Daily Archives: July 13, 2022

Beyonce makes history winning 28 Grammys in 2021, more that any female or male performer. Photo / Getty Images

OPINION:

The Great Resignation has got a new, unexpected icon: Beyonc.

In her latest single, Break My Soul, Queen Bey is sort of, maybe, kind of suggesting that people should quit their jobs, leaning into the Great Resignation movement that has been sweeping the globe.

"And I just quit my job / I'm gonna find new drive / Damn they work me so damn hard / Work by nine / Then off past five / And they work my nerves / That's why I cannot sleep at night," she sings.

The song then includes a vocal sample from Big Freedia's 2014 song "Explode":

"Release ya anger, release ya mind / Release ya job, release the time / Release ya trade, release the stress / Release the love, forget the rest."

(Which is all well and good unless you can get your landlord on board with it - otherwise, forget releasing your anger, at least during business hours).

Time is moving at an uncomfortable speed and we are now centuries away from March this year, when we had Kim Kardashian telling us that the problem is that no one wants to work these days. We've since gone from that to Beyonc telling us not to work so forgive us for feeling a bit of emotional whiplash.

Beyonc's song isn't really, truly, about quitting your job, as much as it is about quitting jobs you are not passionate about in favour of pursuing your passions. With that, it is definitely an anthem to freedom - she's "lookin' for motivation" and a "new foundation", something a lot of workers, burnt out and exhausted from keeping a job while coping with a pandemic, can relate to.

Some people, it appears, have taken the lyrics quite literally. Buzzfeed interviewed one person who, after listening to the song, decided she would not show up for her job the following day - or any of the days after. Instead, this Starbucks barista, taking the song as a flashing neon sign from the universe, has decided to pursue her theatre dreams. Another worker they spoke to says the song was part of the inspiration for him to quit his office job and focus on his passion as an illustrator.

Freelance network Fiverr made use of the single release to call on people to resign their full-time jobs.

"Beyonc wants us to quit our jobs and make a living on our own terms. You heard the woman," they wrote on Twitter.

An economist quoted by CNBC in the US says that the song is proof that the Great Resignation has "seeped into the zeitgeist".

Beyonce's track "is one instance of a broader public awareness or discussion about people quitting their jobs, which is reflective of what's happening in the labour market and society," Nick Bunker, an economist at job site Indeed, told CNBC.

In the US alone, more than 47 million people voluntarily left their jobs last year - and the trend is showing no signs of slowing down.

The Great Resignation "tidal wave" is also said to have reached New Zealand.

New data shows between April 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022, nationwide staff turnover in New Zealand increased to 58.2 per cent, up 10 per cent from 2020 to 2021.

"Those numbers really do show the 'Great Resignation' as a tidal wave has crashed on the shores of Aotearoa," Jarrod Haar, Professor of Human Resource Management at AUT, told the Herald last month.

"That's a decent snapshot. That's half the workforce churning over."

It looks like, in reality, Beyonc is just singing about what's already happening.

Sure, it's pretty rich to have an actual millionaire suggesting we should just quit our jobs - but it would be silly to dismiss Beyonc's influence on the very generation that is driving the global trend.

That said, a lot of us will have to settle for turning up the volume really loud as we blast the song on our way to work on Monday morning.

More here:

The Great Resignation: How Beyonc became the anti-work movement queen we didn't know we needed - New Zealand Herald

Justice Clarence Thomas once said, It takes a person with a mission to succeed.

The Supreme Courts opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization is not just the culmination of nearly 50 years of hard work by the pro-life movement its also a testament to the American experiment. At a time when trust in our institutions is low and some question whether our system of government itself is broken, this decision reaffirms that the American experiment is a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

For too long, Supreme Court justices have legislated from the bench, succumbing to their political and personal biases instead of interpreting and defending our Constitution. Roe v. Wade represented the zeitgeist of judicial activism.

The Dobbs majority opinion is an incredible step forward in restoring the courts intended purpose of interpreting and defending the Constitution. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Roes constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which is vaguely pointed.

