots of laborious construction. Optimistically, this will more than cover the jobs lost by minimizing the fossil fuel industry.
European lawmakers will vote on the proposed finance plan on Wednesday, January 22, and van der Leyen wants to have the Green Deal put into legislation by March. There is still more support to be wrangled up for the Deal, but its supporters are evidently looking at the task pragmatically. Although becoming carbon neutral by 2050 is ambitious, it is also expensive, so the EU is counting the Euros carefully and strategically. That being said, when it comes to the climate crisis, time is of the essence. Ambition is not an option, but a necessity.
Democrats get smart and use trial as an infomercial exposing Trump’s Crime Spree
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) may have been an underdog going into this predetermined “cover up” Senate trial to remove Donald Trump. There may never be less than 53 Republicans voting for whatever “Midnight Moscow Mitch” tells them to. But, regardless, they will not go down without laying out their case, with or without witnesses or documents, showing why Trump should be removed from office.
The power and eloquence of the speech , in the eyes of fellow Dems in any case, was so overwhelming that #AdamSchiffROCKS took off as a trending hashtag on Twitter and after almost 12 hours is still going strong.
Here are a few of the tweets extoling the virtues and clarity of “pencil neck” as the schoolyard bully in the White House has called him:
Here's the video @RepAdamSchiff just played on the floor of the Senate, in which Trump asked for illegal election assistance from 2 countries.
This was the year that a Real Path to Long awaited Trends Begins
CES, happening in Las Vegas during the first work week of the year, is touted as the launch platform for everything new in tech for consumers. In the days of CDs, DVD.s, Flat Screens and other 20th Century wonders, that was mostly true. New releases of better TVs or innovative ways to consume entertainment could change a lot in 12 months.
In recent years, along with the rest of the tech world, we have seen instead the constant incremental “iteration” based progress, from the gradual slowing of Moore’s law to the constant criticism of why the iPhone is still just an iPhone. Then there’s the ultimate non event of watching the same content on “HD” or 4K or 8k , or maybe next year 16k “ready” screens, and so on.
Looking to shop newest products featured at CES? Check Amazon’s Selection. (Lynxotic may receive affiliate benefit)
Then, in the last few years the new new tech began to arrive. Ever evolving Drones, Robotics, AI software combined with new hardware for aquiring and processing visual information have all been a standard element and and represent an ever larger footprint at the show. Added to that are now transportation “concept” innovations and the “smart home” and iOT has morphed into the sustainable city and connected communities.
What was big this year is that these ideas, prototypes and start-up brands for the most part, are nearing the point where they could actually have a place in consumer technology and not just as a sneak peek at what might “someday” be possible.
Here are a few examples that caught our attention, by no means an exhaustive or comprehensive listing but just what stood out during a random sampling of what was on offer and display.
Sustainable Transport and Smart Cities as Upgrade to “Smart Home” products that are now Old Hat
At the top of the list from this category, admittedly to large to even start to dig into, is the “Personal Liberation Device” from Unagi which is a over achieving descriptor for an electric scooter to own, not rent. Especially if you are tired of the stacks of abandoned “Limes” or maybe are not a fan of everything in your life turning into an Uber for this and Air B&B for that, this is a truly realistic and attractive alternative.
Slim light foldable and boasting dual motors (like the Tesla Model 3) in the top model there’s a hellava lot to like in the design. Maybe steep at around 1k but this is a practical, durable (by all accounts) owned item to be cherished, not a rental to take your frustrations out on.
All of us who support green energy and a sustainable future can take heart in the progress made, in a single year, if not in the final breakthroughs, at least in the intention to take on bigger projects and issues, such as the various transportation and EV exhibits as well as a large hall dedicated to Smart Cities and how AI can improve and enhance lives, while at the same time exhibiting a zero carbon footprint.
Robotics are Still not Quite Mainstream but getting Very Close
One odd feature of CES is that many of the same Companies are back every year and even occupy the same spot on the convention center floor. This makes it easier to find them, sure, but also jogs the memory as to the changes in what is being featured. Some seem to have tweaked and refined what is essentially the same idea or product, such as the Omron Robot vs. Human ping pong presentation. Even there you could see major improvements, meant to show the accuracy and versitility of robot arms and AI.
The applications for various robotics based products at a consumer or pro-sumer level is still an ongoing and developing area with the costs vs. the uses (often still not known as these products have not previously existed) being the primary obstacle. But very soon, as soon as CES 2021 there will likely be major breakthroughs in this category that you will hear about and even start using.
T9 Robot – World’s Most Advanced and Programmable Robot. T9 Is both vehicle and robot, transmuting instantly through voice or app control. Three intuitive and easy programming platforms make coding fun with T9’s advanced robotics and artificial intelligence
There were others that came with changes that seem like a new generation of capabilities and uses. In 2019 there were various companies showing “toy” robots that were meant to bring the science of robotics to the consumer level as a learning tool to help kids (and adults) experiment with programming and even building robots for home use and experimentation.
The cost of these, including the LEGO version of the idea, seemed to be a big impediment to wide adoption at the consumer level and a Prosumer market is not really a niche a significance in the space yet. What has changed, and this is a refrain across the show in general, is that the same relative high price points are producing much more capable and potentially usable products that could entice more engagement and interest.
Robosen Robotics is an example, initially a successful Kickstarter project, now beginning a commercial phase with it’s T9 product that was presented. This T9 Robot also comes with included programming software and has a “wow” factor that was missing in some of last year’s products. Using voice or app control it is billed as the “world’s most advanced”.
T9 features more than 3,000 State-of-the-Art Components and 22 Proprietary Servo Motors
Camera tech combined with software and AI is beginning to get Serious
Pilot 1 360º 8k Camera System
Chinese and US-China ventures are leading the way in the efforts to go beyond GoPro and Drone photography. For example, last year, a variety of 360º camera systems all seemed to be just “nearly there” and products in search of a use and market rationale. No more. An example is Pilot 1 from PiSoftTech that has increased the functionality of last year’s hardware product offering and, most significantly added free accompanying AI enhanced software and phone app which vastly extend the usability for prosumer and even consumer users.
An example is a function specifically designed to automatically produce and edit 3D virtual tours, such as those used for real estate web listings, at a very high quality just by doing the walkthrough with the camera running. No editing or post production required. There is also a use for carmakers and even aftermarket resellers for a 360º recording for your car that not only shows your surroundings but your own position as well.
All in all the updates in a single year on various 360º photographic products are impressive and most of the progress is due to software and AI contributions to the ease of use and power of production added.
Climate Agenda likely to Clash with Fossil Fuel Power Elite in Switzerland
At the end of January, world leaders from corporate, banking, and governmental institutions will gather in Davos, Switzerland for the 50th World Economic Forum. The business tycoons, global financers, and politicians will come together on the 21st-24th to discuss policy and business agendas to improve the state of the world from an economic viewpoint. Recently, however, the commercial and political magnates learned that the conference will also be hosting another guest—a far from conventional (but nevertheless influential) one having impact on the world of business.
The new guest is young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, and she comes on behalf of the environment, urging leaders to abandon fossil fuels and prioritize the climate crisis from humanitarian and fiscal perspectives.
Thunberg announced her forthcoming attendance at Davos in an article for The Guardian on Friday, January 10th. In Thunberg’s signature biting rhetoric, her piece addresses the fact that fossil fuel companies are the leading cause of the climate catastrophe. She writes, “We call upon the world’s leaders to stop investing in the fossil fuel economy that is at the very heart of this planetary crisis. Instead, they should invest their money in existing sustainable technologies, research and in restoring nature. Short-term profit should not trump long-term stability of life.”
2020 Looks to be the Year that the Climate Reality comes Head to Head with Entrenched Interests
These stubborn, profit-driven corporations—many of which will be at the conference—are often the ones that lobby for policies that block environmental reformation towards renewable energy. This year’s conference theme, however, is “stakeholders for a cohesive and sustainable world”. Greta is attending to make sure that the conference lives up to its logline and that the participants do not shortchange the environment for financial benefit.
Greta has appeared at several global climate conferences and rallies over the past couple years. Ever since the seventeen-year-old girl dropped out of school in 2018 to become a climate activist, she has vehemently pressured leaders around the world to take action against global warming and prioritize the planet’s long-term wellbeing. At the end of 2019, she even held the stage at the UN Climate Conference in Madrid.
In Davos, however, she will be talking to a group of monetary-minded professionals. Due to the innate short-termism that often surrounds business self-interest, the discipline is at a crux with the climate crisis. Thus, the conference will provide a very difficult crowd for Thunberg to go up against and influence.
