Category Archives: Transhuman News

With the year 2021 over, all the eligible films for Hollywoods annual awards have now come out, and the top contenders are up for discussion. Its also the end of the 21st year of the 21st century, a good opportunity to look back, as Hollywood is well into its second century now.

Theres no better way to see what happened, what could have been, or perhaps what should have been than a simple look at The Academy Award for Best Picture year by year. Mistakes were clearly made, awards intentionally politicized, and cultural identity revised relentlessly.

This could be a much bigger issue to discuss and deliberate, but for an end-of-year list well simply mention what won versus what was in the running. In doing so, well see who we were just a few years back and who we are today as the 21st century unfolds.

In 1999, American Beauty won the Best Picture Oscar, perhaps denoting the end of the American Century. Thats because the 21st century began with Gladiator, Ridley Scotts trademark decadence and emptiness, telling the story of the Roman Empires imminent demise. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon should have won the Oscar, if only for its revolutionary effects that laid the foundation for Marvel and every single sci-fi or action movie since.

Russell Crowe carried A Beautiful Mind across the finish line, so to speak, even though it ended up unintentionally dismayed, empty, even vapid in its third act. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was the best film that year, but The Academy knew it was a triptych, so theyd be rewarding Peter Jackson for his epic undertaking in a couple of years.

As a return to an age-old cabaret vibe filled with talent and energy, Chicago took the prize. But realistically, it didnt have much competition. Gangs of New York became a Scorsese knock-knock joke, and while The Pianist was a clearly better film, Adrien Brodys performance wasnt enough to let The Academy forget it was directed by Roman Polanski, one of the first world-class directors whose past was beginning to get too strange, difficult, and unacceptable. Little did they know what cancel culture would ultimately become.

When the final installment of Peter Jacksons epic adaptation of J. R. R. Tolkiens The Lord of The Rings finally came out, the Best Picture Oscar statue was already being engraved. While The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was not as astounding or inspiring as the original or even the sequel, the cinematic storytelling masterpiece deserved the Academy Award across the board. In any other year, Lost in Translation would have won because of its tone, tenor, and Scarlett Johanssons debut pitted against Bill Murrays apex.

Ever so often, even Hollywood is able to view, recognize, and award the right film for the right reasons. With Million Dollar Baby, the story, the direction, the performances, and especially the timing are undeniable.

Not only is it Eastwoods best performance since Unforgiven, but Hilary Swank deservedly received Best Actress, Morgan Freeman earned Best Supporting Actor, and Eastwood won Best Director. An authentic, heartfelt story of redemption through unforgivable means, Million Dollar Baby is not only an exceptional film but a necessary discussion of morality and meaning.

From the highest highs to the lowest lows, the very next year after Million Dollar Baby, Crash was awarded Best Picture. Almost immediately Hollywood realizes not only that its a downright terrible film, but also that its egregious conversation about racism, inequality, violence, and humanitys flaws is at times laughable.

The faint smell of revisionist policies affected other nominees as well, with Brokeback Mountain presenting rugged homophobia and Munich re-evaluating Holocaust revenge strategies. This Best Picture failure did not bode well for The Academys future.

Every few years The Academy realizes its time to honor a legend, so The Departed became that moment for Martin Scorsese. While it remains at least arguable that hed earned the Best Director Oscar, the film by no means deserved Best Picture.

Despite an A-list cast, the story itself proved untenable and thin as ice, with a noticeably misguided performance by Jack Nicholson that probably convinced him it was time to retire. If not for the Scorcese variable, all signs pointed to Little Miss Sunshine for refreshing levity and originality.

The Academy Awards are notorious for crests and valleys, for accomplishments that define generations and moments that everyone wishes they could erase. After a couple of years lost in the woods, two films emerged that defined cinemas inherent prophetic profundity.

No Country for Old Men is quite simply a masterpiece. The Coen Brothers are at their very best, directing three of the finest lead performances in recent memory, with a story thats just as auspicious as its naturalism and articulate spiritual analysis. Javier Bardem won Best Actor, and to this day his portrayal of Anton Chigurh is deemed the most realistic depiction of sociopathology ever filmed.

If not enough, an equal contender was There Will Be Blood, a frontier character epic from Paul Thomas Anderson with a mesmerizing, unforgettable performance by one of the finest actors in cinema history, Daniel Day-Lewis.

A classic example of times collision with timing, Slumdog Millionaire winning Best Picture is more of a story about Western revisionism merging with a global game show craze caused by Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. While Dev Patels performance is acceptable and the story is enchanting and exhilarating, Slumdog Millionaire gets flimsier and less significant with every passing year. But perhaps it won the Oscar legitimately when its only competition was the laughable The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or the overtly political Milk.