Because the Constitution does not prohibit citizens from each state from regulating or outlawing abortion, the right to abortion never existed. Roe was not only wrong in its understanding of the Constitution, but it was also an abuse of judicial authority. This is an opinion that honest pro-abortion constitutional experts have recognized, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Our system of government is composed of three co-equal branches. It is the job of the legislature to write laws, the executive to uphold and enforce laws, and the judiciary to interpret laws. Because the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not grant any right to abortion, the 10th Amendment leaves it up to states to make laws regarding the protection of life.

Dobbs is not just a monumental step forward for human rights in the United States. It is also a restoration of federalism.

Instead of spouting absurd accusations of an illegitimate high court, those who claim to defend the republic and the constitutional order should be encouraged by this decision. Our system still works. Dobbs is the product of the people organizing and using our constitutionally created system of government to seek change. For half a century, members of the pro-life movement worked within Americas system of governance by electing officials who wouldnt nominate judges who legislated from the bench.

Millions with a mission have marched, lobbied representatives, and prayed for the end of Roe.

As an elected official, I have and will continue to work to protect the rights of our most vulnerable: the unborn. Throughout my years of serving Florida and my country, I have introduced and voted for bills that protect unborn children, our most vulnerable, and opposed taxpayers funds from being used to support abortions.

While serving in the Florida legislature, I helped create Florida KidCare, which provides low-income children with access to healthcare services, and started Healthy Families Florida, a program proven to help at-risk families create safe, stable, and nurturing homes. In Congress, I have advocated and supported policies and programs to equip new parents to provide loving health environments for their children. I have urged presidents, federal agency leaders, and others to defend life, protect the unborn, and advocate other pro-life priorities.

By using the systems of government to bring real change, those standing up for human life have not only brought about the greatest step forward in protecting human rights in the U.S., but they have also brought about the restoration of the Supreme Court. The Dobbs decision is definitive proof that the promises of this great American experiment, kindled by our forefathers 246 years ago, remain today.

Daniel Webster represents Florida's 11th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

See original here:

Dobbs is a win for the American experiment - Washington Examiner

Heres our review for Thor: Love and Thunder, which opens in theaters nationwide on Friday, July 8

By Damon Martin Editor/Lead Writer

When Taika Waititi dropped Thor: Ragnarok back in 2017, audiences were understandably pessimistic about what could expected after the first two Thor movies failed to really break through the Marvel Cinematic Universe zeitgeist.

In fact, Thors appearance in The Avengers movie was far more beloved than either of the solo films before it with both the first film and Thor: The Dark World near the bottom of the list in terms of all time ratings for MCU movies.

But Waititi changed everything with Thor: Ragnarok, which was a wholly different take on the character as he injected a ton of humor and heart into his story that also involved some rather bleak moments including the death of Odin and Thors famous hammer Mjolnir being shattered into pieces not to mention having his eye gouged out. The film was praised for the perfect balance between action, story and comedy with Waititi quickly becoming one of the most sought out directors in Hollywood.

Fast forward five years and Waititi is back with Thor: Love and Thunder a follow up to Ragnarok but more importantly the first Thor film in a post Avengers: Endgame world where many of the original Avengers are gone. Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr. and Scarlett Johansson have all said goodbye to the Marvel films, which leaves Chris Hemsworth as the only original cast member from the 2012 blockbuster to still be around who had solo films out during that phase of the MCU (both Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo are also still present in the current MCU but neither have had standalone movies before or after The Avengers was released).

Expectations were definitely high as Waititi, Hemsworth and company returned for a fourth film in the Thor franchise but sadly, Thor: Love and Thunder fails to deliver with the same kind of punch or punchline as previous film. Despite an all-star cast coming back along with some notable newcomers including Christian Bale, the latest sequel starring Thor feels more like a superhero parody than a movie that will anchor the next phase of Marvel films.

With that said, lets get to our full review for Thor: Love and Thunder

In the aftermath of Avengers: Endgame, Thor left Earth with the Guardians of the Galaxy and thats essentially where we find him when this movie picks up except hes grown far more despondent as a God amongst men, jumping in to save the day when things get a little bit too dicey for his new friends. After losing his father and his brother this film doesnt acknowledge theres another Loki somewhere in the multiverse Thor is starting to feel kind of lonely despite being surrounded by the Guardians and his old pal Korg, who came along for the ride as well.