Nevertheless, as any environmentally aware person should know, the climate crisis is no longer a long-term issue. In the 2020s, it is already clear that we are facing contemporary and present cataclysms rather than some distant, hypothetical threat. Furthermore, regardless of temporal scales, when climate change reaches its worst, it will end up costing far more than any preemptive sustainable efforts might amount to if acted on immediately.
Turning the Corner from Recognition of a Crisis to the Search for Solutions
Many feel that 2019 was the year the it became impossible to deny that the climate is in crisis and that the cause is human activity releasing carbon gasses into the atmosphere. Starting in 2020, it now appears, the focus will be squarely on finding ways to stop the cause and, ultimately, to begin an extremely rapid and urgent transition to sustainable energy, which will, by definition, threaten the existing power structure based on fossil fuel business and wealth.
Although massive conflict related to this issue is certain, facing this impasse, from a political, economic and human perspective is as unavoidable as it in imperative. It can only be hoped that a large enough consensus can be built and that the focus can quickly shift away from the conflict and toward a joint effort to find solutions.
As we kick off the new year and decade, it is fitting that the world’s most famous, advocate for sustainable energy, as a way to combat the climate crisis, Time Magazine’s Person of the Year, should be on hand at Davos to demand, for all of us, that a conscious shift away from Fossil Fuels must begin immediately.
Aging Mogul and CEO Eye Disruption with Innovative Mobile Platform
In a market apparently oversaturated with online video streaming platforms, it may seem like an inopportune time to start up a brand new service for audiences to consume content on their personal screens. This outlook, however, has not stopped Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman, two aging entertainment tycoons, in raising over a billion dollars to fund their novel mobile streaming project, Quibi.
Katzenberg and Whitman is, on paper, a corporate match made is heaven. Katzenberg was the chief of Walt Disney Studios during its 1990s animation renaissance and then went on to create DreamWorks with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. Whitman, meanwhile, was a tech mogul, formerly serving as CEO of eBay and Hewlett-Packard. Both in their sixties, these two veteran experts in their respective industries have recently combined their knowledge to launch Quibi—an upcoming streaming service made for the smallest of screens. Namely, mobile devices.
Of course, watching content on a smartphone or tablet is nothing new. Almost every streaming service has a mobile app, and YouTube alone has a seemingly endless amount of free content for viewers to watch wherever is convenient. Nevertheless, while most of these platforms hold true to the philosophy that the bigger-the-screen-the-better, Quibi embraces the small, personalized screen format exclusively, working it into their very production model.
Can “Turnstyle” Take Off along with 10 min “Quick Bites”?
Quibi is incorporating new technologies and resources to make their content highly personalized and appropriate for smartphone screens. Perhaps the company’s most innovative initiative is its “Turnstyle” format, whereby all content is made for both vertical and horizontal screens.
Unlike most mobile videos that are best watched horizontally, Quibi content will adjust for the phone’s orientation. Thus, there is no optimal way to watch Quibi; viewers can do so however they deem comfortable and switch back and forth in a seamless fashion.
Furthermore, Quibi has factored in the short attention spans of young audiences using mobile devices. Realizing that most mobile viewers seek quick bursts of information or entertainment, Quibi aims to keep its shows between seven and ten minutes long, providing episodic gusts of action often ending on cliffhangers. Moreover, the company is also looking to expand its daily video programming, whereby new content comes out each day.
While this high-turnover temporal model may appear as a mere means of reducing costs for the up-and-coming Quibi, Katzenberg and Whitman are far from pinching pennies for the service. Estimates claim that Quibi will pay its creators up to $125,000 for every minute of scripted and unscripted content, and around $10,000 for the daily programming. This is a bold, yet consciences effort to ensure quality, thus helping Quibi stand out amongst the competition and justify its subscription cost—$4.99 a month with ads, or $7.99 without ads.
The prospect of quality content on Quibi is further confirmed by the copious prestigious names already attached to the service. As aforementioned, Katzenberg and Whitman are far from beginners in the industry, and they have long lists of professional connections. Hence, Steven Spielberg, Guillermo Del Toro, Steven Soderbergh, Sam Raimi, Anna Kendrick, Kevin Hart, Jennifer Lopez and Zac Efron amongst other A-list names have already committed to Quibi.
Likewise, the company already has investment deals with some of the biggest studios in Hollywood including Disney and Warner Brothers, and will have content connected to ESPN, NBC News, and BBC.
Quibi’s exhaustive and impressive list of attached talent is made possible in no small part thanks to Katzenberg and Whitman’s networking prowess. However, the company is also incentivizing its creative minds with unprecedented terrain to explore on.
Additionally, Quibi promises its talent the right to retain ownership, after a specified interval, over creations. That way, no projects or characters are eternally bound to Quibi—directors can take their ideas to new platforms if need be and can keep all merchandizing and marketing rights to themselves. In a world where syndication dominates the entertainment industry, this is a very rare and appealing offer.
”Too Rich to Fail” Motto seems Apt, and Resonates with with Big Name Talent
Some of the shows on Quibi are already well into production or even post-production. Sam Raimi is working on an anthology series titled “Fifty States of Fright,” where he will be going back to his early horror roots as a filmmaker. Meanwhile, Steven Soderbergh is directing a suspenseful series called “Wireless” for the platform.
The projects that have garnered the most buzz, however, include a documentary series on DC and Marvel Comics spearheaded by “Avengers: Endgame” directors Joe and Anthony Russo, as well as a revived continuation of the hit Comedy Central show “Reno 911!” Projects from Spielberg and Del Toro are yet to be fleshed out, but the two filmmakers’ unparalleled reputations are likely to bring Quibi even more interest.
In short, the industry is certainly on board with Quibi. The real question now is whether or not consumers will be into it. With so much free content to scroll through on one’s phone, many viewers might not see adequate reason to pay a monthly fee for particular shows—especially when they are already paying for Disney+, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other services.
Quibi is certainly showing creativity in their use of the mobile platform and they definitely have a lot of promising talent in their corner. Nevertheless, some might deem Quibi’s mobile innovations as excessive gimmicks, and their talent as impressive, but not quite alluring enough of an end to justify the means.
A lot of skepticism existis that this entirely new format, in terms of show length, cost and price as well as the somewhat wacky “turnstyle” tech has a chance to become established. In some ways it is similar to Apple TV+ in the sense that the massive cash hoard backing each service (Quibi at least $1.4 Billion, Apple TV+ $6 Billion+) will ensure that, regardless of how long it takes to become popular with the public, in the end they are “too rich to fail”.
We won’t really know until April 6th, when Quibi officially launches and enters into the streaming war as a tactical and unpredictable underdog.
The Naked Display of Abandon in Shanghai was a Signal to The Next Generation
It’s not because Tesla’s stock is at a high. It’s not because SpaceX is passing milestone after milestone. Elon Musk is on a mission, and it’s the same one we all need to be on, starting now: to save the world.
There’s a kind of liberation in facing death, like the movie protagonist racing in a stolen car, chased by the killer bad guy, not worried about the tires or how much fuel is being used: it’s adrenaline pumping survival mode, right here, right now.
And yet, with the metaphorical woman of his dreams (who is actually us and the planet) in the passenger seat, the protagonist, and all of us vicariously, feels more alive, in what could be his final moments, than in all his life to this point.
That’s why he’s dancing.
Many say 2019 was the year that the Climate Crisis, formerly known as global warming, could no longer be doubted by any sane or unbiased person. A few dozen catastrophic, clearly anomalous weather events will do that.
And now, as the new decade dawns, Australia burns and #WWIII trends on Twitter, we are all starting to feel like we are in that stolen car.
Elon Musk is a little different from the rest of us. Not because of his money or success or brains or celebrity. Because he has been on this mission for practically his entire life.
And now we need to join him.
Tesla is and always has been on a mission. Not to “dominate” the EV sector of the auto industry, as is so often written. Not to achieve success as measured by profit or cash flow positions. It’s on an energy mission . See it’s stated for all to see on its twitter account:
So many constantly trumpet the refrain that solving the climate crisis is all about austerity and sacrifice, and certainly there will be plenty of that.
And the deniers say that changing the system is not worth it if there is even a minuscule chance that we are not doomed. Really? How much Exxon stock do you own ? But what it will really take is a revolution in thought and the contagious motivation of an entire generation. And humans are not prophylactically inclined !
It’s Elon Musk and Tesla’s genius, shared with Apple that they understand that you can change the world if people are moved by aspirational, beautiful, sexy dreams of a better life. Not some granola style golf cart of functionality.
An iPhone is the best, most powerful hand held computing device ever imagined and, oh yes, it’s a sexy, sleek fashion statement that you can love with all your heart as well. Ditto on the last part for every Tesla also, from the Model 3 to the Cybertruck.