The Hurt Locker being awarded Best Picture is yet another example of timing, but this instance proves strategy and intentionality. A film critical of military expansion and warrior mentality in the 21st century directed by a politically charged woman that manages to indirectly criticize an American president who started an illegitimate war? Yes, please. Thank you.

Among unique, original, favorable, or even forward-thinking contenders like Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man, or District 9 and the first year The Academy named 10 nominees instead of five The Hurt Locker proved two things: Jeremy Renner is a capable frontman and films can and should (and will) express political propaganda.

Again, a reset. A simple straightforward Best Picture to a deserving film; not so much a masterpiece as a relevant historical glance at a unique character and the moment that defined Great Britain approaching World War II.

Amid devastatingly realistic performances in The Fighter or the sweeping tech masterclass Inception created, The Kings Speech remained grounded and dignified, and actually pulled pivotal elements from both. Colin Firth as King George VI and Geoffrey Rush as his linguist specialist preparing him for a wartime speech amid an expansive depiction of England approaching its historic role in saving Europe and the world made a clear, decisive, and necessary statement.

Although superficial in the sense there wasnt much beyond visual excellence and classic flair, The Artist manipulated old-fashioned nostalgia quite effectively. In that sense, it deserved the Best Picture Oscar, but with a rather weak list of nominees, even Woody Allens Midnight in Paris or Moneyball, a downplayed American pastime analysis, were arguably better features. Nonetheless, The Artist proved yet again that nostalgia the intentional reference to the way the past makes us feel is all it takes sometimes.

In hindsight, the year Argo won Best Picture foreshadowed three dominant trends that have continued in Hollywood ever since. First, politics is undeniably preeminent. Any film that provides an implicit or even explicit leftist perspective will be hailed just for its intentionality. Second, identity overshadows performance. Its more important that the right actor acts than the right performance performs.

Third, overall quality is in decline for a multitude of reasons: production value, international competition, global perspective, and social media influence. In other words, Argo may have been competent, but was far from momentous, let alone meaningful.

The very next year a candid, violent, and damning portrayal of American slavery won Best Picture. Fittingly, to this day its difficult to assess the long-term effects and implications of 12 Years a Slave. The performances were intimate, dignified, even exceptional especially Lupita Nyongo, who won Best Supporting Actress and the quality of the filmmaking both in terms of story and adaptation proved articulate and authentic.

Yet what were told to remember about the actual film is less its narrative, and more its unprecedented production characteristics. Yes, 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture with the first black producer and the first black director, but is that what the film was meant to signify? In other words, the separation of the art and the artist became muddled. Irreversibly and permanently.

Identity and globalization moved forward unabated the following year when Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) swept the production Oscars and awarded Alejandro G. Irritu Best Director. As a dark comedy-drama with a stellar comeback performance from Michael Keaton, Birdman proved to be the legitimate favorite of the year. But there were a few others nipping at its heels including The Grand Budapest Hotel, Boyhood, and even Whiplash. A strong year on the storytelling narrative level, Irritus credentials, talent, and international appeal sealed the deal.

With a biographical drama like Spotlight, The Academy had another chance to prove the Best Picture award wasnt just honoring a formidable film, but also making a necessary and time-sensitive statement perhaps not overtly political, but clearly against an acceptable, politically incorrect villain: the Catholic Church. A story about the Boston Globes investigative journalists responding to widespread and systemic child sex abuse not only won a Pulitzer in 2003 but an Oscar a decade later. And even though the contenders were limited, The Revenant was actually better in terms of performance and profundity. Its just that the message counted more than the metaphor that year.

Not unlike the 2016 election, the Best Picture Oscar came down to two very different, very disparaging, and very flawed versions of what the best film of the year should be. On one hand, you had an articulate and demanding coming-of-age drama suffering from an unnecessarily flawed and featureless third act, and on the other you had a musical comedy-drama love story about Los Angeles, The Industry, and hopes and dreams becoming our lives and loves. While it was truly a coin toss, La La Land was announced the winner until the recipient declared a mistake on stage at The Academy Awards. So Moonlight won by mistake. Or did it?

When a romantic fantasy like The Shape of Water beats Dunkirk to win the Best Picture Oscar, theres more going on than just the quality of any given film. And in this case, it was honoring an international director like Guillermo del Toro. Ironically, his past films had proved much more profound and inquisitive than The Shape of Water, but after the Best Picture incident the previous year, The Academy decided to lean on devotion instead of derangement.

Despite its numerous accolades, perhaps the reason Green Book won Best Picture is a good example of the-simplest-answer-is-probably-the-right-one: its easy. Green Book is an American autobiography against a racist past in the South victimizing jazz performers that pretty much everyone can agree is correct, necessary, and exactly what happened.

Is it an exceptional film? Not really. Is it safe? Yup. Is it anywhere near A Star Is Born in terms of performance quality, engaging narrative, or a sweeping soundtrack? (And keep in mind, A Star Is Born is a remake thats essentially the movie version of vanilla ice cream.) Definitely not.

