|
FOCUS: Why Is Hollywood Glamorizing Binge-Drinking for Women? |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38164"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, The Hollywood Reporter</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 15 July 2017 11:12 |
|
Abdul-Jabbar writes: "The success of Wonder Woman may give the impression that this is the Summer of Female Empowerment, with Hollywood firmly leading the feminist charge. Not so fast. While Wonder Woman exhibits the admirable traits of courage, moral commitment and self-reliance, Hollywood has been, in general, less kind with how it portrays average American women, especially their relationship to alcohol."
Universal Pictures film Girls Trip. (photo: Universal Pictures)
Why Is Hollywood Glamorizing Binge-Drinking for Women?
By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, The Hollywood Reporter
15 July 17
From 'Girls Trip' to 'Bachelor in Paradise,' a sobering look at why women "keeping up with the guys" when it comes to boozing backfires by portraying female characters as "insecure and needy."
 he success of Wonder Woman may give the impression that this is the Summer of Female Empowerment, with Hollywood firmly leading the feminist charge. Not so fast. While Wonder Woman exhibits the admirable traits of courage, moral commitment and self-reliance, Hollywood has been, in general, less kind with how it portrays average American women, especially their relationship to alcohol. Bad Moms, Rough Night, the women vs. shark film 47 Meters and the upcoming Girls Trip (July 21) all feature women for whom alcohol is the obligatory catalyst to fun. When Amy Schumer joked on Stephen Colbert's show in May that she would go home and drink herself into a blackout, the audience cheered. On Today, Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford call Tuesday "Boozeday" and Wednesday "Winesday." Watch any TV series or movie featuring women over 30, and their default response to stress or boredom often is hitting the bottle. Though these tipsy portrayals may seem all in good fun, there is a sinister consequence that affects all of us.
Relax. This isn't about booze-shaming or bringing back Tommy gun Prohibition. It's about how, in the guise of empowerment — "Look, everyone, girls can drink just as hard and act just as stupid as guys" — women are more consistently being portrayed as insecure and needy. It's about the negative effects of perpetuating gender stereotypes that promote destructive behavior.
One is death. Over the last 18 years, alcohol-related deaths among women 35 to 54 have more than doubled. The Washington Post reported on the proliferation of alcohol-related ads targeting women: "Harried mothers chugging wine to cope with everyday stress. Women embracing quart-sized bottles of whiskey and bellying up to bars to knock back vodka shots." Equating heavy drinking with women's lib has resulted, researchers claim, in women drinking more alcohol more often. In 2013, heavy drinking put more than a million women in emergency rooms.
Another negative effect is depicting women as too fragile to deal with stress or too uptight to have fun without alcohol. As women struggle to overcome a history of being portrayed as weak, bubbly but bubble-headed, dependent sidekicks, Hollywood has obliged by creating more positive role models. Tough, smart female characters fill our screens. But Hollywood also has undermined some of that progress by behaving like an enabling bartender sliding drinks down the bar. Cougar Town used the enormous size of Courteney Cox's wine glass as a continuing joke. Reality shows such as The Real Housewives, Real World and The Challenge often feature women drinking, and production on Bachelor in Paradise was briefly halted over an alcohol-fueled incident. Sales of Bandit boxed wine — aka "binge in a box" — jumped 22 percent after Schumer drank it in Trainwreck.
Perhaps this is the effect that Susan Faludi warned about in her 1991 book, Backlash, in which she claims that whenever women make social and political advances, there is a media-driven backlash. In this case, the mixed message from Hollywood is, "Sure, women can be just as smart and competent as men (but they also are fundamentally flawed and need booze to cope with their insecurities)." It's another version of the classic taunts thrown at successful women: "Yeah, but you're not married" (as used in Transformers: The Last Knight). You're welcome, feminism.
While characterizing women as drinking more could be defended as statistically accurate, it also can be considered glamorizing drinking to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hollywood already is under scrutiny for its product placement of alcohol (nearly doubling in 20 years). According to a 2017 medical study, more than 80 percent of movies depict alcohol use, including 72 percent of G-rated films. This does not mean censorship. A lot of comedy comes from people acting stupid and immature. It's actually refreshing to have movies like Rough Night and Girls Trip. The problem isn't in the occasional use of booze to create a comic scene; the problem comes when that becomes the dominant portrayal of women, and society starts to see women in general as jonesing for that merlot. One of the more insidious aspects of Hollywood's portrayal of the alcohol-fueled woman is that she acts crazy and does something colossally foolish — from accidentally killing someone (Rough Night) to having sex with a stranger — but that it all works out in the end for the better. If I owned a liquor company, these movies would be my best ads along with the catchphrase: "Get wasted. Don't worry."