That mission is bigger than being a car maker, or battery manufacturer or even tech design firm. It’s a mission to replace the current, suicidal, Fossil Fuel based infrastructure with a sustainable one. Worldwide. Right now. Before it’s too late to matter.
Companies that have a higher mission than just “profit for shareholders” have not just a higher moral ground from which to operate but a true motivation that literally pulses like a beating heart throughout the enterprise. Often overlooked is the mission that Steve Jobs imbued into the soul of Apple and the higher mission of providing the best tools that technology is capable of.
Looking forward, for perhaps the first time in human history, the challenges are sharply defined, as are the methods and players in the game. Massive evil forces, created by humans must be countered by small and also equally massive forces just as human, oriented toward a better world and more, the best of all possible worlds.
In truth, within the total devotion and capitulation to a higher mission lies freedom, inner peace and, ultimately success and prosperity, potentially for us all.
Not a hard choice when compared to pain, suffering and, ultimately the extinction of all life on this planet.
In short, it’s Utopia or Oblivion, folks.
So, thank you Elon Musk, for showing us the steps to the dance, and for having the bravery to show us with those awkward, unselfconscious moves that, you too, are learning as you go.
Now we all just need to apply ourselves, like Greta Thunberg inviting Meatloaf to examine scientific evidence, to the task of finding the joy in changing everything that’s wrong with our world, starting with the energy infrastructure, and replacing it with a better, cleaner, less tainted one.
— 🌎 Positive Energy Action (@PosEnergyAction) January 7, 2020
There is a paradox here, though. See it? If we are running for our lives from the most fearsome danger we’ve ever faced, and we are not concerned about money, power or the trappings of fame, then why does it sometimes seem like a better life is so close we can almost reach out and touch it?
Tesla Roadster – Photo / Tesla
Because that’s the secret. If we did all dance like Elon, devote ourselves to a higher cause, and put aside our worldly squabbles over money, power and fame, maybe, just maybe, we will survive and prosper, beyond all our imaginings. And that stolen car? It’s a Tesla Roadster hitting on maximum torque in Ludicrous mode.
And with every discovery shared, solution compounded and mission surpassed, we can escape together and let go of the past’s villainous errors. With luck to find a future worth all our hopes and dreams.
Celebrity Voices begin to Come Together on the #1 Issue of the Day
During a Golden Globes ceremony that had no shortage of politically charged dialogue, actor Joaquin Phoenix delivered one of the most memorable acceptance speeches of the evening. After winning the Best Actor in Drama Motion Picture award for his titular role in Todd Phillips’ “Joker,” Phoenix diffidently took to the stage and, before even expressing any obligatory thank yous, he first applauded the event’s efforts to be plant based. He then went on to condemn Hollywood’s egregious carbon footprint, urging his fellow stars to live up to their rhetoric and make tangible changes in their lives for the good of the planet.
Since Phoenix gave this unconventional speech on January 5th, there has been a lot of debate surrounding celebrity activism. Fueled also in part by 77th Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais’ opening monologue where he accused movie stars of hypocrisy, some are questioning weather celebrities actually do their part to combat climate change when the cameras aren’t rolling.
It has been argued, by the Extinction Rebellion (XR) and others that charges of celebrity hypocricy leveled at any who dare to speak up, encourages others to stay silent, thus achieving the opposite of what the climate, and the world actually needs. And cries of “stay in your lane” or “stick to entertaining” and even celebrities lobbing insults at each other, is precisely what the fossil fuel industrial complex needs to keep the movement to raise awareness of the climate crisis from gaining a larger following.
While we can’t speak for all of the winners who addressed the climate crisis in their acceptance speeches, Joaquin Phoenix recently showed concrete solidarity with the ideals he preaches, by getting arrested at a climate action rally in Washington DC.
Jane Fonda’s Leadership continues to Inspire and Energize
The climate rally was held on Friday, January 9th, just four days after the Globes. It was the last in a series of DC rallies led by actress-turned-activist Jane Fonda. Inspired by Greta Thunberg’s environmental campaigns, Fonda has been hosting weekly events, known as Fire Drill Fridays, on Capitol Hill since mid-October.
Fonda has used her own celebrity status and that of her friends to garner attention for the cause. At the final rally, both Joaquin Phoenix and fellow actor Martin Sheen also attended, and they each gave speeches to the crowd. Sheen expressed his admiration for Fonda among other female activists and then read “Where The Mind Is Without Fear,” a modernist poem by Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore.
When Phoenix spoke to the audience, his speech echoed that of his from the Globes. He pressed people to make changes in their individual livelihoods and particularly talked about consumption, once again championing plant based diets as the easiest and most effective way a single person can lower his or her carbon output.
As the rally escalated, the Capitol Police soon issued a warning for the protestors to vacate the Capitol Building’s steps or risk prosecution. When the protestors did not comply, the Police arrested 147 of the participants—both Phoenix and Sheen among them. The arrestees were charged with crowding and obstructing before being released.
Due to an increasing number of previous arrests, Fonda has been careful not to end up in handcuffs again herself. Nevertheless, she expressed her appreciation and unity with those willing to get a criminal record for Fire Drill Fridays’ goals. Fonda is now returning to Los Angeles to film the final season of Netflix’s “Grace and Frankie,” so she will not be seen in the capitol as consistently. Nevertheless, she is likely to continue her activism wherever she goes.
Photo / Joker / Warner Brothers
Expect More Celebs to Join and Repeat
As for Phoenix and Sheen, neither have announced any future Hollywood projects just yet—with the exception of a rumored “Joker 2” for Phoenix. Sheen will be appearing in the upcoming “The Adventures of Theo Star” and “12 Mighty Orphans” while Phoenix will be in “C’mon C’mon” later this year. However, all of these films are already in post-production. Therefore, the actors have seemingly free schedules, so we can likely expect to see them at more rallies and events in the future.
Phoenix’s arrest is a testament to the honesty behind his Golden Globes acceptance speech. While cries of celebrity hypocrisy may rise among perma-critics and those that carry water for the fossil fuel companies, Phoenix (and Sheen) are show their true colors and the willingness to put themselves on the front line for environmental justice. For that, they, along with Fonda, Sam Waterston and others can be seen as genuine role models and deserve commendation.
2019 Made Clear that the Climate Crisis is a Real and Growing Danger
The idea of Sustainable Energy Infrastructure, a.k.a. clean energy, dates back to the 1970s. As a matter of fact Earth Day, inaugurated April 22, 1970, was founded to raise awareness of environmental issues. The main issue for the first decade or so was pollution, hence clean energy. Although the “hole” in the ozone layer, first discovered in 1985, is not directly related to climate change, the root cause of both is the human release of pollutants into the atmosphere.
In 1969 the Cuyahoga River went up in flames and, when Time Magazine published dramatic photos of the blaze, outrage was ignited nationwide. So exactly 50 years ago, as of June 2019, the so called “Environmental Movement” began, and has now morphed into the Climate Crisis. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), established by, of all people, Richard Nixon, began its operation in the same year as Earth Day, on December 2, 1970. As for Solar Cells and power, the first working solar cell was built in 1883. 1832 there was already experimentation with electric vehicles and then, around 1870 working models were driven on the streets on London.
Sadly, the last 50 years (not to speak of the century plus since solar and EV solutions have been incubating) have been marked more by obstruction and obfuscation on the part of politicians and the government, rather than enough meaningful support for a cleaner, sustainable energy infrastructure.
The Real Truth Regarding Sustainable Energy and Why its Growth has been Blocked
Unfortunately, sometimes the most urgently needed answers are hidden in plain sight. The obvious stands directly in front of us staring us in the face . If someone were to ask what the greatest obstacle is to building a sustainable energy infrastructure to supersede current oil and fossil fuel-based sources? Some might say research and development, or new technology, perhaps EV adoption by the general public.
I hear many say “2019 was the year when the public woke up to the climate crisis”. This is a misconception. A small but rapidly growing number of people have started to wake up to the climate crisis. This has only just begun. We’re still only scratching the surface.
While all of these sound vaguely plausible there’s a much simpler explanation for what the true impediment is.
Below is a list showing the the top 10 oil producing countries in the world measured by barrels per day of output. Simply by looking at the top three USA, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, it can easily be seen where the real problem lies. Not only is the USA the largest producer of oil in the world, based on the barrels per day measurement, it is also the largest fossil fuel consuming nation on the planet. And those output numbers are growing.
Is it any wonder that the “oil president” has done everything in his power to block any efforts to include the USA in climate change related treaties or negotiations?
