Lily Salter's Blog, page 1013
August 18, 2015
Jared “From Subway” Fogle expected to plead guilty on child pornography charges
Former Subway spokesperson Jared Fogle is expected to plead guilty to charges of child pornography possession tomorrow, Fox59 in Indianapolis reports. The multi-millionaire's Zionsville home was raided last month by state and federal agents as part of the investigation, following the April arrest of Russell Taylor, the executive director of Fogle's own The Jared Foundation, on child pornography charges. Fogle is expected to accept a plea deal on the possession charges, following the seizure of several computers and DVDs from his home during last month's raid. The U.S. Attorney's office will discuss the details at a press conference tomorrow afternoon. Fogle shot to national prominence for attributing drastic weight loss to eating sandwiches from Subway every day. "He's inspired a lot of people," Subway commercials claimed as the chain touted its low-fat "Eat Fresh" menu options. Subway suspended its relationship with Fogle in the wake of the raid, and according to Fox 59's report, the suspension remains in effect.
“Dr. Dre straddled me and beat me mercilessly”: Dee Barnes rejects “revisionist history” of “Straight Outta Compton” in powerful essay
In a moving and detailed essay published today by Gawker, former "Pump It Up!" host Dee Barnes spoke up about her conspicuous absence from F. Gary Gray’s crowd-pleasing biopic about West Coast gangsta rap pioneers N.W.A. In "Here's What's Missing From Straight Outta Compton: Me and the Other Women Dr. Dre Beat Up," Barnes chronicles her time on the Los Angeles hip hop scene as she covered the rise of the game-changing group. A well-respected journalist and host of a popular hip hop TV show, Barnes had insider access, although once the music came out, she heard a different side of the musicians she had come to know:
I wasn’t in the studio to hear them record their disgusting, misogynistic views on women in songs like “A Bitch Iz a Bitch,” “Findum, Fuckum & Flee,” “One Less Bitch,” and perhaps most offensively, “She Swallowed It.” (On that track, MC Ren brags about violating at 14-year-old girl: “Oh shit it’s the preacher’s daughter! / And she’s only 14 and a ho / But the bitch sucks dick like a specialized pro.”) I heard the material like everybody else, when I was listening to the albums, and I was shocked. Maybe that was their point. Maybe they said a lot of that stuff for the shock value. There were always other girls around, like Michel’le and Rose, and we never heard them talk like that. We never heard them say, “Bitch, get over here and suck my dick.” In their minds, only certain women were “like that,” and I’ve never presented myself like that, so I never gave them a reason to call me names.Then Barnes filmed a segment of "Pump It Up!" featuring Ice Cube, who had quit the group, insulting other members of N.W.A. while he was filming "Boyz N the Hood" — in perhaps the most telling detail, "Straight Outta Compton" director F. Gary Gray was her camera operator that day. She says after the clip aired, that was Andre "Dr. Dre" Young's motivation for "straddl[ing] me and beat[ing] me mercilessly on the floor of the women’s restroom at the Po Na Na Souk nightclub in 1991." She describes Young's attack on her vividly: "I was on my back and [his] knee was in my chest" and "he smashed my head against the wall."
[W]hen Dre was trying to choke me on the floor of the women’s room in Po Na Na Souk, a thought flashed through my head: “Oh my god. He’s trying to kill me.” He had me trapped in that bathroom; he held the door closed with his leg. It was surreal. “Is this happening?” I thought.In clear, reflective and empathetic prose, Barnes acknowledges the oppressive racism at the hands of police that galvanized N.W.A.'s "activistic core," but refuses to excuse the musicians when they channeled their frustrations into misogynistic language or violence: "There is a direct connection between the oppression of black men and the violence perpetrated by black men against black women. It is a cycle of victimization and reenactment of violence that is rooted in racism and perpetuated by patriarchy." Young pleaded no contest to the criminal charge and settled a civil lawsuit from Barnes, which she says, contrary to popular belief which had her collecting millions, was for less than $1 million. And Barnes says ultimately, the fall-out was greater even than the migraines she continues to suffer: "I was blacklisted. Nobody wants to work with me. They don’t want to affect their relationship with Dre." Read the entire essay at Gawker.
Republicans’ vile anti-gay crusade: RNC endorses legislation to protect discrimination
Conservatives have suffered a rough summer and aren't copping with their losses well. After watching same-sex couples granted the right to wed nationwide and seeing state-level anti-gay discrimination plots face intense scrutiny, the Republican National Committee is continuing its anti-LGBT fight by endorsing federal legislation codifying the right to discriminate against LGBT Americans into law, reports ThinkProgress. The so-called First Amendment Defense Act is Republicans' response to nationwide marriage equality and what they describe as an attempt to protect people who find same-sex unions contrary to their faith by preventing any federal response to religious businesses, non-profits and institutions that discriminate against same-sex couples. The bill would allow universities with religious affiliations which receive federal funding to deny employment to workers with same-sex spouses. Cosponsor Sen. Mike Lee of Utah displayed particularly twisted logic when he claimed that the legislation is meant to prohibit "a particularly nasty form of discrimination which involves discrimination by the government against an individual or a group thereof on the basis of religious belief." RNC Chair of the Conservative Steering Committee Ellen Barrosse similarly defended this attempt to legalize discrimination by pointing to the free market and a specious argument that religious organizations would be forced to act not in accordance with their religious teachings. “Does Catholic Charities have to place children with gay couples, or will they have to shut down?” Barrosse asked during an interview with the Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal. “This is a free market, there are other agencies that will place children with them.” A similar argument was put forth by Sen. Lee: "we're not, moreover, in a society in which people who are either gay or lesbian who are married to a member of the same sex, for example, are subject to widespread discrimination. There is no shortage in the United States of colleges and universities and other employers of all types, of all sorts, who are willing to hire." But Republicans' push for this anti-gay discrimination is disingenuous at best. As the ACLU notes, there is no sign that the IRS has any plans to try to revoke the tax-exempt status of religious schools that oppose same-sex marriage and aside from the 1983 decision to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University for its prohibition of interracial marriage, the IRS has made no move to revoke the tax-exempt status of religious schools that have policies against interfaith marriages or remarriage after divorce. The RNC's extreme position in opposition to marriage equality and in support of legalized discrimination places the Party out of step with its presidential frontrunner, yet again. Donald Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd that unlike his party, he was "willing to go with what the courts are saying" and supported employee non-discrimination ordinances in light of the Supreme Court ruling overturning same-sex marriage bans, explaining his opposition to employers being allowed to fire employees due to sexual orientation: "I don’t think [someone's sexuality] should be a reason, no."