As globalism takes hold, Hollywood either adapts or dries on the vine. So in a strange way, Parasite threw it a lifeline by legitimately presenting an impressive cast and story entirely produced in South Korea.

The headlines spoke volumes when they claimed Parasite was the first foreign film to win Best Picture. Again, its historic, its well-earned and fitting, and it was absolutely necessary for Hollywood to evolve and survive. All in all, either Joker or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood were better films in terms of quality, performance, and intentionality, but Joaquin Phoenix won Best Actor and Quentin Tarantino received Best Director. Fairs fair.

The year of COVID-19 shut things down entirely and almost made The Academy Awards senseless or even inappropriate. So its quite fitting that Nomadland won Best Picture, either because it became a convenient way to honor a foreign female director and feminist female lead or because every other film was essentially non-existent.

All jokes aside, given the pandemic, perhaps the slice-of-life moments and vignettes depicting like-minded Americans were exactly what The Academy wanted to honor? Probably not. But sometimes hope is all we have.

So here we are. What 2021 film will win the next Academy Award for Best Picture? It depends on the X-factor currently dominating. If its legitimate production quality, it could be Dune. Performance valor and resonance would indicate The Tragedy of Macbeth or even Pig. (Believe it or not.)

The Industry counting its blessings that movie-going still exists might mean Spider-Man: No Way Home could surprise everyone. If its early Oscar buzz, The Power of the Dog is currently the frontrunner. And if its time to honor a directors career and influence, perhaps Paul Thomas Andersons Licorice Pizza will be the surprise that wont age well. So all thats left to say is: We shall see.

Michael Jerzy is a writer for film and television living in Los Angeles, California. Amid the reverse McCarthyism in Hollywood today, he's proud to be writing film reviews for The Federalist.

Read the original post:
The 21 Best Films Of The 21st Century So Far - The Federalist

In a series of interviews granted by President Muhammadu Buhari at the turn of the New Year to some media houses; particularly the one granted to Channels Television; the president was taken to task on the prospects of a political solution to the Biafra question which is now more frequently assessed through the prism of Mazi Nnamdi Kanus incarceration. It was an instinctive question which I assume the Presidents handlers must have given serious thought as they prepared him for what he jocularly described as a punishment.The reason is not hard to seek: the Presidents relationship with the Igbos of the South East, has not been a rosy one; a situation which the President has failed to handle with the needed awareness and presence of mind.

But the Presidents interviewers were met with a response they might not have expected. It was supposed to be a well-rehearsed one aimed at distancing the President from any malice in the circumstances of MaziNnamdiKanu. But typical of the Presidents ex tempore remarks, it was unnecessarily convoluted, making it difficult for the objective listener to pinpoint with any accuracy the Presidents sentiments on the issue. Yet, he said enough to give an indication that he was averse to any political resolution of the matter.

Let us quote the man, there is one institution that I wouldnt dare interfere with. That is the judiciary. Kanus case is with the judiciary, but what I wonder is, when Kanu was safely in Europe abusing this Administration and mentioning so many things, I never thought really hed want to come and defend himself of the accusations against him. So we are giving him an opportunity to defend himself in our system, not to be abusing us from Europe, as if hes not a Nigerian. Let him come here voluntarily with us. Nigerians know that I dont interfere with the judiciary. Let him be listened tothose who are saying he should be released.No, we cannot release him.

When taken pointedly by SeunOkinbaloye on the prospects of a political solution, however, the President appeared to contradict himself. Nothere is the possibility of a political solution. If they behave themselves (a reference to IPOB apologists), all well and good. But he would contradict himself again: you cant go to a foreign country and keep on sending incorrect economic and security problem against your country and thinking youll never have to account for what youve been doing. Let him account for what he has been doing, he concluded.

Arguably, that interview was the clearest window into the mind of President MuhammaduBuhari, particularly where he stood on the matter of Mazi Nnamdi Kanus incarceration. It is instructive that the presidents response, was a reviewed version of what he had told a high-powered Igbo delegation which had paid him a visit at the twilight of 2021, demanding a political solution to the continued incarceration of MaziNnamdiKanu whose trial for alleged acts of treason remain subjudice before Justice BintaNyako of the Federal High Court.

President Muhammadu Buharis politically correct response may appear appealing to those who disagree with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and his methods towards the actualization of a Biafra State (and I am one of them), it however fails to impress in the larger consideration of the need to quell the degenerating security situation in the South East which observers of the polity have often attributed to the (mis)management of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu situation.

While the President may want to be seen as a Democrat as he campaigned at his second coming, and who would not want to be seen to interfere in the constitutional mandate of the judiciary, a deeper introspection into the Body of our laws and recent political history, proves the president and his posturing wrong.