Thats when he gets a distress call from his old friend Sif, who has been attacked by a creature called Gorr, who has vowed to kill all gods after his own family was ravaged on a desolate planet when the deity he prayed to never answered until it was already too late and then the god mocked him for his misery.

Wielding the powerful Necrosword, Gorr can actually slay the gods and hes already killed several when Thor gets the call from Sif. To make matters even weirder, when Thor returns to Earth to meet up with his friends at New Asgard he discovers that his ex-girlfriend, Dr. Jane Foster, has reforged Mjolnir and taken up the mantle as The Mighty Thor, which gives him a whole lot more questions than answers.

In many ways, the script and story are really the biggest issues with Thor: Love and Thunder and by extension that gives the actors less to work with during the performances.

Its great to see Natalie Portman back as Dr. Jane Foster along with Loki, she was arguably the best part of those early Thor movies but her story still feels somewhat disjointed and rushed. Tessa Thompson is fantastic as King Valkyrie but again shes just not given enough room to work, which is a shame after she made such an impact in Thor: Ragnarok as well as Avengers: Endgame.

As for Hemsworth, hes somehow managed to add even more muscle onto his frame because this version of Thor is apparently going to audition to become The Mountain on Game of Thrones when the movie is finished. Physicality aside, Hemsworth spends far more time in this film attempting to be funny that its actually exhausting by the time the film is finished.

Thankfully, Christian Bale does the heavy lifting when it comes to performances because his Gorr The God Butcher is definitely one of the most compelling villains in recent MCU history. He carries a real sadness behind his eyes thanks to the tragedies hes endured but Bale also expresses rage and anger in a seething matter than makes him look like a perfect foil to the gods.

This film could have used a lot more Gorr and a lot less Thor as it turns out because the script is just mired it bad quips, slap-stick jokes and just barely any real storytelling thats actually worth following. The plot is razor thin yet somehow stretched out including a middle section of the movie that just feels out of place in a sad attempt to duplicate the fun had with Jeff Goldblum in the previous Thor movie.

This time that role falls to Russell Crowe, who is an incredible actor, but its clear with this film that maybe comedy just isnt his thing.

The direction from Waititi isnt anything unexpected but it feels like he really leaned into the over the top, cartoon like effects from the last Thor movie and then injected all of that with an unhealthy dose of steroids. This movie feels like one giant Skittles bag exploded and Waititi really, really wants everybody to taste all the flavors.

The comedy in this film is just overwhelming.

With Thor: Ragnarok, it was a perfect blend of humor mixed with action, adventure and still plenty of story to propel the plot forward with every scene. This time around, Waititi abandoned the good story and just really put all of his emphasis on making the audience laugh and there are definitely some hilarious moments but this movie feels more like a Scary Movie parody of a superhero film than an actual entry into the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Even the dour moments when Christian Bale or Natalie Portman are given time to work feels completely overshadowed by the constant injection of jokes.

As someone who loved Thor: Ragnarok, this film somehow only took the funny moments from that movie and then left everything else on the cutting room floor.

Thor: Love and Thunder is just disappointing, especially when compared to the previous Thor film, which stands as one of the best MCU movies of all time. Waititis ability to blend humor with a really heartfelt or heartbreaking story see JoJo Rabbit as a perfect example is perhaps his best talent but somehow he just decided to just turn this movie into a full blown superhero comedy, which in the end doesnt work.

Thor: Love and Thunder gets a 2 out of 5 on the Skolnick Scale.

See more here:

'Thor: Love and Thunder' Review: A Sequel Heavy on Humor That Almost Feels Like a Superhero Parody - Nerdcore Movement

In recent years, the influence of political ideologies based on social justice and antiracism has extended far beyond academe to other professions, including law, finance, and medicine. One of the most insightful observers of radical and nonscientific theories disturbing influence on healthcare and medical training is Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a former Professor and Associate Dean for Curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

In his new book, Take Two Aspirin and Call Me by My Pronouns, Goldfarb explains how political ideologies have driven changes in medical education and practice that threaten traditional methods for the admission and training of medical students. With extensive clinical experience, he brings a compellingand soberingperspective to bear on what he sees as the decline of American medicine.