It's not that we can't depict women drinking; it's that we shouldn't always associate their drinking with emergency stress relief or the sole gateway to being fun. This infantilizes them, implying they are incapable of dealing with life's challenges as rational adults. Yes, they should eat, drink and be merry — just don't have them drink because that's the only way they can be merry.
 |
|
The Cruelty and Fraudulence of Mitch McConnell's Health Bill |
|
|
Saturday, 15 July 2017 08:37 |
|
Krugman writes: "Now we've seen Mitch McConnell's latest version of health 'reform,' and 'beautiful' is hardly the word for it. In fact, it's surpassingly ugly, intellectually and morally. Previous iterations of Trumpcare were terrible, but this one is, incredibly, even worse."
Senator Mitch McConnell. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
The Cruelty and Fraudulence of Mitch McConnell's Health Bill
By Paul Krugman, The New York Times
15 July 17
 few days ago the tweeter in chief demanded that Congress enact “a beautiful new HealthCare bill” before it goes into recess. But now we’ve seen Mitch McConnell’s latest version of health “reform,” and “beautiful” is hardly the word for it. In fact, it’s surpassingly ugly, intellectually and morally. Previous iterations of Trumpcare were terrible, but this one is, incredibly, even worse.
Before I get to what makes it worse, let’s talk about the one piece of the new bill that may sound like a step in the right direction, and why it’s largely a scam.
The original Senate bill got a lot of justified bad press for slashing Medicaid while offering big tax cuts for the rich. So this version rolls back some though by no means all of those tax cuts, which sounds like a concession to moderates.
READ MORE
|
|
|
NOAA Erases 'Human Activity' From News Release on Soaring Greenhouse Gases |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20808"><span class="small">Joe Romm, ThinkProgress</span></a>
|
|
Saturday, 15 July 2017 08:14 |
|
Romm writes: "In a truly shocking news release on its Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has erased any reference to 'human activity' or fossil fuels."
The lead image from NOAA's 2016 news release on its Annual Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Index shows where GHGs come from. (photo: NOAA)
NOAA Erases 'Human Activity' From News Release on Soaring Greenhouse Gases
By Joe Romm, ThinkProgress
15 July 17
“It’s a complicated topic that can be difficult to communicate,” the Trump administration claims.
 n a truly shocking news release on its Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has erased any reference to “human activity” or fossil fuels. The index monitors the warming influence of greenhouse gases like CO2.
Last year, NOAA’s news release for the index featured the picture of flaring gas from fossil fuel extraction (see top image). The release began by stating, “human activity has increased the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by 50 percent above pre-industrial levels during the past 25 years, according to NOAA’s 10th annual Greenhouse Gas Index.”
This year, the news release begins, “NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, which tracks the warming influence of long-lived greenhouse gases, has increased by 40 percent from 1990 to 2016?—?with most of that attributable to rising carbon dioxide levels, according to NOAA climate scientists.”
Rather than explaining that human activity is the cause, the agency’s release instead goes on to state that “the role of greenhouse gases on influencing global temperatures is well understood by scientists, but it’s a complicated topic that can be difficult to communicate.”
What? Are NOAA officials in the Trump administration implying that the human role in greenhouse gas emissions is somehow too complicated to explain to the public?
Perhaps that’s why NOAA swapped out last year’s lead photo of flaring fossil fuels for the least complicated?—?and least informative?—?image imaginable (see below).
It is certainly complicated and difficult to communicate how human activity?—?especially the burning of fossil fuels?—?drives warming if the president and most of his appointees deny basic climate science.
Last year’s release, however, shows how easy it is to explain what’s going on. Jim Butler, director of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, explained that “we’re dialing up Earth’s thermostat in a way that will lock more heat into the ocean and atmosphere for thousands of years.”
In this year’s release, Butler’s quote is far less informative: “the greenhouse gas index is based on atmospheric data, so it’s telling us what is happening to Earth’s climate right now.”
Well, the index may be telling us what’s happening to Earth’s climate right now, but NOAA certainly isn’t. And NOAA has company: In May, the Department of the Interior deleted a line explaining how climate change drives sea level rise from its news release on a study about coastal flooding, claiming “it didn’t add anything to the original findings.”
In regard to the Trump administration failing to mention the connection between human activity and greenhouse gas emissions, the New York Times reported that “Theo Stein, a NOAA spokesman, acknowledged in an email that phrasing about humans causing greenhouse gas emissions did not make it into the announcement but noted a second news release that was published on the website of the agency’s office of oceanic and atmospheric research that lists ‘climate change indicators.’”
So the whole humans-cause-GHG-emissions thing didn’t make it into the nine-sentence news release NOAA links to from its front page. But the agency spokesman wants you to feel better because somewhere on their website is a release over twice as long… that also does not mention how humans cause climate change.
Seriously. The second NOAA release Stein refers to has the exact same opening paragraphs as the first, but adds some “climate change indicators” —for instance, “all 16 years of the 21st century rank among the 17 warmest years on record”?—?again without explaining the cause.
It’s just too complicated and difficult to communicate, I guess.
|
|
Donald Trump - Not His Son - Is the Real Protagonist of the Russia Drama |
|
|
Friday, 14 July 2017 15:11 |
|
Abramson writes: "In the unfolding Russia scandal enveloping the White House, we are so fascinated - and entertained - by the supporting cast that we are losing sight of the man in the starring role, Donald J Trump."