Jessica Alba thinks Gwyneth Paltrow comparisons are sexist: “What I think is unfair is to lump actresses together”
In a recent interview with Allure, Jessica Alba — whose eco-friendly start-up Honest is worth a cool $1.7-billion — says she is tired of being compared to fellow actress-entrepreneurs like Gwyneth Paltrow, Reese Witherspoon and Blake Lively. “What I think is unfair is to lump actresses together,” Alba explains. "People aren't lumping Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher together. They do other businesses. I think it’s expected that when you get success in one area, you’re supposed to evolve and try to do something else—especially in business, and especially if you’re a man.” Back in June, Goop founder Paltrow had a similar response to a Time reporter who asked about other lifestyle brands started by actresses, saying “I wonder if George Clooney would be asked about Puff Daddy’s ancillary liquor line” and remarking that she is “fascinated how the media in particular are so confounded by entrepreneurial women doing something outside of their box.” “Jessica [Alba], especially, who’s a friend of mine—our businesses could not be more different,” Paltrow said at the time. “There’s not a lifestyle piece to her business. The fundamentals of our sites are very different. Reese launched—our businesses have similarities, but hers has retail. People are grasping at straws to tie us together and I get it, because it makes a good story, but I’m slightly offended by this sort of generalization that happens with myself and Jessica and Reese and Blake. Yes, there are similarities. But there aren’t stories in TIME written saying, 'Wow, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, who did x, y, and z!'" Read the rest of the profile over at Allure.In a recent interview with Allure, Jessica Alba — whose eco-friendly start-up Honest is worth a cool $1.7-billion — says she is tired of being compared to fellow actress-entrepreneurs like Gwyneth Paltrow, Reese Witherspoon and Blake Lively. “What I think is unfair is to lump actresses together,” Alba explains. "People aren't lumping Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher together. They do other businesses. I think it’s expected that when you get success in one area, you’re supposed to evolve and try to do something else—especially in business, and especially if you’re a man.” Back in June, Goop founder Paltrow had a similar response to a Time reporter who asked about other lifestyle brands started by actresses, saying “I wonder if George Clooney would be asked about Puff Daddy’s ancillary liquor line” and remarking that she is “fascinated how the media in particular are so confounded by entrepreneurial women doing something outside of their box.” “Jessica [Alba], especially, who’s a friend of mine—our businesses could not be more different,” Paltrow said at the time. “There’s not a lifestyle piece to her business. The fundamentals of our sites are very different. Reese launched—our businesses have similarities, but hers has retail. People are grasping at straws to tie us together and I get it, because it makes a good story, but I’m slightly offended by this sort of generalization that happens with myself and Jessica and Reese and Blake. Yes, there are similarities. But there aren’t stories in TIME written saying, 'Wow, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, who did x, y, and z!'" Read the rest of the profile over at Allure.In a recent interview with Allure, Jessica Alba — whose eco-friendly start-up Honest is worth a cool $1.7-billion — says she is tired of being compared to fellow actress-entrepreneurs like Gwyneth Paltrow, Reese Witherspoon and Blake Lively. “What I think is unfair is to lump actresses together,” Alba explains. "People aren't lumping Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher together. They do other businesses. I think it’s expected that when you get success in one area, you’re supposed to evolve and try to do something else—especially in business, and especially if you’re a man.” Back in June, Goop founder Paltrow had a similar response to a Time reporter who asked about other lifestyle brands started by actresses, saying “I wonder if George Clooney would be asked about Puff Daddy’s ancillary liquor line” and remarking that she is “fascinated how the media in particular are so confounded by entrepreneurial women doing something outside of their box.” “Jessica [Alba], especially, who’s a friend of mine—our businesses could not be more different,” Paltrow said at the time. “There’s not a lifestyle piece to her business. The fundamentals of our sites are very different. Reese launched—our businesses have similarities, but hers has retail. People are grasping at straws to tie us together and I get it, because it makes a good story, but I’m slightly offended by this sort of generalization that happens with myself and Jessica and Reese and Blake. Yes, there are similarities. But there aren’t stories in TIME written saying, 'Wow, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, who did x, y, and z!'" Read the rest of the profile over at Allure.
The dark side of Donald Trump: How gridlock leads to dangerous populism & authoritarian zeal
Of the many ways Donald Trump has distinguished himself from his fellow Republican presidential candidates, his flamboyant xenophobia and protectionism have garnered the most attention. And that was still the case this past weekend, when the billionaire real estate mogul, reality television star and “cherisher” of women went on “Meet the Press” to tell host Chuck Todd that a President Trump would work hard to deport more than 11 million people. “We’re going to keep the families together,” Trump promised. But only so long as they understood that regardless of what the 14th Amendment might say, these American-born children of immigrants would “have to go,” too. As my colleague Joan Walsh has pointed out already, this is a prescription for turning the entire country into a charnel house for civil rights that would make today’s Arizona seem comparatively benign. If the policy were truly enforced with the kind of rigor that Trump promises and his supporters crave, the result would be “a massive police state,” as Walsh puts it. The number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents would increase three-fold under Trump; and anyone who still failed to understand President Trump’s message would be encouraged to look no further than the southern border, where a giant wall would stand and carry on the Berlin and West Bank tradition. The racial hue of Trump’s vision is obvious, and it’s understandable that commentators are inclined to see Trumpism through that lens. But there was another important Trump-related media development over the weekend. It was a stellar piece by the Washington Post’s Dave Weigel, who recently spent some time in Flint, Michigan, talking to some of “the Donald’s” biggest fans. And while nostalgia for an era when whiteness meant more than it does today was common, Weigel’s piece suggests that racial anxiety isn’t the main reason these folks are embracing Trump. What they like about him, it appears, is that he is a more convincing authoritarian. “I don’t think he’d go to Congress and ask,” one supporter said to Weigel about a hypothetical President Trump. “I think he’d just do it.” A dutiful student of high school civics knows that the framers of the Constitution took great pains to keep such a sentiment from governing the country. But for the voters Weigel spoke to, such a display of presidential “strength” (a favored word of Trump and his believers) is badly needed. “He lets people know what he’s going to do, not what to ask for,” a 51-year-old named Bob Parsons said of Trump, approvingly. He then compared the former host of “The Apprentice” to Ronald Reagan. Unsurprisingly, Trump’s fans say they appreciate their man’s disdain for “political correctness.” But although the phrase has been repeated so frequently by pro-Trump opponents of immigration that even (some) conservatives now recognize it as a dog whistle, when the people Weigel spoke with offer their explanation of what plagues the U.S., immigrants and foreigners are not the chief villains. They’re the main beneficiaries of whatever’s afflicting the people of Flint and elsewhere, no doubt. But they’re not ultimately responsible for the dynamic that’s hurting American workers. That role, according to Trump’s backers, goes to American corporations and politicians. What explains the American elite’s leaving the working class hanging by a thread? Corruption is part of it, but it’s not the primary reason. The simpler explanation, which Trump himself repeats in some form or another ad nauseam, is that these elites are just hopeless fools. “Our leaders