In an opinion piece titled On Biafra and the Igbo Peace-Mission published in the days after the visit of the southeast delegation to President Muhammad Buhari, I submitted as follows:

I welcome and commend the intervention of Igbo Leaders to secure a political resolution of the highly delicate NnamdiKanu situation, as well as President MuhammaduBuharis indication of a possible consideration.

Like all negotiations, that must, however, be on concessionary grounds which I believe, must consist of #MNKs abandonment of his near-terrorist Biafra project, as well as the Federal Governments commitment to addressing the sociopolitical issues fuelling agitations in the South East.

As I see it, a political solution holds the most realistic prospects of a win-win resolution of the crisis which, if not properly managed, can degenerate into the unfolding events in the Tigrayan region of Ethiopia. Needless to say, the ongoing judicial process, is at best, a tinderbox.

I however hope the negotiating Igbo Leaders have the brief and authority of MNK to undertake this project on his behalf and those of his lieutenants. Otherwise, it may end up in another embarrassing circus which will not bode well for both sides.

If they do, President MuhammaduBuhari should seize the rare opportunity towards resolving the crisis. Itll not only shape his not the particularly popular presidency, but it might also earn him accolades abroad as a possible recipient of the coveted Nobel Peace Prize.

Against the backdrop of President MuhammaduBuharis recent comments and the reasons canvassed for his inability to midwife a political solution out of the imbroglio, I think it has become imperative for me to reiterate that admonition and to provide legal and historical perspectives on how the President may proceed in that regard, assuming hes minded to.

First, the legal angle. There is no question that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is being tried for alleged acts of terrorism by the Federal Government of Nigeria over certain comments attributed to him vide a medium known as Radio Biafra. This automatically puts his trial within the oversight of the Attorney General of Federation who has the domino powers under Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution to enter a nolleprosequi in the matter of MaziNnamdiKanus trial. In legal parlance, a nolleprosequi simply means, the State is no longer willing to prosecute the charge against the Defendant and which automatically renders charge liable to be struck out within a defined legal framework, provided however that the charge may be preferred against the accused at a later time. Contrary to President Muhammadu Buharis fears, hell not be interfering with the judiciary in the event he sanctions it. Hell only be exercising one of those powers warehoused in the Executive in a presidential democracy in which we operate. Needless to say, our case law is replete with instances where Attorney Generals both at the State and Federal levels have invoked this power with the approval of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Alternatively, to the extent that the trial is conducted under the extant Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), the Federal Government as Prosecutor may elect its right under Section 108(1) of the Act, to withdraw the charge against MaziNnamdiKanu on the back of a negotiated agreement between him and the presidency. Interestingly, like the Attorney Generals power of nolleprosequi, the Federal Government need not advance any reason before the Court for electing to withdraw the charge.

From my limited knowledge of our criminal jurisprudence, I think the above are two ready options before the presidency that would not see it, interfering with the judiciary, as the President fears. Theres no question that other options exist within our laws. I now turn to the evidence of history.

At the end of the day, the primary objective of any Government is the security and welfare of the citizenry. I am of the school of thought which postulates that there is no price too steep for buying peace in the socio-political market. Indeed, even our Supreme Court held in Dokubo v FRN (2007) WRN 1 that where the security of the nation and her citizens is threatened, the Rule of Law assumes secondary consideration. Now, while this writer concedes that that pronouncement of the Apex Court continues to agitate the minds of legal scholars, its purposes in the context of this intervention, is no more, than to underscore the imperative of winning the peace in any conflict; the post-Biafra conflict headlined by the activities of the IPOB inclusive.

Thus, in 2007, it took a negotiated amnesty by President Umaru Musa Yar Adua administration to secure the relative peace now being enjoyed in the Niger Delta region. Not many may recall that part of that negotiated process was the unconditional release of Chief AsariDokubo from prison, who incidentally was standing trial for Treasonable Felony before the same Justice BintaNyako.

Ditto for Chief Ralph Uwazuruike, who before MaziNnamdiKanu, had led a Biafra agitation movement under the banner of Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign States of Biafra (MASSOB). Whilst Uwazuruike was incarcerated in an underground cell at the DSS facility while standing trial for Treasonable Felony beforeJusticeBintaNyako, it took a political negotiation by the Goodluck Jonathan Administration in 2011 to calm the waters of that movement before MaziNnamdiKanu came to national consciousness. When the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 for Uwazurikes protracted trial to resume, the case was all too forgotten.

A political solution to politically-punctuated conflicts is not a new phenomenon. To be sure, it is a recognized medium by which national governments confront disputes that have great implications for national security. Recently, the Military Junta in Myanmar adopted this approach by freezing hundreds of political prisoners whom it had thrown behind bars when it interrupted the countrys democracy last February. Elsewhere, in the wake of the ongoing Civil War in Ethiopia, the Ethiopian government penultimate week, said it would release several prominent political prisoners, including members of the rebel Tigray Peoples Liberation Front, as a step toward peacefully resolving the countrys Civil War which recently entered its 15th month.