Further, the USA has increased its production of oil virtually every year this decade. Since the price of oil peaked in 2008 which also coincided with the financial crisis, the US has been doing everything in its power to reduce the price of oil in order, presumably, to attempt to create economic stimulus. While this may seem like a valid goal, it has a direct effect on the relative price of sustainable energy sources, which become more expensive in comparison as the price of oil goes down. Without government support, such as gasoline taxes reinvested in clean energy sources, the transition away from fossil fuels simply can not happen fast enough to avoid global catastrophe.
Simply by looking at the list of the top 10 oil producing countries in 2018 it can easily be seen the logic behind the massive and focused resistance to any improvement in sustainable energy generation. There is a massive incentive toward the self-perpetuation of these enterprises, right up until outright extinction is the fate of us all.
It is also no coincidence that countries who have done the most to create a price equilibrium between clean sustainable sources and fossil fuels through taxation of gasoline, primarily, happen to be those countries that produce and own the fewest oil assets. Germany is a perfect example as it leads the world in the increase in capacity of sustainable energy infrastructure.
The meaning and import attached to these simple facts go beyond the rise of EVs, Tesla and public awareness. Beyond the meteoric career of a charismatic wunderkind willing to take on established powers that have exhibited virtually infinite levels of corruption and suicidal stupidity. This issue, how to stop the obstruction of the ultimate and total transition away from poisonous fossil fuels, is the only issue that matters for the decade of the 2020s. The politicians and governments must be forced, not only to stop obstructing, but to support the transition with extreme prejudice.
Below: our top energy breakthrough stories from 2019
Apple’s Greatest Innovations Lie Ahead in the New Decade: 2019 Laid The Foundation
As is so often the case with Apple, the perennial over-achiever, nothing seemed to be quite enough to truly wow the public in 2019. That is not to say that monumental things were not happening at an astounding clip; they were. Early in the year, skeptics pounced on “weak” iPhone sales and then used one-dimensional linear extrapolation to predict Apple’s slow demise, as they have done many times in the past.
Once again, it was Apple that responded with a barrage of ideas and products that not only turned the year around but point to a new decade that has the potential to outshine even the 2010’s, which brought Apple to heights no one could have previously imagined.
As for 2019, the iPhone 11 Pro series “only” brought smartphone based photography to a whole new level, beyond the level, in some cases, that pro gear can provide. Obviously there is the convenience of a powerful photographic tool that resides in your pocket, but with Night Mode and Deep Fusion, alongside the improvements via 3 dedicated cameras (each with it’s own lens) and iOS 13’s editing and photo management features, for a broad swath of users the 11 pro series is a game changer, perhaps even life changing for some.
The Mac Pro upgrade, fittingly, with 2019 being the year that “pro” emerged and took over for Apple, was nothing short of monumental. There is a slow, currently unformed, realization that computational power and beauty of function will be essential in the next decade, possible even for the survival of the planet, if not at least the enjoyment of our world while we still live and breathe. Our upcoming series on the link between Sustainable energy and enhanced human networked communication, along with AI and machine learning, and how the rapid and profound development of these are the only hope for meeting the challenges that are looming, will begin in early 2020 and Apple has added the perfect exclamation point with its incredible addition at the top of the Mac product family. Expense is no object with everything, literally, in on the line, so, as time goes on, the prices will be seen to be justified.
MacBook pro upgrades, AirPods Pro, iPad and iPad OS, MacBook Air, the list goes on and on and that is only the hardware. Software and services are the real breakthrough story. There is literally so much that was launched this year that it would take a dozen articles to scratch the surface.
If nothing else, at least we can scratch that surface here and then, add links below to our in-depth coverage. Apple TV was huge, with “The Morning Show” getting a nomination for Best TV Series, Best Supporting Actor (Billy Crudup) while both Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon got a nod for Best Actress. As with most Apple projects Apple TV+ is a long term, serious commitment to production with, reportedly, a budget over $6 Billion. Apple Music expanded its offerings, and don’t forget the Apple Card which, added to Apple Pay, expands the foray in to Fintech.
The Next Decade will be about the Increased Benefits of the Total Apple Ecosystem
As we detailed in a thread running throughout our 2019 coverage, ultimately, it is the entire Apple ecosystem, Hardware, Software, Hardware Components, Supply Chain, Services and the innovative ways all the desperate elements are so skillfully integrated that sets Apple apart, now and even more so in the future.
And, further, all of Apple’s brilliance and success can be traced back to something that will be a huge story in 2020 and beyond. After the decade of WeWork and other scams, the shame of surveillance business models from Google and Facebook and the convoluted Pseudo-Ponzi-Scheme Monopsony that is Amazon, the 2020’s will be the decade that companies built on a higher purpose, such as Apple’s devotion to creating better tools on behalf of the entire human race, as envisioned by Steve Jobs and carried out to this day, will rise and the others decline and collapse from the weight their own corrupt conception. Only Tesla is among the largest companies that also have altruism at the heart of their business model.
Without further ado, our picks for the most significant and forward looking products and ideas from Apple in 2019:
Honors pale compared to the task that lies ahead, but the Accolades are well Deserved
Greta Thunberg, the hugely influential sixteen-year-old climate activist from Sweden, was recently named Time magazine’s 2019 Person of the Year. Just a teenager, Thunberg holds the honor of being the youngest recipient of the title in history.
The Time magazine Person of the Year is a tradition that dates all the way back to 1927, when Charles Lindberg earned the prestigious title for being the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic. Over the past ninety-two years, the honor has been given to influential people such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. On a more controversial side of history, the award has also gone to infamous people such as Hitler in 1938, Stalin in 1939 and 1942, and Donald Trump in 2016.
Thunberg, however, is given the honor for her work in influencing others to take on earth’s greatest challenge. Ever since dropping out of school in 2018, she has traveled the world, spreading messages of action and determination regarding climate change. Her dedication to making the world a sustainable place is unparalleled and she has inspired many people with her unapologetic and honest way of addressing the issue head on.
Greta’s accomplishments are all the more impressive given her age, gender, and conditions. A teenaged girl with Aspergers Syndrome, anautism spectrum disorder is not typically the kind of person that Time magazine selects for Person of the Year. Before Thunberg, the youngest Person of the Year was twenty-five years old, and before the turn of the millennium, only four women had ever received the honor. Nevertheless, Greta earned the title on merit, and her recognition is further inspiration for more young women to stand up against tyranny and aspire to great things.
Coinciding with COP 25 Greta Continued on only paused Briefly to Acknowledge the Award
In typical Greta Thunberg fashion, though, she did not gloat or really even celebrate the honor. Steadfast on overlooking symbolic recognition and focusing on tangible change, Thunberg spent the week addressing the UN Climate Conference in Madrid.
As Greta does when meeting with world leaders, she spoke to the UN with the uncompromising sincerity, calling out politicians for considering money over the environment and creating egregious loopholes in order to surpass climate accountability. She called the current pledges in place “misleading,” and deemed that good intentions are not enough; it takes long-term and persistent commitment to save the planet.
Coincidentally, shortly after Thunberg finished her moving speech, over two-hundred activists were removed from the conference. Loudly chanting their beliefs and frustrations for several minutes, the protestors were eventually forced out of the building by security.
I hear many say “2019 was the year when the public woke up to the climate crisis”. This is a misconception. A small but rapidly growing number of people have started to wake up to the climate crisis. This has only just begun. We’re still only scratching the surface.
Many of the protestors came from the organization Greenpeace, which Thunberg has worked with in the past. Among those removed from the building was Greenpeace leader Jennifer Morgan, who commented on the stark divide between what is going on inside the conference and what is going on outside, implying that the politician’s have a severe detachment from the citizens’ world.
Morgan’s insight is not a good sign, especially considering that the UN Climate Conference is dependent on unity and understanding across borders. However, if there is already a border separating the conference from the rest of the world, then it puts the entire meeting in jeopardy.
Spending the final weeks of a tumultuous year at home in Sweden, there is no doubt that in 2020 she will once again be in the headlines continuing her quest to raise awareness and help us all to face our greatest challenge head on, with open eyes and, hopefully, open minds.
A Story that’s Getting Old, Lies and Deception are Flooding All Outlets on Precipice of 2020 Election Year
Over the past few months, false videos on YouTube posing as established American news outlets have garnered millions of views. Selling themselves as CNN or Fox News, these fake accounts present inflammatory and fabricated content to their viewers, effectively deceiving the American public by spreading misinformation.
The Google-owned YouTube says they have taken down as many of these videos as it can, but companies such as CNN insist that the website needs to do more to proactively inhibit such activity. After all, the source of the problem is rooted deep within the very fiber that keeps YouTube (and the current monopolized Internet as a whole) running.