Goldfarb recently discussed his book with Public Discourse Contributing Editor Devorah Goldman. Their exchange has been lightly edited for clarity.

Devorah Goldman: Welcome, Dr. Goldfarb, and congratulations on your excellent new book, which is an important and sweeping indictment of the medical establishment. What inspired you to write it?

Stanley Goldfarb: After nearly a dozen years directing the curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, I began to detect a disturbing trend in medical schools around the nation. Directors of medical education, including a newly appointed director at Perelman, increasingly emphasized the so-called social determinants of health in school programming. They also implemented a range of initiatives that downgraded the value of academic achievement in both the basis for admission to medical school and the assessment systems associated with progression through the curriculum. After observing this for several years, I felt compelled to speak out about my concerns. I wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in September 2019 in which I highlighted my apprehensions about the direction of medical education, and proposed a restored focus on medical science and a limit on instruction in social issues.

The op-ed sparked a response from my school. The administration made it exceedingly clear that my opinions did not reflect the official positions of Perelman, and they affirmed the schools commitment to diversity and inclusion in determining its student body. The title of my article, provided by the Wall Street Journal staff, Take Two Aspirin and Call Me by My Pronouns, also elicited critical responses from the American College of Physicians and Penn alumni, as well as virulent commentary on social media.

It became apparent that I needed to more thoroughly detail my concerns and to identify the growing weakness of American medical education. That realization led to this book.

DG: You write in your book that those doctors who challenge the idea of systemic racism might as well exchange their white lab coats for white sheets, and that social-justice skeptics like you are on the run. These are strong words, but they point to the fact that theres a great deal at stake for dissenters. How has this played out in your professional life?

SG: Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but clearly the prevailing zeitgeist of American medical education is an almost complete and unthinking acceptance of a woke mentality. The demonstrations at academic medical centers and medical schools throughout the United States following George Floyds killing led to widespread declarations of the need to purge systemic racism from American medicine and to adopt antiracism as a dominant aspect of the medical ethos.

In the words of Dr. Ibram X. Kendi, one of the prophets of anti-racism, future discrimination in favor of black individuals must help atone for past discrimination against black individuals. In medical care, this has come to mean discrimination against one group of patients to benefit another group, all on the basis of skin color. It also means discriminating against some applicants to medical school, as well as academics seeking career advancement.

I am at the end of my medical career so for me, the real impact relates to the concerns expressed to me, typically confidentially, by colleagues who agree with my positions but are afraid to speak out. Even the mildest dissent from the dominant narrative could mean losing a job. That is what happened to Dr. Edward Livingstone, formerly the deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. He had the temerity to suggest on a podcast that systemic racism was an unfortunate designation for a set of conditions that were more closely tied to poverty than to widespread oppression based on skin color. He was summarily forced out of his position.

DG: You also note in the book that the idea that physicians are responsible for correcting [health inequities] among different communities gained credence after World War II. As an example, you cite the World Health Organizations 1978 Alma-Alta Declaration, and contrast it with the Hippocratic Oath. Can you say a bit more about the conflict of visions here?

SG: It is basically the conflict between the idea that medical care should focus on large-scale prevention and population-level health measures, i.e., on group behavior, and the belief that we as physicians should channel our energies toward the particular problems of individual patients. The traditional Hippocratic Oath speaks to a code of conduct demanding loyalty without discrimination to each individual patient, unrelated to any social, economic or ideological factors at play. It defines the way physicians should focus on the care of the individual to the exclusion of any personal gain and to apply all of the physicians capacities to the care of that patient.

The Alma-Alta Declaration, as I wrote in my book, calls for a very different perspective. It puts forth a vision for primary health care that addresses the main health problems in the community, providing promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative services accordingly. The role of the physician in this scenario includes the following:

. . . education concerning prevailing health problems and the methods of preventing and controlling them; promotion of food supply and proper nutrition; an adequate supply of safe water and basic sanitation; maternal and child health care, including family planning; immunization against the major infectious diseases; prevention and control of locally endemic diseases; appropriate treatment of common diseases and injuries; and provision of essential drugs.