Other examples of a negotiated political solution to national conflicts abound across the African continent and beyond which need not be rehashed here.

As I have argued across different platforms; while Im not a fan of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and his jejune Biafra project, what we cannot wish away, is the fact of him being a political prisoner. It is my considered view that this material ingredient calls for an unconventional assessment, evaluation, and management of his trial. It is therefore in this regard, that President MuhammaduBuhari might be persuaded to take a different look at the situation and quit the resort to arid legalism.

While MaziNnamdiKanu may be the only one physically standing trial, the ugly truth is that the South East in particular, and the nation in general is implicated in that trial. Kanu appeals to the large demography of Igbo Youth who now ascribes messianic status to him. Theyre ready to go to war against the Nigerian State at his command and would sit at home, in obedience to him, at the prompting of his lieutenants. That is how much influence he wields and his continued incarceration, needless to say, would only quadruple the ranks of his followers.

As the learned authors of a leading article in Peace Studies, Wallace Warfield and AshaldSentongo argued in their work, Political Leadership and Conflict Resolution: An African Example, the Biafra imbroglio requires the management of a transformative leader who acknowledges not only the tension posed by a conflict but also the opportunities existing in a broadly participatory political process. Such a leader values the role conflict mitigation can play in managing this tension and building a nations capacity for sustainable peace and development. President Muhammad Buhari can rise to that example.

A Legal Practitioner and Public Affairs commentator, Raymond can be reached via [emailprotected] and @RayNkah on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
Buhari, Nnamdi Kanu and the 'political solution' question - TheCable

Activists in Jakarta, Indonesia, protest the Chinese governments persecution of the Uyghur people and call for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing January 4, 2022.(Willy Kurniawan / Reuters)

On the Beijing Games; Elon Musk; Russian appetites; Epsteins pals; the scourge of wokeness; Sidney Poitier; Winston Churchill; and more

A report from the Associated Press begins in interesting fashion: The Beijing Winter Olympics are fraught with potential hazards for major sponsors, who are trying to remain quiet about Chinas human rights record while protecting at least $1 billion theyve collectively paid to the IOC. Also, the president of the IOC that would be International Olympic Committee points out that the Games must be politically neutral.

Okay. But, as you know, if a person is neutral between persecutors and persecuted, he is in effect siding with the persecutors.

Isaac Stone Fish delivered some unsettling news: Just days after Biden signed into law a bill banning exports from Xinjiang, Elon Musks Tesla opens its first store and showroom in Xinjiang. A shocking move.

Xinjiang Province, as you know, is where the Chinese government is trying to obliterate the Uyghur people. (To the Uyghurs, Xinjiang is East Turkestan.) There are so many things to say. I will merely quote Willi Schlamm, as Bill Buckley liked to do: The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.

There are things more important than the China market especially in Xinjiang Province, or East Turkestan.

In London, the Russian embassy had something to say. It was quoting the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov: #NATO has become a purely #geopolitical project aimed at taking over territories orphaned by the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and the Soviet Union.

With apologies to Russia experts, you really dont have to be a Russia expert to understand the mindset: These guys are plenty transparent. They feel an ownership of other countries.

I very much liked the response of Radek Sikorski, the Polish statesman (and former writer for National Review):

Get this, @RussianEmbassy, once and for all, in a language you can grasp. We were not orphaned by you because you were not our daddy. More of a serial rapist. Which is why you are not missed. And if you try it again, youll get a kick in the balls.

Lets hope so.

Michael McFaul, the Russianist who was our ambassador to Moscow, says this:

I met Putin in 1991. Ive written about him for 2 decades. I sat in the room with him for 5 years during the Obama administration. Those who believe that Putin will stop undermining Ukrainian sovereignty & democracy with a non-expansion NATO guarantee dont know Putin.

I think of a French expression, taught to me by a Briton, David Pryce-Jones: Lapptit vient en mangeant. Appetite comes from eating.

When I was managing editor of National Review, I asked DP-J to write about many, many things, and he never balked except once. I asked him to write something about Vietnam, and what happened after we abandoned the South. He asked to be excused. It was so terrible, so atrocious and we bore some responsibility.

At the moment, it is very, very tempting to look away from Afghanistan. But theres a plethora of stories like this one: Parents Selling Children Shows Desperation of Afghanistan.

Is it time to stop following the Jeffrey Epstein story? Ghislaine Maxwell, his partner in crime, has been found guilty. A jury convicted her of five counts of sex trafficking. Good. But how about the friends and associates of Epstein? The men with whom he shared the trafficked girls? It would be good to know the truth about the matter the whole matter whether it embarrasses Republicans, Democrats, royals, or anyone else.