are stupid,” Trump said earlier this month during a Fox News debate. “Our politicians are stupid and the Mexican government is much smarter.” During all sorts of trade negotiations, Trump has argued, “people in Washington … don’t know what they’re doing.” It’s less a grand conspiracy between corporations and Chinese/Mexican workers, in other words, than rank incompetence. If you understand the global economy and deindustrialization from that angle, Trump’s appeal makes more sense. It’s still totally wrong, mind you; but at least it hangs together, in its haphazard way. If the American middle class really is shrinking because those clowns in Washington couldn’t negotiate their way out of a paper bag; and if good-paying manufacturing jobs really are moving abroad because most politicians are too feckless and weak to stand up for (white) working Americans, lest they be called “politically incorrect,” then a guy with Trump’s experience, resources and proclivities is absolutely what’s needed. But as Weigel hints in his report, the story Trump fans are telling themselves is a fantasy. Whether globalization-as-deindustrialization was a historical, technological and economic necessity or the product of a series of clear and straightforward decisions is up for debate. But the idea that throughout the past 40 years, and under multiple presidential administrations, some of the most ambitious, hardworking and intelligent people in America were simply unable to keep negotiators from other countries from bamboozling them — that idea is not on the table. Because that idea is ridiculous. The real world is not so simple. For that matter, most unreal worlds aren’t, either. The authoritarian mind-set doesn’t have much patience for nuance or complication, however. It prefers to see the world as comprehensible, bordering on self-evident. And whenever it is confronted with a reality too opaque and intricate to be easily simplified, that’s when a kind of flattening mysticism — or “romance,” as Weigel calls it — steps in to abolish complexity and sand away rough edges. Channeled as it currently is in Trump’s direction, this free-floating rage at the status quo and this authoritarian desire for a great leader to enact justice through force of will is relatively harmless. What should worry the rest of us, though, is the prospect that Trump isn’t a one-off but rather a sign of things to come.
Data is not always “liberating”: The New York Times was right to focus on Amazon’s damage to real people instead
The massive story on Amazon’s relentless and high-achieving office culture, which ran in Sunday’s New York Times, was bound to be controversial: It aired uncomfortable truths about a corporation that’s done its best to keep its inner workings secret and that knows its way around nondisclosure agreements. The story was also bound to be deflected in a follow-up by members of Amazon leadership team, who deny that the workplace is a heartless dystopia where people cry at their desks, are forced to work on holidays and find themselves marginalized when they have personal or family problems. And a front-page, 5,000-word article with more than 100 sources that stirs up all this noise, is bound to draw some criticism from the Times’ public editor. Given the paper’s power and its missteps during the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller eras, I appreciate having someone inside take a close, ethically informed look at the big stories. But I'm thrown by the conclusion to the assessment by Times’ public editor Margaret Sullivan, who leads in by summarizing the story’s impact.
But does the article, with complete fairness, nail down the reality of life as an Amazon employee? No serious questions (to my knowledge) have arisen about the hard facts. That’s to The Times’s credit. But that may partly be because the article was driven less by irrefutable proof than by generalization and anecdote. For such a damning result, presented with so much drama, that doesn’t seem like quite enough.Now, we’re talking about a story with more than 100 sources, that got one woman to talk about the professional fallout of having a stillborn child, that collected all kinds of detail a very powerful corporation did not want the reporters to have. So while I don’t doubt that the story could have benefited from more reporting or research – what story couldn’t? – to put it at the door of "data" is a bit weird. Or maybe not so weird. "Data" is one of those words that’s become trendy to the point of fetishism in the digital age, along with “innovation,” “disruption,” “brand” and "industry." What’s also striking is the role that data and its all-powerful status plays in the culture of Amazon itself. This comes from the Times story, by Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld:
To prod employees, Amazon has a powerful lever: more data than any retail operation in history. Its perpetual flow of real-time, ultradetailed metrics allows the company to measure nearly everything its customers do: what they put in their shopping carts, but do not buy; when readers reach the “abandon point” in a Kindle book; and what they will stream based on previous purchases. It can also tell when engineers are not building pages that load quickly enough, or when a vendor manager does not have enough gardening gloves in stock. “Data creates a lot of clarity around decision-making,” said Sean Boyle, who runs the finance division of Amazon Web Services and was permitted by the company to speak. “Data is incredibly liberating.”And when the Times asked Amazon for information on turnover – one of the key issues of the piece is that the workplace is so hostile that people leave, the paper got this: “Turnover is consistent with others in the technology industry, they said, but declined to disclose any data” Okay, so at Amazon, they worship data, and they have more of it than anyone else. But when asked to provide some to deflect a charge, they decide it doesn’t really matter. Data can tell us a lot, and a very fruitful field within journalism concentrates on it. But data doesn’t entirely illuminate human lives. Stories about the details — the anecdotes — of human lives do that. Our best ways of understanding the human condition -- literature and the arts -- have very little to do with data. (This has not kept people from trying to apply it.) A worship of data – and a disregard for individual experience -- is part of the reason your kid spends all of his or her time getting ready for tests: Instead of actually teaching, or getting to know each child's mind, educators are under enormous pressure to come up with more, uh, data. One of the main reasons that people in the Internet age worship data, by the way, is the work of Malcolm Gladwell: His New Yorker articles and bestselling books revel in the glory of Big Data, often making social science research lively and accessible. This makes it interesting that Gladwell, just a few weeks ago, gave a speech in which he talked about the deficiencies of … data.
“More data increases our confidence, not our accuracy,” he said at mobile marketing analytics provider Tune’s Postback 2015 event in Seattle. “I want to puncture marketers’ confidence and show you where data can’t help us.” “Data can tell us about the immediate environment of people’s attitudes, but not much about the environment in which they were formed,” he said.Data, after all, is a tool —it’s up to informed human beings, who understand context, to make sense of it. “The reason your profession is a profession and not a job,” Gladwell said, “is that your role is to find the truth in the data.” Whatever the blind spots of the New York Times story, its writers did just that.The massive story on Amazon’s relentless and high-achieving office culture, which ran in Sunday’s New York Times, was bound to be controversial: It aired uncomfortable truths about a corporation that’s done its best to keep its inner workings secret and that knows its way around nondisclosure agreements. The story was also bound to be deflected in a follow-up by members of Amazon leadership team, who deny that the workplace is a heartless dystopia where people cry at their desks, are forced to work on holidays and find themselves marginalized when they have personal or family problems. And a front-page, 5,000-word article with more than 100 sources that stirs up all this noise, is bound to draw some criticism from the Times’ public editor. Given the paper’s power and its missteps during the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller eras, I appreciate having someone inside take a close, ethically informed look at the big stories. But I'm thrown by the conclusion to the assessment by Times’ public editor Margaret Sullivan, who leads in by summarizing the story’s impact.