The Declaration expands the role of the physician into that of a public-health worker responsible for broad social and political conditions. It calls for physicians to insert themselves into issues over which they have scant expertise and control. Expending time, energy, and resources into such endeavors must detract from the time and effort required to provide the best possible medical care to individual patients.

DG: It should also be emphasized that real medical expertise is difficult to attain; it is the product of years of experience even after medical school. We shouldnt take it for granted or assume that layering on additional responsibilities will not affect the quality of medical care. On that note, why do you think woke medicine has gained the upper hand in so many medical institutions? What are some of the dangers you see as inherent in this approach?

SG: I think it is part and parcel of the leftward movement in undergraduate and graduate education in general. Dickens called the impulse to do good the sanguine mirage of good minds. No doubt there is such an impulse in practitioners of woke medicine, but they are fooling themselves. They see disparate outcomes in health care, and they feel guilty and blame themselves. Many academic doctors also see a willing cohort of impressionable students who are reared in Marxist ideas about power hierarchies, and they demand that the students adhere to their concepts of equity.

On the more cynical side, I see administrators and medical leaders who simply do not want to face the wrath of their woke students; they have decided that it is easier to talk the talk, while delaying actually doing anything substantively woke that would require massive expenditures. For example, it is easier to accept a few more minority students or hire a few more diversity specialists than it is to open outpatient facilities in black neighborhoodsa move that might actually improve outcomes for black patients.

We have already seen some of the dangers of woke medicine. Earlier in the COVID pandemic, a movement arose to reserve use of scarce drugs like monoclonal antibodies for black patients. An algorithm was used by institutions in New York and Utah, in which black skin color garnered two of the six points needed to qualify for use of the drugs. In this system, a relatively well black patient might receive the drug rather than a white patient facing a more dire clinical situation. This is pure racial discrimination and it has no place in medical care.

This is just one disturbing example, among many, in which the implications of woke medicine are clearand must be rejected. Physicians may not feel comfortable arguing against reduced standards for admission to medical school or to residency training programs. But they must at least stand up against active racial discrimination in health care.

DG: Another problem you point out involves zombie statisticsthe phenomenon whereby false or misleading figures, often from poorly conducted or fraudulent studies, take on a life of their own. They are widely cited and eventually turned into easy talking points or conventional wisdom. What are some notable examples of this, and do you see a viable way to push back against any of it?

SG: My book cites several examples, but it goes on and on. The problem is not only in the way the studies are designed and evaluated but also in the way the conclusions are drawn.

For example, one study that is cited extensively in the medical literature as proof of racism in medicine actually found no difference in the way clinicians would treat black and white men with heart symptoms after providing the physicians with similar clinical information about the two cohorts. Black women, however, were referred less frequently for invasive studies than white women with similar complaints. All the patients were simulated by actors on videos. This study does not explain the differing recommendations based on gender but it may have roots in medical information available in 1999, when it was conducted.

A very recent study in the journal Academic Medicine found that underrepresented in medicine residents, or URiM residents, received lower ratings than other medical residents at a number of academic institutions that pooled their data. The authors concluded that one of three possibilities explained the results:

Resident race/ethnicity was associated with assessment scores to the disadvantage of URiM residents. This may reflect bias in faculty assessment, effects of a non-inclusive learning environment, or structural inequities in assessment.

Incredibly, the authors could not bring themselves to consider the possibility that the assessments were accurate and that the URiM residents performed less well than their peers. Any inequality must be the fault of the school, the result of a power differential between white racists and black students. This is an amazing blind spot. It could be the poster child for all the problems with adopting antiracist approaches in health care and education.

The only way to combat this is to point out the flaws and use social media and other platforms to fight the disinformation. It is a long and slow struggle but we cannot give it up.

DG: Earlier, you mentioned the issue of medical school applications. In recent years, the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) and other admissions criteria have become politicized, as have many medical school courses. In particular, under the leadership of Dr. Darrell Kirch, the American Association of Medical Colleges has introduced sweeping changes to the MCAT, which now serves in part as a sort of screening mechanism for progressive orthodoxy.

What do you make of this, and do you think theres any possibility of reform here? What advice might you give young people considering a medical career?