What is really going on in the YouTube case is an exploitation of two fundamental aspects of the Internet. Namely, these fake accounts are taking advantage of the web’s free ranging platform, and they are manipulating the data-based algorithms that keep the Internet efficiently feeding billions in ad revenue to the platforms like, google search, YouTube, Facebook and Amazon.
The web’s “free” policy refers to the fact that anyone can post anything on the Internet, although “free” in this case is a deceiving concept. Long before the Internet was a global phenomenon, the system was built upon a somewhat libertarian foundation where all users had equal access and unrestricted contribution power to information. The potential fault in this model, however, is that there is little accountability or security. As we are seeing today, with so much unchecked info, lying becomes easy and the line between true and false greys.
Algorithms are the Gatekeepers, Automation for Advertising Dollars
As for the algorithms, websites like YouTube, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and so on, depend on formulas that learn more about you the more you use them. A term that is gradually beginning to become more important but not yet fully understood, an algorithm is a set of instructions, managed by Artificial Intelligence.
The key point is that the companies mentioned above maintain total secrecy as to the settings of the algorithm, however, by viewing the public results it is clear that in all cases the algorithm is programmed to benefit advertisers, and thereby increase profits for the companies.
As per wikipedia:
“In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a finite sequence of well-defined, computer-implementable instructions, typically to solve a class of problems or to perform a computation. Algorithms are unambiguous specifications for performing calculation, data processing, automated reasoning, and other tasks.”
This is how YouTube recommends videos for you, Facebook shows you suggested posts, Amazon advertises things that fit your taste, and Google can anticipate your searches before you even type anything in. It is based mostly off of your previous use—your activity provides data that these tech companies manipulate, own and sell (which you unwittingly agreed to by clicking the ubiquitous “terms of service” agreement).
However, as the access to Internet platforms, and therefore the ability to interact with others, has become a virtual monopoly controlled by the platforms, the ethics surrounding data rights and algorithms have become less clear.
Most Internet users have allowed access to their personal information in some way or another. Through “free” email accounts, social media, messages, pictures, purchases, and so on, your entire identity is encrypted somewhere in the cybernetic ether, and you have little control over it.
The consequences of this go beyond just getting offered offensive videos or unsolicited ads. The companies that made the bogus CNN accounts, for example, cleverly played YouTube’s algorithms so you would be redirected there after watching legitimate news stories. Because the majority of people consume news through their computers, fake news and real news have become increasingly difficult to distinguish.
More and More Political Manipulators are Gaming the Algos
Moreover, these misleading accounts are not always coming from Internet trolls. Some of them are run by malicious enterprises or foreign governments trying to influence geopolitical processes. Such was the case behind the now well known, infamous case of Cambridge Analytica’s interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.
Cambridge Analytica—a British political consulting firm—marketed for the Trump campaign using people’s Facebook data. At the height of the campaign, the company allegedly consulted with Russian officials to assist in Trump’s eventual election.
Due to the algorithmic control of websites like Facebook, once Cambridge Analytica had information on a single user, it was able to acquire information on every person that that single user ever interacted with online. Via just a handful of connections, the company was able to quickly collect data on nearly the entire nation. Thus, even if you avoided all of Cambridge Analytica’s tricks, you could still be targeted through just a few degrees of separation.
There is really no way of knowing who Facebook is sharing your data with or how they are using it. In fact, you don’t even know what your own data is, as most websites bar their users from accessing the very information that they provide. The only way to find out how you are being targeted is by consuming the suggested version of yourself that these tech companies feed back to you.
The situation is certainly eerie on a personal level, but it also transcends the individual to impact phenomena on a far greater scale. With the Trump administration as evidence, Cambridge Analytica’s approach obviously worked in some capacity. Likewise, businesses and organizations can manipulate data to promote their version of the world. Through the unrestricted world of the Internet, powerful users can alter history, conflate truths, and shape the American psyche into thinking whatever they deem real.
Certain sectors of the government have been working to try and fix this problem. Mark Zuckerberg has gone before Congress to answer for Facebook’s place in the Cambridge Analytica case. Likewise, the California Consumer Privacy Act will take effect on January 1st, giving people greater personal data rights in the Golden State.
Don’t expect the companies mentioned above, having a combined market value of more than $3 trillion, to cooperate or rein in this problem voluntarily. This algorithmic dictatorship benefits criminals like those that were behind the Trump election meddling, but most of all the system benefits the platforms themselves, at a level that is mind-bogglingly obscene. This system will change only when they are broken up or gone.
Data is the most profitable resource on the planet (recently topping oil), and it is because of our data inputs that Google and Facebook, among others, remain “free” websites. The real price for online “services” like search and social platforms is very high indeed and users are getting scammed out of more than they may realize.
Ultimately, like in politics and life itself, it is the masses, the users themselves in this case, that can decide if they want an algorithmic dictatorship, or if it is time to sweep away the current dysfunctional system and replace it with one where the price is not so steep.
I hear many say “2019 was the year when the public woke up to the climate crisis”. This is a misconception. A small but rapidly growing number of people have started to wake up to the climate crisis. This has only just begun. We’re still only scratching the surface.
Trump Imagines Eagles Attacked by Windmills – Collage – Lynxotic
In a weekend speech in West Palm Beach, Florida, close to his winter retreat at Mar-a-Lago where he is spending the holidays, Trump, rambling and nearly incoherent, outlined his lack of “understanding” for “windmills” and how “They kill the birds”.
“I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. They’re noisy. They kill the birds.
Trump at speech to young conservatives
In a recent New York Times article some real facts behind Trump’s true attitude toward birds and the environment in general were detailed. Of course, by now it is well known and standard practice for his speeches to veer off into wild and reckless lies and untruths, but this recurrent theme of a concern for the danger that “windmills” pose for birds is particularly bizarre when compared with the real facts.
His administration’s new interpretation for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act means that companies that literally destroy birds, even by the millions, no longer have to pay fines or even report the destruction. This contrasts his nonsensical and false allegations that “windmills” are killing birds with actual examples such as when BP paid $100 million in fines as a result of having killed or injured at least one million birds during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Quoted in the Times, Noah Greenwald, the endangered species director for the Center for Biological Diversity stated that the Trump administration has engineered “a fundamental shift” in policy that “lets industrial companies, utilities and others completely off the hook.”
“Even a disaster like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010, which killed or injured about a million birds, would not expose a company to prosecution or fines.”
So, while he is out whining about deaths of birds due to wind power turbines, completely imagined and for which there is no proof, his administration is quietly sanctioning companies to commit what nearly amounts to bird genocide with impunity. It doesn’t take much to see that we are talking something about far more dangerous than a lying clown or entertainer. There is a clear pattern of protecting big oil and other corrupt environmentally destructive entities while at the same time attacking all sustainable energy solutions or pollution reducing projects or policies.
Trump Tilting at Windmills Tweaks Twitter, acting as Buffoon: the Subject is no longer Humorous
Above and below are some samples of recent tweets, of course there was parody and jokes at Trump’s expense, but also others more on point. The real motivation is exposed behind what appears to be clowning, as Trump attempts to insert imaginary faults to anything that challenges the hegemony of the fossil fuel industrial complex.
#windmills The time for standing up to the fools and the corrupt that support the fossil fuel industry is now@GretaThunberg is right – this is just the beginning
Another batch of Fraudulent, pro Trump Social Media Manipulators are Identified and Removed, for now
In blog posts from Twitter and Facebook the removal of a large number of fake accounts and actors were announced. On Twitter the number of accounts was nearly six thousand which were part of a larger network of 88,000.
The announcements were detailed and each provided data on the techniques used, including the use of A.I. generated photos. The Twitter accounts were also confirmed to be Saudi-Backed and propagated by a social media “marketing” company called Smaat that was operating on behalf of the Saudi State.
All related parties have been banned, although it is hard to imagine that it will be difficult for them to resume a similar campaign behind a different front. The blog posts appear to be an effort, at the least, to show that the companies are attempting to monitor this kind of dangerous propaganda.
“We exist to serve the public conversation around the world. To this end, we’ll continue to take strong enforcement action against any state-backed information campaigns which undermine our company’s mission, principles, and policies.”
– Twitter blog Post
As for Facebook and Instagram, the “Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior” that was removed was said to originate in Vietnam, Georgia and the U.S. Georgia, of course is the former Soviet republic that Trump was in negotiations with, around 2012, to build an eponymous tower (with help, allegedly, from Russia).
Vietnam, on the other hand, is the communist country alleged to be a likely cover for Chinese and Anti-Chinese actors. In this case Facebook has linked the activity to a company called BL which Facebook connected to the Epoch Media Group. These groups manipulated content using coordinated inauthentic behavior, spam and misrepresentation as well as other activities that violate Facebook and Instagram policies.