Donald Trump. (photo: Martin Schoeller/TIME)
Donald Trump - Not His Son - Is the Real Protagonist of the Russia Drama
By Jill Abramson, Guardian UK
14 July 17
The story around Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner are titillating. But the real issue is: what did the president know and when did he know it?
n the unfolding Russia scandal enveloping the White House, we are so fascinated – and entertained – by the supporting cast that we are losing sight of the man in the starring role, Donald J Trump.
This week, thanks to great reporting by The New York Times, we’ve been captivated by some new characters: Donald Trump Jr, a Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rob Goldstone, the rotund music promoter who was their go-between.
Then, there is the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who accompanied Trump Jr to the June meeting with the Russian lawyer to gather damaging goods on Hillary Clinton. Did he dime out his own brother-in-law and disclose the meeting in order to draw attention away from himself?
As the Trump campaign’s digital captain, did he have the skill to direct all the Russian bots and trolls that spread dirt on Hillary Clinton in key political precincts? (This theory of the case was put forth in a recent coop from McClatchy). Should Kushner’s security clearance be rescinded? Should he be prosecuted for leaving out information about his Russian contacts on Form 86, the required disclosure for White House officials?
Yes, this is all titillating stuff, but it diverts us from the real issue at the heart of the Russia scandal: what did the president know and when did he know it?
From the first disclosures about fired national security adviser Michael Flynn’s meetings with the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, that question keeps getting overlooked. Why would Flynn have initiated these meetings on his own? Surely, someone else must have deputized him to be the emissary between Russia and the campaign.
Similarly, it strains credulity that Kushner, a complete neophyte in foreign diplomacy, would have undertaken on his own the setting up of a secure back-channel to the Russians. Who suggested he do so? And Jr? He is nothing other than his father’s cypher and surrogate.
It’s true that Donald Trump Jr and Kushner have business ties to rich Russian oligarchs and Russian banks involved in their real estate deals. It’s possible that Kushner’s originally undisclosed meeting with banker Sergey Gorkov during the transition was about his family’s troubled investment in a Fifth Avenue office tower.
In 2008, Donald Trump Jr gushed about “all the Russian money pouring in” for New York real estate. But the timing of their meetings – right after Trump clinched the Republican nomination and right before he took office – suggests politics, not business, was the subject at hand.
Let’s remember that the Russians all had something they desperately wanted and needed out of the new Trump administration: the lifting of US sanctions against the outlaw state for its Crimean and Ukrainian land grabs. Isn’t it clear that this scandal is about a quid pro quo: Russian help to elect Donald Trump so that he could free his friends from the bonds of the sanctions.
It’s simply ridiculous that such a deeply corrupt and grand bargain, had it been made, could have been struck without the express knowledge and direction of Donald J Trump. There’s no way the father was an unwitting chump.
He says he did not know about his son’s tete a tete with the Russian lawyer, but surely he knew the Russians were lobbying to relax the sanctions, including the Magnitsky Act. His son-in-law would never have attempted his back-room pirouettes without his father-in-law’s express blessings.
Anyone who has watched the Trump family dynamics knows that the sons, son-in-law, and Ivanka are consumed by filial devotion. Their clout and success in the business and political worlds are completely dependent on Donald Trump. The senior Trump was also Michael Flynn’s ticket back to power after being fired by Obama. Not one of them would have endangered their status with Donald Trump by engaging with the Russians without his knowledge and approval.
This is particularly true of Kushner, whose more tenuous ties are through marriage rather than blood. With his Harvard background, smoother demeanor and broad White House portfolio, he does seem properly cast in the role of Machievelle.
But having visited his own father in a federal slammer, surely he knows better than the rest of the Trump clan the awful consequences of breaking the law. At 36, still a young age, could he have hatched and executed a complex plot of Russian political collusion and risked his whole future? It’s doubtful.
It’s his father-in-law who has a history of striking deals with all kinds of sketchy characters from the worlds of real estate, reality television, professional wrestling and international beauty pageants.
Certainly, Kushner’s security clearance should be immediately revoked. His high-priced defense lawyers, Jamie Gorelick and Abbe Lowell, have their work cut out for them in shielding Kushner from prosecution for lying on federal forms or violating federal campaign laws as a top member of the Trump campaign. Kushner has said he intends to cooperate with congressional investigators probing the Russia affair. We shall see.
In this scandal, there are inescapable comparisons to Watergate. That investigation ended with a lingering mystery: it remains unknown whether Richard Nixon ordered or knew beforehand about the burglary of Democratic Party headquarters, the event that shattered his presidency. Donald Trump’s direct role in polluting and subverting the 2016 election must not remain a mystery.
The relatives who fill the rooms in Donald Trump’s House of Atreus may be culpable, too, but they distract from the real person of interest, the president of the United States.
|
|
arthjustice is working to defeat a bill recently introduced in Congress called the “Resilient Forest Act of 2017” (