SG: It is quite simple. To hide the fact that admission to medical school can now be based on factors other than academic achievement, one needs to reduce evidence of academic achievement as much as possible. Its not to say that there arent really bright people being recruited into medical school, but to create the highly valued D in DEI, its important to be able to skirt the issue of academic performance when that helps. It only works if you dont believe in meritocracy, a concept that brings rage to the woke elite.

Reform seems far off unless legal challenges to affirmative action, such as the Harvard case now before the Supreme Court, eliminate the unfair practice of race-based policies.

Medicine is a great career. I would never discourage anyone from pursuing it. Every sphere of life deserves examination and reform, if necessary. Medicine is no different.

DG: Your own medical career is obviously extremely impressive, but youve recently pivoted, and now run the nonprofit Do No Harm. Can you tell us a bit about Do No Harmwhy you launched it and your hopes for its future?

SG: I launched Do No Harm together with several colleagues in the hope of providing a voice for physicians who wish to point out racial discrimination in health care. Our aim is to employ social media, other forms of media, and even legal remedies to challenge the harmful trends threatening American medicine.

Do No Harm is a membership organization, through which physicians and others interested in health care can share information about discriminatory practices they encounter and the corruption of research into healthcare disparities. We helped support a lawsuit against the federal government after discovering that new Medicare rules propose that physicians who create antiracism protocols in their care of Medicare patients will be eligible for bonus payments. Such protocols suggest discriminatory practice based on race, and would therefore seem to be illegal and unconstitutional. We are helping two physicians who have been injured by this rule to sue the government to rescind the rule. Eight states have joined the suit.

We have also called out the University of Indiana School of Medicine for demanding that faculty create a DEI proposal if they wish to be considered for academic promotion. This flies in the face of academic freedom and the First Amendment.

We will be calling out institutions that have adopted discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and patient care.

We need to start the return to meritocracy and non-discrimination in health care. No doubt it will be a long journey but we will hopefully have some fun along the way.

See the article here:

Social Justice Ideology and the Decline of American Medicine: A Conversation with Stanley Goldfarb - Public Discourse

Time to Log Off is a weekly series documenting the many ways our political figures show their whole asses online.

Perhaps youve heard about the former NFL player-turned-MAGA candidate embarrassing himself in a vainglorious attempt to capitalize on his partys violent zeitgeist and propel himself into elected office. No, not that one. Im talking about one-time pro running back Jerone Davison, now a Republican congressional candidate in Arizona who has hopped aboard the Trump train with a new campaign ad all about murdering his political opponents.

Entitled Make Rifles Great Again, the 30-second spot is about as subtle as youd expect from its name, opening with a shot of a person dressed in Ku Klux Klan robes with a Democratic Party donkey sewn on the front.

Democrats like to say that no one needs an AR-15 for self-defense, that no one could possibly need all 30 rounds, Davison intones over crisp shots of himself drinking coffee, and then walking around in suit and tie, carrying an enormous rifle. But when this rifle is the only thing standing between your family and a dozen angry Democrats in Klan hoods,you just might need that semi-automatic ... and all 30 rounds.

Now, beyond the obvious issues that come with painting the most infamous white nationalist movement in American history as a patched-in wing of the modern Democratic party and then endorsing gun violence against them Davisons ad has a few other glaring (albeit slightly less, uh, murderous) issues. For instance, doesnt explicitly enumerating a dozen attackers definitionally negate his previous assertion that you need all 30 rounds? Also, given that the ads Democrats in Klan hoods are largely carrying things like gardening tools and other melee weapons, meeting them with a military-grade assault rifle seems, if youll forgive the turn of phrase, like a bit of overkill?

Ordinarily, I would say that a piece of media depicting Ku Klux Klansmen getting their just desserts is a good and righteous thing. But when that piece of media twists a message of standing up against historical racial intolerance into essentially endorsing of the murder of your political adversaries kind of a theme among the GOP these days! well, thats another thing altogether. Particularly, I should add, when its coming from someone whose campaign website wholeheartedly endorses the same stolen election lies that already prompted some of the worst political violence in the past century.