But does the article, with complete fairness, nail down the reality of life as an Amazon employee? No serious questions (to my knowledge) have arisen about the hard facts. That’s to The Times’s credit. But that may partly be because the article was driven less by irrefutable proof than by generalization and anecdote. For such a damning result, presented with so much drama, that doesn’t seem like quite enough.Now, we’re talking about a story with more than 100 sources, that got one woman to talk about the professional fallout of having a stillborn child, that collected all kinds of detail a very powerful corporation did not want the reporters to have. So while I don’t doubt that the story could have benefited from more reporting or research – what story couldn’t? – to put it at the door of "data" is a bit weird. Or maybe not so weird. "Data" is one of those words that’s become trendy to the point of fetishism in the digital age, along with “innovation,” “disruption,” “brand” and "industry." What’s also striking is the role that data and its all-powerful status plays in the culture of Amazon itself. This comes from the Times story, by Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld:
To prod employees, Amazon has a powerful lever: more data than any retail operation in history. Its perpetual flow of real-time, ultradetailed metrics allows the company to measure nearly everything its customers do: what they put in their shopping carts, but do not buy; when readers reach the “abandon point” in a Kindle book; and what they will stream based on previous purchases. It can also tell when engineers are not building pages that load quickly enough, or when a vendor manager does not have enough gardening gloves in stock. “Data creates a lot of clarity around decision-making,” said Sean Boyle, who runs the finance division of Amazon Web Services and was permitted by the company to speak. “Data is incredibly liberating.”And when the Times asked Amazon for information on turnover – one of the key issues of the piece is that the workplace is so hostile that people leave, the paper got this: “Turnover is consistent with others in the technology industry, they said, but declined to disclose any data” Okay, so at Amazon, they worship data, and they have more of it than anyone else. But when asked to provide some to deflect a charge, they decide it doesn’t really matter. Data can tell us a lot, and a very fruitful field within journalism concentrates on it. But data doesn’t entirely illuminate human lives. Stories about the details — the anecdotes — of human lives do that. Our best ways of understanding the human condition -- literature and the arts -- have very little to do with data. (This has not kept people from trying to apply it.) A worship of data – and a disregard for individual experience -- is part of the reason your kid spends all of his or her time getting ready for tests: Instead of actually teaching, or getting to know each child's mind, educators are under enormous pressure to come up with more, uh, data. One of the main reasons that people in the Internet age worship data, by the way, is the work of Malcolm Gladwell: His New Yorker articles and bestselling books revel in the glory of Big Data, often making social science research lively and accessible. This makes it interesting that Gladwell, just a few weeks ago, gave a speech in which he talked about the deficiencies of … data.
“More data increases our confidence, not our accuracy,” he said at mobile marketing analytics provider Tune’s Postback 2015 event in Seattle. “I want to puncture marketers’ confidence and show you where data can’t help us.” “Data can tell us about the immediate environment of people’s attitudes, but not much about the environment in which they were formed,” he said.Data, after all, is a tool —it’s up to informed human beings, who understand context, to make sense of it. “The reason your profession is a profession and not a job,” Gladwell said, “is that your role is to find the truth in the data.” Whatever the blind spots of the New York Times story, its writers did just that.The massive story on Amazon’s relentless and high-achieving office culture, which ran in Sunday’s New York Times, was bound to be controversial: It aired uncomfortable truths about a corporation that’s done its best to keep its inner workings secret and that knows its way around nondisclosure agreements. The story was also bound to be deflected in a follow-up by members of Amazon leadership team, who deny that the workplace is a heartless dystopia where people cry at their desks, are forced to work on holidays and find themselves marginalized when they have personal or family problems. And a front-page, 5,000-word article with more than 100 sources that stirs up all this noise, is bound to draw some criticism from the Times’ public editor. Given the paper’s power and its missteps during the Jayson Blair and Judith Miller eras, I appreciate having someone inside take a close, ethically informed look at the big stories. But I'm thrown by the conclusion to the assessment by Times’ public editor Margaret Sullivan, who leads in by summarizing the story’s impact.
But does the article, with complete fairness, nail down the reality of life as an Amazon employee? No serious questions (to my knowledge) have arisen about the hard facts. That’s to The Times’s credit. But that may partly be because the article was driven less by irrefutable proof than by generalization and anecdote. For such a damning result, presented with so much drama, that doesn’t seem like quite enough.Now, we’re talking about a story with more than 100 sources, that got one woman to talk about the professional fallout of having a stillborn child, that collected all kinds of detail a very powerful corporation did not want the reporters to have. So while I don’t doubt that the story could have benefited from more reporting or research – what story couldn’t? – to put it at the door of "data" is a bit weird. Or maybe not so weird. "Data" is one of those words that’s become trendy to the point of fetishism in the digital age, along with “innovation,” “disruption,” “brand” and "industry." What’s also striking is the role that data and its all-powerful status plays in the culture of Amazon itself. This comes from the Times story, by Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld:
To prod employees, Amazon has a powerful lever: more data than any retail operation in history. Its perpetual flow of real-time, ultradetailed metrics allows the company to measure nearly everything its customers do: what they put in their shopping carts, but do not buy; when readers reach the “abandon point” in a Kindle book; and what they will stream based on previous purchases. It can also tell when engineers are not building pages that load quickly enough, or when a vendor manager does not have enough gardening gloves in stock. “Data creates a lot of clarity around decision-making,” said Sean Boyle, who runs the finance division of Amazon Web Services and was permitted by the company to speak. “Data is incredibly liberating.”And when the Times asked Amazon for information on turnover – one of the key issues of the piece is that the workplace is so hostile that people leave, the paper got this: “Turnover is consistent with others in the technology industry, they said, but declined to disclose any data” Okay, so at Amazon, they worship data, and they have more of it than anyone else. But when asked to provide some to deflect a charge, they decide it doesn’t really matter. Data can tell us a lot, and a very fruitful field within journalism concentrates on it. But data doesn’t entirely illuminate human lives. Stories about the details — the anecdotes — of human lives do that. Our best ways of understanding the human condition -- literature and the arts -- have very little to do with data. (This has not kept people from trying to apply it.) A worship of data – and a disregard for individual experience -- is part of the reason your kid spends all of his or her time getting ready for tests: Instead of actually teaching, or getting to know each child's mind, educators are under enormous pressure to come up with more, uh, data. One of the main reasons that people in the Internet age worship data, by the way, is the work of Malcolm Gladwell: His New Yorker articles and bestselling books revel in the glory of Big Data, often making social science research lively and accessible. This makes it interesting that Gladwell, just a few weeks ago, gave a speech in which he talked about the deficiencies of … data.