You may have seen this story (and if youre a Brit, you surely have): British Prime Minister Boris Johnson faced a wave of public and political outrage on Tuesday over allegations that he and his staff flouted coronavirus lockdown rules by holding a garden party in 2020 while Britons were barred by law from mingling outside the home. (Article here.)

Now, you may think the rules were dumb. But the hypocrisy stinks. I think of an ancient phrase, and concept: to lead by example.

Strongly, strongly I recommend this article by two Peters: Kiefer and Savodnik. It is about woke madness (for lack of a better phrase) in Hollywood. I wish to quote one line: We spoke to more than 25 writers, directors, and producers all of whom identify as liberal, and all of whom described a pervasive fear of running afoul of the new dogma.

Im here to tell you: The same kind of article could be written about music in the classical field, the musical-theater field, and others, I bet. No one would go on the record, maybe. The fear is great. But I have heard expressions of despair and disgust from people who never had a politically incorrect thought in their lives, if you know what I mean.

Allow me to repeat what I have said before in my column: Aung San Suu Kyi has had one of the most tumultuous lives of modern times. Her father, the national hero, was murdered when she was two. She made great sacrifices for freedom. She stood with phenomenal courage against the Burmese dictatorship. She was imprisoned for many years. In a democratic opening, she was elected the civilian leader of the country. She went along with the military, especially in its persecution of the Rohingya people (very popular among the nationalist Burmese, unfortunately). The democratic government was overthrown by the military in a coup.

And now, the latest: Myanmars Suu Kyi sentenced to 4 more years in prison. This lady is 76 years old, and still in the storm.

Sidney Poitier, the actor, has passed away at 94. What a voice. What a face. Etc. Some lines are indelible. And one of them is: They call me Mr. Tibbs. On Twitter, Avi Mayer circulated a portion of an interview that Poitier gave to CBSs Lesley Stahl. The actor explained how an elderly Jewish waiter taught him to read. Moving: here.

Lani Guinier has passed away at 71. Id like to quote Ben Shapiro:

I had Lani Guinier as a professor at Harvard Law. We agreed on nothing, and she was a total delight as a human being. We used to have hard-edged discussions in class, and she embraced them with joy. A rarity. RIP.

Bob Saget has passed away at 65. Comedian, actor, TV host. He was a gift to our popular culture the kind of person who makes you smile, even merely to think of him.

Dale Clevenger has passed away at 81. He was one of the greatest orchestral players of our time: principal French horn in the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Robert Marshall, the music scholar, once told me a story about him. I wrote it up for The New Criterion.

In the mid-Seventies, the [University of] Chicago music department was running a series called First Chair. Principal players from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra would visit the department and talk. One such was Dale Clevenger, the eminent French hornist.

A student said to him, Do you know the solo from the Tchaikovsky Fifth Symphony? Clevenger said, Does the Pope know Latin? The same student, or another one, asked Clevenger whether he ever got nervous. In answer, Clevenger said, Im going to play the Tchaikovsky excerpt. Come up here. I want you to feel my pulse while I play it.

When he was through, he said to the student, Did you notice how my pulse was racing? And this was a fairly easy solo certainly not very high. And I am not playing in a major concert. Its just us, having an informal get-together. Still, yes, it makes me nervous.

Now and then, Twitter announces a permanent suspension. Peter Baker of the New York Times commented, ... isnt permanently suspend a contradiction in terms? Which reminded me of my father: who calls a permanent, as in the hair treatment, a temporary.

Lets talk pronunciation. When I was growing up in Michigan, a lot of people said vanella, instead of vanilla: Ill have a vanella shake. Now, the coach of the New England Patriots is Bill Belichick. But I hear many, many Americans say Belicheck.

You know the word quarter? I think I said corter until I was about 20 not kworter.

In a recent piece, Kevin D. Williamson wrote, ... it turns out, keeping Winston Churchills daily personal routine doesnt make you Winston Churchill. Which gave me a memory.

Paul Johnson, a biographer of Churchill, and many others, wrote that Churchill worked in bed until noon. I said to Johnson, Thats probably the only thing I have in common with Churchill: I, too, work in bed till noon. Johnson replied, He really worked, you know. I protested, So do I!

It was true then (although it has not been true in some time). (I move from bed to a chair.) (Most of the time.)

A little music? Heres a review of a Rigoletto at the Metropolitan Opera.

Feel like some pictures? I had a slew of them in my Nashville journal earlier this week (here). Take a few more, if you will.

This is an attractive building on the campus of Limestone University, in Gaffney, S.C.

And how about this stately mother?

A farm, in Greater Gaffney really nice:

New Yorks Central Park, in midwinter?

Another shot, for the road:

No, one more shot: of the USS Intrepid, in the Hudson River (also New York). You remember Patriot Pops? Those red-white-and-blue popsicles? Well, thats what the ship reminded me of the other night.