Davison is currently part of a crowded field of Republican candidates hoping to secure the GOP nomination to take on Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton in the fall. Before then, however, I can only hope he does us all a favor and logs directly and immediately off. Before someone gets hurt.

Stories that Fuel Conversations

Go here to see the original:

This political ad from Jerone Davison is pretty unhinged, even for the MAGA crowd - Mic

The first time I tried on a pair of Crocs, I was in study hall. This kid named Marlin slid them off and told me I had to give them a go. Marlin wasnt known for his sartorial choices. He liked to wear thick white socks with flip-flops; the thong wedged into the cotton between his toes. But curiosity got the best of me, so I slid the Crocs on. The sweat left over from Marlins bare feet lubricated the plastic against my own skin, and I felt nothing but repulsion. It was a no for me. But it turns out Marlin was just ahead of the times.

Now, more than ten years after I graduated from high school, I think Crocs are the coolest. I have multiple pairs, and I pine for more. And I am not alone in this. These days Crocs show up in paparazzi photos of Post Malone and on Balenciaga runways. Since the genesis of Crocs in 2001, the wearers of these clunky plastic clogs have shifted from clueless vacation dads to TikTok fashion girlies. What used to be corny is cooland whats cool to people is always arbitrary. All I want right now are big comfy shoes that look like cartoons.

Once, I had a friend with a Wrangler explain the Jeep wave to mea two-finger salute that Jeep drivers share when they pass each other by. My buddy was embarrassed by Jeep culture, and pretended to never see the bros gesturing through their wide front windows. Ive found a similar camaraderie among Crocs wearers, but I am not ashamed at all. When I am wearing Crocs, and I compliment a stranger who is wearing Crocs, we simply have the time of our lives. We talk about the pairs we have, the pairs we want, the sort of innate goofiness that accompanies wearing shoes that are objectively pretty ugly.

Its funny how owning certain things promotes this sense of community. Do PT Cruiser pilots have an arcane handshake? Do Converse wearers share secret glances? (Ill never knowmy feet are too wide for Converse.) To me, it seems like joining the Crocs club comes with a special kind of energy. Conversations with fellow Crocs freaks take place in the narrow valley between being in on the joke and not making a joke at all.

And if our conversation lasts long enough, I get to ask if theyve been to the Crocs shop on State Street: a smorgasbord of options, in every color you could ever name. The single storefront contains enough plastic to ensure the death of our planet, and my god, I need that lime green pair in the window. They also offer an obscene amount of Jibbitz (which are the charms that one can plug into a Crocss holes). Weed leaves and Diet Coke cans and a little propeller cap where the propeller actually spinsyou name it, theyve got a Jibbitz version of it. Whenever I hear someone say Jibbitz out loud, I feel like I should call the police.

I am not breaking brave new ground by declaring that Crocs are cool. Theyve been en vogue for a while, and Im just riding that wave. But I feel inspired by their evolution, because the shoe itself never actually changed. Its like the Ugly Duckling stayed homely but got way better at personal branding. It makes me think about the rapid movement of the trend cycles. One minute, youre at the top, and the next, youre in the gutter. Seeing the shift in public response to this one pair of absurd plastic clogs makes me see how pointless it is to try and keep up anyway. Better to focus on your own style, and cherry-pick the trends when they fit.

When I was in my 20s, I liked to try to be the coolest girl in the room. I dont regret doing this. Sure, it could feel a little shallow, but it was very fun. It was also a ton of work to keep track of what other people thought was fashionable, and measure myself against those judgments. Now that Im firmly in my 30s, I can see that being cool doesnt have to be a competition. Lately, it feels more like a little game I play by myself. Crocs are in right now. Maybe in a few years, theyll be on the outs. But I dont feel trapped by these cycles anymore. Id rather pick the fashions that fit my body and my style, and trust that if I think theyre hip, others can be convinced.

I just bought a pair of giant, white, orthopedic New Balances. They are decidedly corny, but I am at a point in my life where its necessary to launch arch support into the trend cycle. The other day, a man in his mid-60s got on the bus wearing the exact same shoes as me. We didnt exchange any secret handshakes or covert nods, but I think we both knew: were just ahead of the zeitgeist.

See the rest here:

Riding the wave of the Crocs - Chicago Reader