“More data increases our confidence, not our accuracy,” he said at mobile marketing analytics provider Tune’s Postback 2015 event in Seattle. “I want to puncture marketers’ confidence and show you where data can’t help us.” “Data can tell us about the immediate environment of people’s attitudes, but not much about the environment in which they were formed,” he said.Data, after all, is a tool —it’s up to informed human beings, who understand context, to make sense of it. “The reason your profession is a profession and not a job,” Gladwell said, “is that your role is to find the truth in the data.” Whatever the blind spots of the New York Times story, its writers did just that.
Watch the secret “Friends” scene that was hastily deleted after September 11
The last thing anyone wanted to laugh about in the wake of the tragic events of Sept. 11 were airport security jokes. Specifically, those that mentioned "hijackings" in passing. That's why, anticipating the backlash of a joke like this one, the creative team on NBC's "Friends" ultimately decided to scrap a scene from the 2001 episode “The One Where Rachel Tells Ross.” In it, Monica and Chandler are attempting to make it through security on their way to their honeymoon, when Chandler -- being Chandler -- spots a sign banning all jokes about bombs and views this as some sort of challenge. "I take my bombs very seriously," Chandler says as a TSA agent rushes over to the scene to escort him out. The interrogation just gets worse and worse, as the couple refuses to stop dropping the "b-word." The deleted scene, originally uploaded back i 2007, is having its moment of virality this week. Here's the clip below: [h/t US Weekly]The last thing anyone wanted to laugh about in the wake of the tragic events of Sept. 11 were airport security jokes. Specifically, those that mentioned "hijackings" in passing. That's why, anticipating the backlash of a joke like this one, the creative team on NBC's "Friends" ultimately decided to scrap a scene from the 2001 episode “The One Where Rachel Tells Ross.” In it, Monica and Chandler are attempting to make it through security on their way to their honeymoon, when Chandler -- being Chandler -- spots a sign banning all jokes about bombs and views this as some sort of challenge. "I take my bombs very seriously," Chandler says as a TSA agent rushes over to the scene to escort him out. The interrogation just gets worse and worse, as the couple refuses to stop dropping the "b-word." The deleted scene, originally uploaded back i 2007, is having its moment of virality this week. Here's the clip below: [h/t US Weekly]
This video demonstrates how rats can swim up your toilet bowl and will turn you into a life-long squatter
Once, while walking down the streets of Manhattan, I saw -- I swear to God -- a bunch of rats that were the size of small dogs. My friend Nicole was there, and she can confirm it happened:
(She's laughing because she moved away from New York last month, and no longer has to deal with this shit, and is obviously feeling very smug about it.) My only consolation, at the time, was knowing that at least those rats can't swim their way through the sewers and into my toilet bowl. Then I saw this video from National Geographic, and I learned just how wrong I was. It cannot be unlearned, which I am incredibly sorry about. I am also sorry to admit that the only thing I can think to do during this very trying time is to share this knowledge with everyone. Together, perhaps we can begin to heal:
(She's laughing because she moved away from New York last month, and no longer has to deal with this shit, and is obviously feeling very smug about it.) My only consolation, at the time, was knowing that at least those rats can't swim their way through the sewers and into my toilet bowl. Then I saw this video from National Geographic, and I learned just how wrong I was. It cannot be unlearned, which I am incredibly sorry about. I am also sorry to admit that the only thing I can think to do during this very trying time is to share this knowledge with everyone. Together, perhaps we can begin to heal:
Women, practice saying “vagina” out loud: Your life could depend on it
Women: Your body parts are not dirty words. Your health and well-being are not shameful topics. And if you think that being reticent about talking about reproductive health is a problem that belongs to an older generation, think again. As a Monday feature in the Independent finds, it's actually younger women who are avoiding straight talk with their doctors — and the consequences can be serious. An alarming recently released study by the UK organization Ovarian Cancer Action found that "Women aged 18 to 24 are four times less likely than those aged 55 - 64 to go to a doctor with a sexual-health issue." FOUR TIMES. The statistics get worse — 57 percent of the younger women say they'd Google instead of seeking medical help and 48 percent admit they are "afraid of being intimately examined." A full 44 percent say they're they're "embarrassed to talk about sexual health issues," and a third say would be embarrassed just to say the word "vagina" to a health professional. Only 11 percent of women 55 to 64 struggle over the same word. Professor Christina Fotopoulou, gynecological oncologist at Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea Hospital in London, says that this level of reluctance can be dangerous. "Ovarian cancer is more common in older women but it also occurs in young women. It is crucial these women report these symptoms early to their doctors so they are given the right treatment," she says. "We as doctors should encourage women to talk to us and help them overcome their fears. It is our job and could save lives." Why is it that in a culture that certainly seems unburdened with embarrassment about sexuality, it's younger women who are so reluctant to even say the word "vagina"? Why is it that even as "menstrual activism" is on the rise, reproductive health itself is still taboo? Perhaps because with youth comes the expectation that everything in that region is supposed to be perfect. I remember when I was in a cancer support group, a friend who was only 24 once remarked, "You don't know what it's like to be the only sick one among your peers." Once you hit the post-menopausal years, there's much less investment in having an A+ reproductive system. The possibility of a loss of fertility is no longer relevant, and therefore no longer a stigma to face. And the implied failure that disease so often brings is somehow less of an issue when you're likelier to be among others going through the same or similar challenges. Last week, a younger friend dropped the bombshell announcement that she was going in for major surgery and would be needing help over the coming weeks. She needed a hysterectomy. This information was communicated to a variety of people, men and women, without shame or equivocation. I admired her, not just for stating clearly that she was in need of support, but for not trying to be cagey or delicate about what she was experiencing. I admired her for the example she's setting for her kids. And what I want for all women, of all ages, is to acknowledge that our bodies are imperfect systems and to not trust Dr. Google as a substitute for authentic if difficult conversations. "Illnesses such as ovarian cancer – which kills a woman every two hours in the UK – are much easier to treat if they are diagnosed early," says Katherine Taylor, acting chief executive of Ovarian Cancer Action. "Saying 'vagina' won’t kill you, but avoiding saying it could."Women: Your body parts are not dirty words. Your health and well-being are not shameful topics. And if you think that being reticent about talking about reproductive health is a problem that belongs to an older generation, think again. As a Monday feature in the Independent finds, it's actually younger women who are avoiding straight talk with their doctors — and the consequences can be serious. An alarming recently released study by the UK organization Ovarian Cancer Action found that "Women aged 18 to 24 are four times less likely than those aged 55 - 64 to go to a doctor with a sexual-health issue." FOUR TIMES. The statistics get worse — 57 percent of the younger women say they'd Google instead of seeking medical help and 48 percent admit they are "afraid of being intimately examined." A full 44 percent say they're they're "embarrassed to talk about sexual health issues," and a third say would be embarrassed just to say the word "vagina" to a health professional. Only 11 percent of women 55 to 64 struggle over the same word. Professor Christina Fotopoulou, gynecological oncologist at Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea Hospital in London, says that this level of reluctance can be dangerous. "Ovarian cancer is more common in older women but it also occurs in young women. It is crucial