Thanks for joining me, everybody. All the best.

If you would like to receive Impromptus by e-mail links to new columns write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.

Go here to read the rest:
The Beijing Olympics, Elon Musk, Jeffrey Epstein, and More - National Review

A few days ago, Aiman Khan appeared on the first episode of a new season of Voice Over Man, a show where many celebrities often end up saying somewhat offensive things because of the kind of questions asked by the shows host, Wajahat Rauf.

Because its a comedy show, Rauf, AKA Voice Over Man, tends to make provocative statements to see if celebrities take bait. Sometimes the guests come across as witty and fun-loving, other times they sound judgmental. Unfortunately, Aiman Khans episode gave room to some problematic statements.

As per the show format, Rauf deliberately asks problematic questions, such as Do actresses lose their value after they get married? If not, then what things make women lose their value? As one of his options, he asked if wearing small clothes like Faryal Mehmood or posting angry posts like Ushna Shah make women lose their value.

He then proceeded to make the following statement: All heroines should get married because boys are running out. To this Aiman replied, I think if you take too long to get married, then you dont end up getting married at all. There are so many actresses who are still unmarried.

This is a fairly loaded statement because it suggests that all unmarried actresses lost their chance, and it also makes it sounds like being unmarried is a bad thing.

In another segment of the show, Rauf asks her to give advice to her contemporaries. When he takes TikTok star Jannat Mirzas name, Aimen advises her to wear less makeup.

The TikTok star has also responded to Aimens statements, saying that someone with a lot of makeup and surgeries should not be telling other people what to do.

The format of the show is infamously provocative and politically incorrect and celebrities know exactly what theyre walking into when they agree to be on the program. Several artistes have thus chosen to not participate. So those who do appear come with a responsibility of saying what they will. Voice Over Mans questions can be responded to with equal quirk and mischief but without that ability, most artistes have the tendency of walking straight into the trap, especially when commenting on other stars.

Looks like Time Out with Ahsan Khan has some serious competition from Voice Over Man when it comes to which show will create more controversy!

Read more from the original source:
Aiman Khan upsets many with her comments on the Voice Over Man show - Something Haute

For the past 60 or so years we have lived in an age of charismatic capitalists. The paragon of the species was Steve Jobs. I happened to be in Moscow when he died on October 5, 2011, and I remember watching as a giant poster of his face was unfurled on the side of a skyscraper and Russians gathered around in silence, holding candles and sometimes weeping.

But charismatics have thrived outside Silicon Valley. General Electrics Jack Welch was treated as a demigod for supposedly reviving the conglomerate form. Michael Milken was revered (and reviled) for spinning junk bonds into gold. Enrons Jeffrey Skilling told a beguiling story of freeing natural gas from the constraints of molecules and movement. At Alibabas 18th birthday party the company founder, Jack Ma, dressed as Michael Jackson and danced to the song Billie Jean in front of 40,000 cheering employees.

Adam Neumann grew WeWork into one of the worlds most valuable startups before losing control of the company. Credit:Mark Lennihan

In his new book, The Emergence of Charismatic Business Leadership, Richard Tedlow, a legendary professor at Harvard Business School who is now on the faculty of Apple University, argues that charismatic business leaders are more than just larger-than-life personalities. Sam Walton was deliberately folksy and self-effacing. Milken comes across as the class nerd.

What distinguishes them is a combination of personal magnetism and reality distortion. You want to follow them even against your better judgment: One of Milkens employees opined that someone like Mike comes along once every five hundred years. And you are captured by their vision of the world: Guy Bud Tribble, a leading member of the team that designed the Mac, said that in Jobss presence reality is malleable. He can convince anyone of practically anything It was dangerous to get caught in Steves distortion field, but it was what led him to actually be able to change reality.

These charismatic figures exploded on the business world after an era in which capitalism had degenerated into grey bureaucracy. The greatest manager of the era, Alfred P. Sloan, prided himself on turning General Motors into an objective organisation, as distinguished from the type that gets lost in the subjectivity of personalities.

Loading

The most telling book was William H. Whytes The Organisation Man, which includes the wonderful phrase lifted from a documentary film produced for Monsanto Chemical Company: no geniuses here; just a bunch of average Americans working together. This was the world of the corner office, the grey flannel suit and the annual upgrade of the same old product.

Charismatic capitalism was produced by the most powerful forces of the new capitalism unleashed by the Reagan-Thatcher revolution. Technological innovation allowed a few first-movers geniuses rather than average Americans to build world-spanning empires, just as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller had done in the second half of the 19th century.

Deregulation forced established businesses to become more agile. The explosion of executive pay persuaded even run-of-the-mill CEOs that they were geniuses who deserved to be splashed on the cover of Forbes. Why else would the average CEO at the top 350 US firms ranked by sales have been paid 386 times their average workers pay in 2000, compared with 45 times in 1989. And changing mores allowed members of out-groups, most notably Oprah Winfrey, to turn charisma into towering fortunes.