All parties involved have been permanently banned. In total, again according to the blog post, the various parties in each network spent approximately $10 million on advertising, using various currencies, including $US, Korean Won, Vietnamese dong, Indonesian rupiah, Australian dollars, the New Taiwan dollars and Canadian dollars.
It has become clear, in part through investigations during the Trump Impeachment hearings, that international interference in U.S. politics, far from being on the wane after the Russian pro-Trump interference in the 2016 elections, is set for a potential explosion into 2020.
The concept that appears to be going through the minds of nefarious actors across the globe is: “if it worked once, why not continue and expand”. Regardless of a provable, direct connection to Trump, there are many interested international parties that have agendas that allign with a Trump victory in 2020.
Deeper Issues Arise as this Example is Likely Just the Tip of the Iceberg
As many have pointed out, Trump faces possible prosecution and incarceration if he fails to win the 2020 election, so the stakes are very high indeed. That, combined with an obvious disregard for rules or laws of political campaigns, let allow social media, there will undoubtedly be many more instances of fraud and “inauthentic behavoir” from here on out.
This is exactly the issue that Democrats pointed during the impeachment process and which made impeachment not only necessary but a requirement. Based on the circumstances clearly indicating that Trump is likely to repeat or attempt to repeat the same actions and behaviors, including high crimes and misdemeanors, and encourage, if not engage in actions such as the Russian interference that got him elected in 2016.
“Shall the man who has practiced corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?”
— GEORGE MASON IN A DEBATE ALSO ATTENDED BY JAMES MADISON, JULY 20TH, 1787
Now, the billion dollar question is, if social media companies doing voluntary self-policing, turning down tens of millions of dollars (if not far more) in advertising revenue, and spending on departments and programs dedicated to monitoring this fraudulent spam and worse, can be counted on to do all of this and more for our benefit?
After Facebook refused to take down a political ad, paid for by Trump backers, known to be false, and not significantly different from the bogus content that Facebook reported today by foreign actors, can they be trusted to thoroughly and adequately monitor such massive networks and remove offenders before more damage has been done?
And what of the life of lies, such as imaginary “investigations” that keep cropping up against Democratic candidates that are potentially running against Trump in 2020?
The example posted by Facebook invents an investigation into Elizabeth Warren and another related to Nancy Pelosi, goes on even after the accounts are deleted and banned. I had seen the anti-Warren fabrication on twitter and, disregarded it, as it seemed superficial and implausible, yet now it is also proven be not only fake and fabricated but posted by foreign criminal actors with a pro Trump agenda.
This brings up the larger issue, one of reader and prospective voter sophistication. The huge question that arises over and over, as the Trump lies and crimes are cataloged and ajudicated, is how anyone could believe this man, let alone believe in him.
The answer is, unfortunately, sad and depressing for our future. Just as Hitler was accepted and even loved by most of the German population before he ultimately led them and himself to a dead end, the blind belief and naive “loyalty” of people can never be overestimated.
Those ridiculous stories about Ukraine conspiracies spread by Putin and propagated by Trump himself and then on to his various followers, themselves both imaginary and some real (but hypnotized and deluded), will likely still be quoted by fools and evil, self-serving sycophants for years to come.
That is, unless the 180 million plus Americans, and their allies around the world, who know better and see the danger that Trump represents in all its horror, find a way to drown the lies in an even larger deluge of real news. And, once rid of this would-be dictator, never let apathy and social media fraud control another election. 2020 preview or fantasy from neverland?
The Six Thousand Accounts were part of a Larger Spam Network of 88,000
On casual observation, there appears to be a surge in bogus accounts attempting to manipulate on Twitter recently and now this has been confirmed, partially, with six thousand accounts deleted with Twitter disclosing the inauthentic behavior and violations as well as the State-backed Source (Saudia Arabia) in its blog today.
The disclosure shows some very interesting tricks that various bad actors are using to try and mask their true intent in order to “survive” longer on the platform without having their accounts deleted.
According to the Twitter blog the Saudi Arabian government backed accounts were engaging in retweeting, liking and replying, using automation, in order to mask tweets with a political agenda favorable to Saudi Interests.
The method of masking the true goal of an account that is an automated spam bot is becoming more common based on our observations of the platform. Accounts favorable to Trump, that appear inauthentic (robots) will retweet and even retweet liberal content, such as tweets favorable to AOC, to mask their intent. Then, if the account is followed, pro-Trump spam is sent via private direct messages, for example.
As the Tricks get Deeper and the Stakes Higher, Twitter must also Evolve in its Response
It appears that , with this report on the eighty-eight thousand account take down, Twitter is learning and following as these attempts to avoid detection are created, developed and implemented.
Twitter also disclosed that a social media marketing and management company based in Saudi Arabia called Smaat was behind the platform manipulation. The company has also been “permanently” banned from using Twitter due to the activity. In an interesting additional action, the accounts of senior executives of the company were also deleted and the persons banned.
The company used third party automation services to produce high volumes of activity related to non-political content. This, based on the content, is not necessarily against Twitter policy as such amplification of non-political content in allowed. In this case, however, the high volume of activity was used to mask the political content that was interspersed in the “storm” of activity.
Here is the quote from Twitter that serves as a comment on the action and what they intend for future cases:
“We exist to serve the public conversation around the world. To this end, we’ll continue to take strong enforcement action against any state-backed information campaigns which undermine our company’s mission, principles, and policies.”
No Democrat should ever Legitimize Fake News by Calling it Anything but what it is: Propaganda
The responses by the various candidates to the first question of the debates in Los Angeles yesterday were all over the map.
“Why, if impeachment is so necessary, are more Americans not on board with it” Judy Woodruff of PBS NewsHour asked, referring to the polls that show a nearly 50-50 split on the issue.
Of all the candidates, Andrew Yang came closest to the real answer when he replied:
“We’re getting our news from different sources,” – Andrew Yang
While at least there is, in his response, an almost subtle hint at the iceberg of issues beneath it, the mountain beneath the surface is one that ought to be addressed, not just danced around.
In a nutshell the question would be better phrased: “with all the lies and high crimes of this president how could so many people not support impeachment and removal?”
Then unfortunate response would almost certainly bring up the issue that dare not speak it’s name: Fake News.
And by fearing to even mention this massive problem in our society, and allowing Trump to parade around calling real news “fake” for two years without an effective, specific retort, the media, and now the candidates, are potentially creating a dictator, impeached or not.
Because this question goes further: “How can millions of otherwise reasonable people support this parade of lies and deceit”?
The answer to all of this is, unfortauntely, the massive and electronically turbocharged propaganda machine that is creating a parallel fake, dangerous and destructive reality which is literally brainwashing people into thinking that it, and not the real fact based information reported in the “traditional” media, is “real”.
Naturally, anyone who has been paying attention already knows this. But knowing that there is literally a separate propaganda reality, starting with Fox News and going all the way down to the troll bots and fake accounts on twitter and facebook, and being able to do anything about it, let alone stop its growth and becoming established, are two different things.
Turnabout is FairPlay? Or Confront every Lie until the Truth Wins Out?
The victory for the Trump propaganda machine came when he started repeating the phrase “fake news” over and over and over while referring to the real news, singling out CNN and the New York Times in particular.
The response, en masse, from the so called “mainstream” media? Not much. Admittedly, getting into a playground style match with the President of “You are, no you are, I know you are but what am I?” is not what the NYT is known for.
But the response should have been, to use a favorite term often applied to Trump, to double-down and expose the depth and breadth of the “lies propagated as truth” problem. Perhaps that would confuse people, with an endless war of each media “army” calling the other “fake”.
But the alternative, that we are now saddled with, is to give legitimacy to an endless tsunami of lies and falsehoods and to confer on them an almost institutional status:
“We’re getting our news from different sources”
Oh really? As in, one source is real and the other one is filled with insane, ridiculous propaganda, like the now famous Putin initiated propaganda that, instead of the fact that Russia interfered with the 2016 election is was Ukraine? That kind of “different source”? That “news”?
Allowing even one lie to see the light of day without being attacked by anyone with a mouthpiece; a real media outlet, a twitter account of a citizen, presidential candidates and so on, promotes the idea that the “two realities” are separate and equal, not a matter of truth and lies.
Proapaganda lies are dangerous, insidious and very hard to fight against. That is no excuse, that is the fight that matters and could make a difference. Every candidate on that stage should have answered that 50% of the people, if that poll is to be believed, are being lied to and the lies are winning. And that the situation is a larger danger, potentially, than the man inhabiting the White House.
In a Feature article WSJ does an Investigative Report but Leaves out the Real Dirt
opinion
In an article with a date stamp of December 18, 2019 at 3:38 am, WSJ released a scathing report detailing how potentially millions of sellers are allegedly scamming the public by selling discarded and remaindered good through Amazon’s marketplace.