these women report these symptoms early to their doctors so they are given the right treatment," she says. "We as doctors should encourage women to talk to us and help them overcome their fears. It is our job and could save lives." Why is it that in a culture that certainly seems unburdened with embarrassment about sexuality, it's younger women who are so reluctant to even say the word "vagina"? Why is it that even as "menstrual activism" is on the rise, reproductive health itself is still taboo? Perhaps because with youth comes the expectation that everything in that region is supposed to be perfect. I remember when I was in a cancer support group, a friend who was only 24 once remarked, "You don't know what it's like to be the only sick one among your peers." Once you hit the post-menopausal years, there's much less investment in having an A+ reproductive system. The possibility of a loss of fertility is no longer relevant, and therefore no longer a stigma to face. And the implied failure that disease so often brings is somehow less of an issue when you're likelier to be among others going through the same or similar challenges. Last week, a younger friend dropped the bombshell announcement that she was going in for major surgery and would be needing help over the coming weeks. She needed a hysterectomy. This information was communicated to a variety of people, men and women, without shame or equivocation. I admired her, not just for stating clearly that she was in need of support, but for not trying to be cagey or delicate about what she was experiencing. I admired her for the example she's setting for her kids. And what I want for all women, of all ages, is to acknowledge that our bodies are imperfect systems and to not trust Dr. Google as a substitute for authentic if difficult conversations. "Illnesses such as ovarian cancer – which kills a woman every two hours in the UK – are much easier to treat if they are diagnosed early," says Katherine Taylor, acting chief executive of Ovarian Cancer Action. "Saying 'vagina' won’t kill you, but avoiding saying it could."Women: Your body parts are not dirty words. Your health and well-being are not shameful topics. And if you think that being reticent about talking about reproductive health is a problem that belongs to an older generation, think again. As a Monday feature in the Independent finds, it's actually younger women who are avoiding straight talk with their doctors — and the consequences can be serious. An alarming recently released study by the UK organization Ovarian Cancer Action found that "Women aged 18 to 24 are four times less likely than those aged 55 - 64 to go to a doctor with a sexual-health issue." FOUR TIMES. The statistics get worse — 57 percent of the younger women say they'd Google instead of seeking medical help and 48 percent admit they are "afraid of being intimately examined." A full 44 percent say they're they're "embarrassed to talk about sexual health issues," and a third say would be embarrassed just to say the word "vagina" to a health professional. Only 11 percent of women 55 to 64 struggle over the same word. Professor Christina Fotopoulou, gynecological oncologist at Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea Hospital in London, says that this level of reluctance can be dangerous. "Ovarian cancer is more common in older women but it also occurs in young women. It is crucial these women report these symptoms early to their doctors so they are given the right treatment," she says. "We as doctors should encourage women to talk to us and help them overcome their fears. It is our job and could save lives." Why is it that in a culture that certainly seems unburdened with embarrassment about sexuality, it's younger women who are so reluctant to even say the word "vagina"? Why is it that even as "menstrual activism" is on the rise, reproductive health itself is still taboo? Perhaps because with youth comes the expectation that everything in that region is supposed to be perfect. I remember when I was in a cancer support group, a friend who was only 24 once remarked, "You don't know what it's like to be the only sick one among your peers." Once you hit the post-menopausal years, there's much less investment in having an A+ reproductive system. The possibility of a loss of fertility is no longer relevant, and therefore no longer a stigma to face. And the implied failure that disease so often brings is somehow less of an issue when you're likelier to be among others going through the same or similar challenges. Last week, a younger friend dropped the bombshell announcement that she was going in for major surgery and would be needing help over the coming weeks. She needed a hysterectomy. This information was communicated to a variety of people, men and women, without shame or equivocation. I admired her, not just for stating clearly that she was in need of support, but for not trying to be cagey or delicate about what she was experiencing. I admired her for the example she's setting for her kids. And what I want for all women, of all ages, is to acknowledge that our bodies are imperfect systems and to not trust Dr. Google as a substitute for authentic if difficult conversations. "Illnesses such as ovarian cancer – which kills a woman every two hours in the UK – are much easier to treat if they are diagnosed early," says Katherine Taylor, acting chief executive of Ovarian Cancer Action. "Saying 'vagina' won’t kill you, but avoiding saying it could."Women: Your body parts are not dirty words. Your health and well-being are not shameful topics. And if you think that being reticent about talking about reproductive health is a problem that belongs to an older generation, think again. As a Monday feature in the Independent finds, it's actually younger women who are avoiding straight talk with their doctors — and the consequences can be serious. An alarming recently released study by the UK organization Ovarian Cancer Action found that "Women aged 18 to 24 are four times less likely than those aged 55 - 64 to go to a doctor with a sexual-health issue." FOUR TIMES. The statistics get worse — 57 percent of the younger women say they'd Google instead of seeking medical help and 48 percent admit they are "afraid of being intimately examined." A full 44 percent say they're they're "embarrassed to talk about sexual health issues," and a third say would be embarrassed just to say the word "vagina" to a health professional. Only 11 percent of women 55 to 64 struggle over the same word. Professor Christina Fotopoulou, gynecological oncologist at Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea Hospital in London, says that this level of reluctance can be dangerous. "Ovarian cancer is more common in older women but it also occurs in young women. It is crucial these women report these symptoms early to their doctors so they are given the right treatment," she says. "We as doctors should encourage women to talk to us and help them overcome their fears. It is our job and could save lives." Why is it that in a culture that certainly seems unburdened with embarrassment about sexuality, it's younger women who are so reluctant to even say the word "vagina"? Why is it that even as "menstrual activism" is on the rise, reproductive health itself is still taboo? Perhaps because with youth comes the expectation that everything in that region is supposed to be perfect. I remember when I was in a cancer support group, a friend who was only 24 once remarked, "You don't know what it's like to be the only sick one among your peers." Once you hit the post-menopausal years, there's much less investment in having an A+ reproductive system. The possibility of a loss of fertility is no longer relevant, and therefore no longer a stigma to face. And the implied failure that disease so often brings is somehow less of an issue when you're likelier to be among others going through the same or similar challenges. Last week, a younger friend dropped the bombshell announcement that she was going in for major surgery and would be needing help over the coming weeks. She needed a hysterectomy. This information was communicated to a variety of people, men and women, without shame or equivocation. I admired her, not just for stating clearly that she was in need of support, but for not trying to be cagey or delicate about what she was experiencing. I admired her for the example she's setting for her kids. And what I want for all women, of all ages, is to acknowledge that our bodies are imperfect systems and to not trust Dr. Google as a substitute for authentic if difficult conversations. "Illnesses such as ovarian cancer – which kills a woman every two hours in the UK – are much easier to treat if they are diagnosed early," says Katherine Taylor, acting chief executive of Ovarian Cancer Action. "Saying 'vagina' won’t kill you, but avoiding saying it could."