View original post here:
Why we shouldnt give up on the charismatic CEO - Sydney Morning Herald

SURVEILLANCE PELICANA

BY

DAN WEISMAN

The entire book appears at this link with chapters added after appearing online:

Chapters 1-10: https://www.escondidograpevine.com/surveillance-pelicana-full-book-chapters-added-as-they-appear-online/.)

Chapters 11-20: https://www.escondidograpevine.com/surveillance-pelicana-part-ii-chapters-11-to-20-chapters-added-as-they-appear-online/)

Chapters 21-30: https://www.escondidograpevine.com/surveillance-pelicana-part-iii-chapters-21-to-30-chapters-added-as-they-appear-online/

CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE

The convention hits full stride as

Tyger embarks on guerilla protest. He spends a lot of time with

convention protesters and reveals all the counter-culture events

pertaining to the gathering. Much time is spent at the Yippie

Peace Camp the abandoned Worlds Fair parking lot where the

box of troubles burned and other Yippie events. Details of the

convention are considered and explained, as well as pertinent

historical correlations. The novel ends with a wrapping up of

details concerning the leading characters and relevant events.

CHAPTER 29

Pie in the Sky at Peace Camp

SURVEILLANCE PELICANA

Chapter Twenty-Nine

Weisman

593

By Wednesday August 17, Armors is mad as hell about events

pertaining to the convention. The utter banality of the

proceeding coupled with the unbelievably unconstitutional nature

of unpublicized mass arrests convince him to take matters into

his own hands.

Armors grabs Tyger by the proverbial lapel

taking it to thestreets. Guess who is driving.

About 11 a.m. on a typically hot and humid New Orleans

mid-morning, Tyger climbs in the cockpit of his muffler not

bomb that somehow manages to navigate around town. Adjusting an

internal compass, he heads east beneath a cloudless sky for the

streetcar line.

Armors mission is simple. Seek out Republicants

wherever they land, preferably in groups of three and smaller,

and destroy them with well placed barbs.

In other words, engage the invaders in one-on-one dogfights

using the quick verbal zap technique before fleeing the scene. It

is a classic guerilla campaign thanks to General Giaps handy

training manual with a hardy assist from Joe Fine mobile Israeli tactics.

SURVEILLANCE PELICANA

Chapter Twenty-Nine

Weisman

594

This way, mobility plus intimate knowledge of the

area can be used effectively to overwhelm the confused target and

defeat it. Then, executing a timely escape enables the

guerilla to seek and destroy another objective. The tactic has a

certain charm, plus the additional safety first factor.

Targets must be chosen carefully.

Of course, it is easy to spot delegates and their fellow

travelers. They stick out like Cajun pig sandwiches cochon

dlait for the goyim at a kosher supper.

Repub delegates are the ridiculous fools wearing

jackets and dress suits plastered with ridiculous badges,

buttons, and symbols. Fellow travelers, as well, are costumed in

formal wear of the poorest taste. They all seem to be gunning for

Mr. Blackwells worst dressed list and quite a few appear to be

making it.

First up at 11:15 high Armors blows reefer, as Tyger avoids

radio contact due to the need to concentrate on prosecution of

the offensive is an insipid well dressed man right out of

Blue Velvet. He looks quite lost along the neutral ground just

past Napoleon Avenue. Josephine this, baby.

SURVEILLANCE PELICANA

Chapter Twenty-Nine

Weisman

595

Tyger checks right and left; nobody else in the vicinity,

no traffic behind him, all systems a go go, big brother . Tyger

slows his vehicle to a crawl, waiting until the man looks his way.

Then, Armors lets loose theinitial volley

of his personal guerrilla war on evil. Repuboscum

faggot. Everybody hates your shitty guts, boom boom boom. Tyger

speeds away, leaving the guy with a pissed off expression staring

at mother the cars dust.

Tyger checks in all directions. No one else has noticed.

Direct hit mission control. We bagged a dead live one.

Armors is somewhat disappointed in his

initial encounter. The tactic works great, but he wants

a more special brand of verbal abuse for a special brand of inbred

porkers.

Another target about 11:30 a.m., 12 oclock high about 50

yards down the neutral ground. Looking bad, two Repubbubbly

women replete in hideous suit dress camouflage with tell-tale

badges.

Tyger checks all directions, slows almost to a stop. Armors

attracts their attention by waving his right hand out the cockpit

glass. They take the bait and look his way.

Hey bitches, Armors yells. How many Contras have you fucked. Why dont

you die Repuboscums.

See the original post:
Surveillance Pelicana Chapter Twenty-Nine: 'Pie in the Sky at Peace Camp' - Escondido Grapevine