The aim of the investigative piece was to show that Amazon did not pre-qualify or filter its selling accounts in any way and that pretty much anyone can sell anything, at least for a while, until Amazon shuts them down.
In order to add drama to the account and to emphasize how disgusting this situation can be for the buyer, WSJ set up its own marketplace “storefront” and listed items, literally found in a dumpster, for sale on Amazon. The items included a discarded jar of Lemon Curd.
While the interaction with Amazon ( a nicety afforded the Wall Street Journal) was amusing, with Amazon repeating the phrase “Amazon’s high bar for product quality” repeated over and over, for the most part the article, while well researched, totally misses the point.
The Real Rot is not in the Garbage Being Sold but Amazon’s System that Is a Machine Designed to Destroy Legitmate Retail
As is well documented in the, now ancient, saga of how Amazon killed off all competitors in the Book selling business, it has always been a clear goal of Amazon to bankrupt its competitors by any (legal?) means. These extreme tactics have not been abandoned now that all products are target for sales monopolization.
Further, regarding selling products out of dumpsters, for many years Amazon’s system has not only encouraged such desperate methods on it’s marketplace it has made them virtually impossible to avoid. In the WSJ article the question of the motivation of the sellers and why they “prefer” to sell, literally, garbage is never addressed.
It is even implied that they are just “poor” and one seller is even quoted as saying that he started selling products out of dumpsters because “he didn’t have money to buy products”.
It was also mentioned that one of the sellers “couldn’t make money as a photographer” and so he decided to start selling trash from dumpsters.
This is so incredibly misleading that it is difficult to even begin to deconstruct.
The List of Omissions from the WSJ article is Mind-boggling
While it is great to see some of the common practices that make up over 50% of sales on the Amazon platform exposed, omitting the real issues, the built-in ugliness of the system itself, is inexcusable.
First of all, no human sells products out of the trash as a first resort. To imply that these are “poor” people and therefore somehow taking advantage of Amazon’s lack of oversight is utterly ridiculous. Somehow in a “serious” exposé WSJ manages to make Amazon look like the victim. You have got to be kidding.
The fact is that Amazon is based on a system of undercutting, through various tactics, legitimate commerce, especially competing eCommerce, by forcing prices, after fees, to a level well below traditional wholesale levels. This means that anyone, large company or small individual, must source products at an unrealistic “impossible” price level in order to be competitive. Hence the popularity of the dumpster.
Who is the Real Victim? We all are.
That bears repeating: It is not possible to make a single cent on the Amazon marketplace by buying an item legitimately through a wholesale distributor and then adding a retail mark-up as has been the system for centuries (except in cases of price-gouging and other anomalies).
To use a different method to put this into perspective, remember that jar of Lemon Curd from the dumpster? Here’s the rough general breakdown for a similar product based on a 10$ sale price on the Amazon Marketplace:
Price of item “shipped” (free shipping) = $10 (rounded off for illustration purposes)
Cost of shipping and handling = $4.50
Various Fees to Amazon = $4.50
Remaining amount retained by seller = $1.00
Since the cost of this product at wholesale is around $5 and the seller must also survive, the only acceptable price for the seller to acquire the jar is $0. Dumpsters do not charge. Therefore this is the default system for sellers that work 7 days a week to try to make even a modest income.
The absurdity of this is off the charts. Even if you debate the details +- .50 in each category, etc., this is nevertheless the system that gets your Lemon Curd to your porch. A more wasteful and backward system could not be devised if you tried. Thank “modern” finance and devious minds for this wonderful invention of commerce.
The Amazon system is based on these concepts:
A. Set marketplace fees at a level where the maximum allowable “profit” for the third-party seller, after fees, is effectively zero. Fees are added to everything. A “variable closing fee” for the sale itself, fees on storage, “pick and pull” fees, shipping fees, on and on and on. These apply, at varying but always astronomical levels, through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program and for sellers that ship and warehouse their own goods as well.
B. Encourage Chinese and other gray-market suppliers to maintain the system and “impossible” price level at below wholesale cost. Next, sell Amazon Branded products as an “alternative” and source these at the lowest possible cost to insure no legitimate seller can compete.
C. Cover all this with “no questions asked” returns (paid for primarily by the 3rd party sellers themselves) and by taking massive losses due to unrealistic shipping speeds. These ultra fast speeds serve as an attack against other companies such as Walmart, that can not be crushed by A. and B. above due to size and other market advantages.
The key objective of this strategy is to destroy legitimate retailers and brands at every level. Large brands like Nike, who recently ended a short-lived arrangement to allow its products to be sold on Amazon, are hurt by a relentless cheapening of the brand and a stampede of inferior knock offs and other damaging effects.
Smaller independent retailers are either bankrupted or forced to reduce costs of supply to well below standard wholesale prices. If you are thinking “fell off a truck” you are on the right track.
As a dramatization of the problem it can be said that to sell on Amazon, and realize any profit at all, your source must be either couinterfeit, aftermarket rejects, stolen or….. wait for it….. from a dumpster.
So, to be clear, the “dumpster divers” so lovingly described in the WSJ feature article are not just “poor” they are an inevitable result of a system, built on endless greed by the “richest man in the world” in order to have a virtual monopoly in US online sales (can’t survive without selling on Amazon is the mantra) and to insure future growth by literally destroying all legitimate competition.
Please let me know when this background “color” will be included in the next hard hitting investigative piece from the Journal.
Sunshine Behind the Clouds and the Future in your Hands
Finally, it is all of us, consumers that control the quality of the products and the purity of the supply chain that fulfills sales, online or otherwise. While it is ceratinly convenient to go online and visit either Google, Facebook or Amazon, competition online is, no less than in traditional commerce, essential to maintaining standards of quality and service.
For all Amazon’s “high standards” a deeper look at the system they have in place clearly shows that it is profit for amazon on every sale – and more importantly using income by gouging smaller marketplace sellers to attack larger competitors with unrealistic shipping cost structures, that is most important, not the quality of goods.
For now they will continue to “bribe” the public with a powerful cocktail of virtually instant delivery and “no questions asked” returns. But does that make you feel better about the dumpster sourced lemon curd you just ate? What about the poor seller than has been forced into dumpster diving to have a shot at the huge success of a $20,000 per year income, which Bezos gets in a microsecond. Maybe there are better places to buy your lemon curd.
While leaders from around the globe were coming together to seek climate consensus at the UN Climate Conference in Madrid, the European Union is making its own efforts in Belgium. On Tuesday, December 11th, the EU met in Brussels and introduced what it is calling the “Green Deal,” an outline of policies for the bloc to implement in the fight against climate change.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen presented the Green Deal at the EU meeting. It is her first major proposal (and a bold one at that) since she first took office on December 1st. The plan is part of an overarching ambition for the EU to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
The Green Deal aims to achieve this ambition through fifty policy measures. Among them are a $110-Billion fund to help transition away from coal, updated production standards to eliminate waste, and a carbon border tax for imports. There would also be more money set aside to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decrease the level of trade dependency on air travel.
When von der Leyen introduced the Deal, she called it “Europe’s ‘man on the moon’ moment,” likely alluding to United States President John F. Kennedy’s famous “We Choose To Go To The Moon Speech” that kicked off the Space Race in 1962. Like Kennedy’s declaration to put a man on the moon, the Green Deal is unprecedentedly daring. It consciously sets out to challenge the nations involved and bring out the best in their politicians and citizens alike. If all goes well, then the end result could be beyond anything mankind has achieved in the past.
The irony in von der Leyen referencing JFK in her remarks, however, is that part of the Green Deal states that the EU will no longer engage in trade agreements with nations not participating in the Paris Climate Accords—that means to United States. Thanks to President Trump’s recent withdrawal from the global agreements set upon during the Obama Administration, the Green Deal could leave the U.S. without a few vital trading partners in Europe.
Man on The Moon is an Understatement: Resistance is a Factor
With any luck, maybe this economic incentive will convince the United States to hop back on board the Paris Accord. After all, one of the Green Deal’s primary aims is to inspire other places around the world to politically prioritize the climate crisis and lower carbon emissions. While certain governments have already made progress in these areas, the Green Deal marks the first time that a multi-nation bloc this big is directly attacking the issue on such a wide, in depth scale.
That being said, not everyone is a fan of the Deal. Although it won the support of the conservative European People’s Party (the most prevalent party in Parliament), the Green Deal has its cynics on both sides of the political spectrum. The far-right wingers fear the Deal’s potential effect on extractive industries and the economy. Meanwhile, far-left parties like the Green Party and the European United Left, are weary that the plan is not enough and that it needs to offer more solutions to additional issues.