Being Blunt: Modern-Day Butlers with Multiple Skills in Demand
From Batman’s Alfred Pennyworth to “Downton Abbey’s” Charles Carson, media’s portrayal of the manservant -- or butler as it is more commonly known -- has ranged from the absurd to the realistic. Now a new manservant is playing an important role in the Starz show “Blunt Talk,” starring Patrick Stewart as British expatriate Walter Blunt, a charismatic but self-destructive American news host. Blunt relies on his manservant, Harry, to help him navigate his messy personal and professional life. The term “manservant” may sound like a quant vestige of a long-ago age. The term butler – or occasionally house manager -- is more widely used and preferred because it sounds less demeaning, say domestic help firms. Regardless of the name, the demand for such jobs is strong enough to keep a number of schools busy training candidates. Among them are the Australian Butler School and The International Butler Academy in The Netherlands. They place students in positions worldwide. A three-year-old, San Francisco company, Manservants offers a whimsical take on the manservant or butler role. Centuries ago, the manservant was usually the head servant of a household who oversaw the wine cellar, pantry and dining room. Other manservants served as valets (personal attendants) and footmen, who ran errands and did chores. New World Duties Today thousands of butlers working at private homes, resorts and luxury hotels provide services that combine Old and New World flair. Salaries can range from $85,000 to $150,000, although some command more depending on the client’s needs including the number of homes they own. While butlers on television and in films are males, women are working in the field, as well. “There is still demand for the traditional butler who will pack and unpack clothes, greet guests and make sure the household is running smoothly,” said Robert Wynne Perry, founder and chief executive officer of Society Staffing, which includes Society Butler. “But today’s butler must also be tech-savvy and prepared to travel at a moment’s notice.” The boutique placement firm provides male and female butlers worldwide. “The function of the modern-day butler has evolved to encompass skills that help look after every aspect of a client’s busy personal and professional life,” Perry said. “Clients are looking for butlers who can quickly switch gears and deal with lots of situations all at once.” The modern butler, for example, is less likely to be polishing silver than to be overseeing an interior design project or assisting with the purchase of a new yacht.” Job duties have morphed over the years with some butlers now called estate managers or household managers and many serving as executive personal assistants, said Perry. Special Skills Multi-lingual and traveling butlers who can serve as concierges are in great demand. “The travelling butler is the ultimate support tool when on the road for business or pleasure,” said Perry. “They’re familiar with the culture and know how to get things done to make sure their employers have a smooth stay.” Clients are also looking for tech-savvy butlers who stay abreast of the latest software and security systems. “Butlers must have a strong knowledge of technology, whether they’re called upon to download pictures of the family or keep a smart home running seamlessly,” said Perry. Discretion is a paramount job requirement. “A lot of it is common sense,” said Perry, whose firm requires applicants to sign confidentiality agreements. Many families require staff to sign an additional confidentiality agreement, he said. For A Little Fantasy... For those intrigued by the word manservant, Manservants rents out gentlemen to treat women (and some men) “like a queen. The three-year-old company is as much about fantasy as service, although its website is clear that its manservants are not strippers. Manservants follow a “code of modern-day chivalry” that consists of 12 rules. They include responding with “As you wish,” addressing women with “My lady,” and “paying a compliment every quarter hour.” According to the Manservants’ website, manservants must also ensure the client “rides home safely, whether that is in a taxi, horse and carriage, or on piggyback.” Yet manservants may also perform more mundane tasks, including serving food and drinks at functions. Rates for a manservant start at $125 an hour up to $475 for a half-day (four hours). “Book one for a bachelorette party or any gathering to be your personal photographer, bartender, bodyguard, and butler all in one,” the company’s website says. The new STARZ Original Series “Blunt Talk,” created by Jonathan Ames and Executive Produced by Seth McFarlane, stars Patrick Stewart as a British import intent on conquering the world of American cable news. Don’t miss the premiere of the half-hour scripted comedy, Saturday, August 22 at 9P only on STARZFrom Batman’s Alfred Pennyworth to “Downton Abbey’s” Charles Carson, media’s portrayal of the manservant -- or butler as it is more commonly known -- has ranged from the absurd to the realistic. Now a new manservant is playing an important role in the Starz show “Blunt Talk,” starring Patrick Stewart as British expatriate Walter Blunt, a charismatic but self-destructive American news host. Blunt relies on his manservant, Harry, to help him navigate his messy personal and professional life. The term “manservant” may sound like a quant vestige of a long-ago age. The term butler – or occasionally house manager -- is more widely used and preferred because it sounds less demeaning, say domestic help firms. Regardless of the name, the demand for such jobs is strong enough to keep a number of schools busy training candidates. Among them are the Australian Butler School and The International Butler Academy in The Netherlands. They place students in positions worldwide. A three-year-old, San Francisco company, Manservants offers a whimsical take on the manservant or butler role. Centuries ago, the manservant was usually the head servant of a household who oversaw the wine cellar, pantry and dining room. Other manservants served as valets (personal attendants) and footmen, who ran errands and did chores. New World Duties Today thousands of butlers working at private homes, resorts and luxury hotels provide services that combine Old and New World flair. Salaries can range from $85,000 to $150,000, although some command more depending on the client’s needs including the number of homes they own. While butlers on television and in films are males, women are working in the field, as well. “There is still demand for the traditional butler who will pack and unpack clothes, greet guests and make sure the household is running smoothly,” said Robert Wynne Perry, founder and chief executive officer of Society Staffing, which includes Society Butler. “But today’s butler must also be tech-savvy and prepared to travel at a moment’s notice.” The boutique placement firm provides male and female butlers worldwide. “The function of the modern-day butler has evolved to encompass skills that help look after every aspect of a client’s busy personal and professional life,” Perry said. “Clients are looking for butlers who can quickly switch gears and deal with lots of situations all at once.” The