Still, all but three of the 28 countries in the EU have agreed to the Green Deal’s 2050 carbon neutral goal. The outliers are Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, three Eastern European nations that rely heavily on coal and other fossil fuels.
Understandably, the Green Deal will not get adopted and accepted overnight. There are a lot of countries that have a say in its guidelines and not all of them see eye-to-eye. Nevertheless, the fact that an entity as large and influential as the EU is proposing such a plan—and that it is getting received relatively well—is a big step for environmental progress. Soon enough, maybe the rest of the world will fall in line too, realize the dangers at hand, and compromise for the betterment of the entire planet.
The Tipping Point is Behind us Now, It’s only a question of When EV’s Market Share will Overtake ICE
The most talked about car in 2019 has been Tesla’s Model 3, an electric vehicle from Tesla that is sleek, modern looking, and highly desirable. In Tesla’s latest quarter alone, the company has sold nearly 80,000 Model 3s, sustaining it as the most popular EV on the market.
This is not Tesla’s only achievement for the year. The company’s Cybertruck and Semi have received copious attention; its Model X and Model S continue to be popular; and consumers are eagerly awaiting 2020’s releases of the Model Y and Roadster. It’s been a long time coming, but thanks to Tesla, EVs are growing market share at an extremely rapid pace.
Other car manufacturers, even ones that have been stubbornly committed to ICE vehicles, have had to accept that the tide is turning. Naturally, many of these companies do not want Tesla to have a monopoly on EVs, and they want to have their own stake in the market before it’s too late. For that reason they appear to have capitulated and there is now a large and public shift towards the EV market.
Car companies from General Motors to Ford to Mercedes to VolksWagen and more are now hopping aboard the EV train, announcing new full electric models aimed at competing with Tesla in the upcoming year.
In addition, longer term multi-billion dollar investments to fund an infrastucture and development shift toward sustainable and EV systems have been announced. There has been some scepticism that these are more of a PR effort, with possible changes at anytime, likely due to the extremely poor efforts of the last 25 years, and even the perception that they were trying to intentionally “fail” with EVs just to postpne any meaningful transition away from fossil fuel based transportation.
While the oncoming change in car-culture may be attributed more to Tesla’s sexy, ulta-modern designs than it is to environmentalism, the widespread transition towards electric vehicles is still an enormous win for the battle against climate change.
Transportation is the top CO2 buring category and automobiles are the largest contributors to carbon emission from transport across the globe. The systemic reliance on gasoline makes cars even more environmentally harmful, as their very fuel comes from big oil companies that drill the earth without much regard for balanced ecosystems.
Finally, there has been a Major Shift in Thinking in the Auto Industry
In just the past year, however, we have seen a noticeable increase in the number of charging stations for EVs, and certain governments have started cracking down on vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions. These changes in infrastructure and politics reflect evolutions in consumer behavior—evolutions that bode well for our planet.
Between the VolksWagen ID.4, Ford Mustang EV, Mercedes ESQ, and all the upcoming Tesla models, there are about to be a whole lot more electric cars on the market, which will (hopefully) create healthy competition.
There remians skepticism in the automobile industry, implying that this could, indeed be some sort of elaborate head fake. In response to General Motor’s recent announcement to invest $2.3 billion in an EV battery factory, for example, Toyota Executive Bob Carter warned of an “electrified armageddon” for the industry. Indeed, despite EVs recent surge in popularity, gasoline-powered cars continue to dominate the streets. To invest so much in EVs at this point is a bold, somewhat presumptuous move for all of the companies, and they run the risk of overshooting consumer demand.
There is Still only one EV Company that Stands Above in Every Way
And the Toyota response while both tone deaf and likely misguided, is not wrong in the sense that a worldwide shift away from a fossil fuel based economic system will certainly lead to hardship and immense challenges and a long time. The problem with trying to wish away that fact is that, by extending the intentional sate of denial that has persisted for over a half century, things will only be worse when the inevitible and necessary changes finally come.
This exposes the brilliance of Tesla’s approach of starting with high end luxury vehicles, spurring demand and desire and then building downmarket into more afforable vehicles as economies of scale begin to kick in. And, even more prescient is Tesla’s stated mission “to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy” which removes any ambiguity or hesitation and signals a 100% clear commitment to the most important goal a transportation and energycompany can have.
Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.
Nevertheless, while this “plays” as an example of corporations displaying a logical reaction to the market for the benefit of the environment, it could, in actuality, more likely be an example of corporations playing the market to make money as per usual. The less cynical among us must hope, nevertheless that this is truly at least partially an ecological conscious choice that happens to transparently project an immediate economic benefit. If these companies are correct, and EVs do ultimately lead the car market, then it will not just satisfy the executive’s bottom line, but it will also help make the planet a cleaner and safer place.
Diversity Theme Crops Up Once Again in Hollywood Awards Season
The 77th Golden Globe nominations are finally revealed, and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) has made a few bold choices when it comes to their top picks for film and television from 2019. To no one’s surprise on the television side, Netflix’s “The Crown” and “Unbelievable” led the race along with HBO’s “Chernobyl,” each program receiving four nominations. Likewise, when it comes to film, we had the usual suspects in each category; “The Irishman,” and “Once Upon A Time In Hollywood” respectively nominated for best drama and best comedy; Joaquin Phoenix and Brad Pitt respectively for best actor and best supporting actor; Scorsese and Tarantino for best director; “Frozen II” for best animated feature; and many more noms that don’t raise any eyebrows.
What is more conspicuous, however, is what was left out of the running this year. While Christian Bale received a nomination for his performance in “Ford v. Ferrari,” his co-star Matt Damon was stubbed. Likewise, right on the heels of Adam Sandler’s NBR Award for “Uncut Gems,” the actor was ignored by the HFPA. Even De Niro did not get a leading nomination for “The Irishman,” while Joe Pesci and Al Pacino both got supporting nominations. Jordan Peele was similarly left out of the best director and both best picture categories for “Us,” as was Tom Hooper for “Cats.” Meanwhile, HBO’s innovative new “Watchmen” series also missed the cut.
The most egregious absence comes on a larger, more systemic scale, though. In all of the nominations for best director and best picture, there is not a single female filmmaker on the ballot. And this is a year when women made a number of quality films.
Greta Gerwig’s “Little Women” came out this month. It is a compelling film focusing on the relationship between women and art, and despite receiving high praise from critics and audiences, it got little love from the HFPA. It’s only nomination came in the Best Actress in a Drama Motion Picture category for Saoirse Ronan’s performance. The same situation occurred for Lorene Scafaria’s “Hustlers.” Even though the film made a riot at the Toronto Film Festival, its only nom was for Angelina Jolie as Best Supporting Actress.
Moreover, although this was an enormously successful year for Netflix—earning four Best Picture nominations and “Marriage Story” achieving the most recognition of any title—the HFPA overlooked the streaming service’s female led productions. Particularly, it ignored Ava DuVernay’s “When They See Us,” a highly important race-focused miniseries about the Central Park Five. Directed by a black woman, this commended show was completely shut out, not earning a single nomination in any category.
Glass Ceiling Not So Easy to Break
Adding insult to injury, several of the most nominated pictures in this year’s running are not just man-made, but they are also highly man-centered. The two most talked about nominees, “The Irishman” and “Once Upon A Time In Hollywood,” are practically devoid of complex female characters. Through their respective focuses on the mafia and Hollywood stardom, the two films portray distinct images of patriarchal institutions. The same goes for “Joker,” which paints mental illness through a jadedly masculine lens, and “1917,” which spotlights wartime fraternity.
Ultimately, not much room is made for feminine movies like “Portrait of a Lady On Fire” from director Céline Sciamma, which only got nominated in the Forgiven Language category. Set in 1770 France, this underrated yet captivating period piece employs a nearly all-women cast to tell a uniquely female story. It delves into sorority, lesbianism, art, and feminism to share two ladies’ experiences during a highly patriarchal time in history. Sciamma getting ignored in the best director category could almost be forgiven if it weren’t for the brilliant cinematography, costumes, sets, and performances that she brought to her work—validating the film as a powerful art piece, and not just a piece of feminist propaganda.
In the wake of the #MeToo movement and remaining concerns about gender inequality in Hollywood and beyond, it is imperative that female filmmakers get the recognition they deserve. Of course, the HFPA choses its nominations not based on politics, but on artistry and talent. Nevertheless, just as those in the studio executive chairs ought to start listening to broader ideas, those in the critics chairs should also learn to see the value in female-centered releases and consider feminine themes on the same level as the masculine themes that we’ve been applauding in movies for the past seventy-seven years.