modern butler, for example, is less likely to be polishing silver than to be overseeing an interior design project or assisting with the purchase of a new yacht.” Job duties have morphed over the years with some butlers now called estate managers or household managers and many serving as executive personal assistants, said Perry. Special Skills Multi-lingual and traveling butlers who can serve as concierges are in great demand. “The travelling butler is the ultimate support tool when on the road for business or pleasure,” said Perry. “They’re familiar with the culture and know how to get things done to make sure their employers have a smooth stay.” Clients are also looking for tech-savvy butlers who stay abreast of the latest software and security systems. “Butlers must have a strong knowledge of technology, whether they’re called upon to download pictures of the family or keep a smart home running seamlessly,” said Perry. Discretion is a paramount job requirement. “A lot of it is common sense,” said Perry, whose firm requires applicants to sign confidentiality agreements. Many families require staff to sign an additional confidentiality agreement, he said. For A Little Fantasy... For those intrigued by the word manservant, Manservants rents out gentlemen to treat women (and some men) “like a queen. The three-year-old company is as much about fantasy as service, although its website is clear that its manservants are not strippers. Manservants follow a “code of modern-day chivalry” that consists of 12 rules. They include responding with “As you wish,” addressing women with “My lady,” and “paying a compliment every quarter hour.” According to the Manservants’ website, manservants must also ensure the client “rides home safely, whether that is in a taxi, horse and carriage, or on piggyback.” Yet manservants may also perform more mundane tasks, including serving food and drinks at functions. Rates for a manservant start at $125 an hour up to $475 for a half-day (four hours). “Book one for a bachelorette party or any gathering to be your personal photographer, bartender, bodyguard, and butler all in one,” the company’s website says. The new STARZ Original Series “Blunt Talk,” created by Jonathan Ames and Executive Produced by Seth McFarlane, stars Patrick Stewart as a British import intent on conquering the world of American cable news. Don’t miss the premiere of the half-hour scripted comedy, Saturday, August 22 at 9P only on STARZFrom Batman’s Alfred Pennyworth to “Downton Abbey’s” Charles Carson, media’s portrayal of the manservant -- or butler as it is more commonly known -- has ranged from the absurd to the realistic. Now a new manservant is playing an important role in the Starz show “Blunt Talk,” starring Patrick Stewart as British expatriate Walter Blunt, a charismatic but self-destructive American news host. Blunt relies on his manservant, Harry, to help him navigate his messy personal and professional life. The term “manservant” may sound like a quant vestige of a long-ago age. The term butler – or occasionally house manager -- is more widely used and preferred because it sounds less demeaning, say domestic help firms. Regardless of the name, the demand for such jobs is strong enough to keep a number of schools busy training candidates. Among them are the Australian Butler School and The International Butler Academy in The Netherlands. They place students in positions worldwide. A three-year-old, San Francisco company, Manservants offers a whimsical take on the manservant or butler role. Centuries ago, the manservant was usually the head servant of a household who oversaw the wine cellar, pantry and dining room. Other manservants served as valets (personal attendants) and footmen, who ran errands and did chores. New World Duties Today thousands of butlers working at private homes, resorts and luxury hotels provide services that combine Old and New World flair. Salaries can range from $85,000 to $150,000, although some command more depending on the client’s needs including the number of homes they own. While butlers on television and in films are males, women are working in the field, as well. “There is still demand for the traditional butler who will pack and unpack clothes, greet guests and make sure the household is running smoothly,” said Robert Wynne Perry, founder and chief executive officer of Society Staffing, which includes Society Butler. “But today’s butler must also be tech-savvy and prepared to travel at a moment’s notice.” The boutique placement firm provides male and female butlers worldwide. “The function of the modern-day butler has evolved to encompass skills that help look after every aspect of a client’s busy personal and professional life,” Perry said. “Clients are looking for butlers who can quickly switch gears and deal with lots of situations all at once.” The modern butler, for example, is less likely to be polishing silver than to be overseeing an interior design project or assisting with the purchase of a new yacht.” Job duties have morphed over the years with some butlers now called estate managers or household managers and many serving as executive personal assistants, said Perry. Special Skills Multi-lingual and traveling butlers who can serve as concierges are in great demand. “The travelling butler is the ultimate support tool when on the road for business or pleasure,” said Perry. “They’re familiar with the culture and know how to get things done to make sure their employers have a smooth stay.” Clients are also looking for tech-savvy butlers who stay abreast of the latest software and security systems. “Butlers must have a strong knowledge of technology, whether they’re called upon to download pictures of the family or keep a smart home running seamlessly,” said Perry. Discretion is a paramount job requirement. “A lot of it is common sense,” said Perry, whose firm requires applicants to sign confidentiality agreements. Many families require staff to sign an additional confidentiality agreement, he said. For A Little Fantasy... For those intrigued by the word manservant, Manservants rents out gentlemen to treat women (and some men) “like a queen. The three-year-old company is as much about fantasy as service, although its website is clear that its manservants are not strippers. Manservants follow a “code of modern-day chivalry” that consists of 12 rules. They include responding with “As you wish,” addressing women with “My lady,” and “paying a compliment every quarter hour.” According to the Manservants’ website, manservants must also ensure the client “rides home safely, whether that is in a taxi, horse and carriage, or on piggyback.” Yet manservants may also perform more mundane tasks, including serving food and drinks at functions. Rates for a manservant start at $125 an hour up to $475 for a half-day (four hours). “Book one for a bachelorette party or any gathering to be your personal photographer, bartender, bodyguard, and butler all in one,” the company’s website says. The new STARZ Original Series “Blunt Talk,” created by Jonathan Ames and Executive Produced by Seth McFarlane, stars Patrick Stewart as a British import intent on conquering the world of American cable news. Don’t miss the premiere of the half-hour scripted comedy, Saturday, August 22 at 9P only on STARZ
