Lily Salter's Blog, page 208

14 pop culture podcasts from diverse perspectives

Beyonce (Credit: Getty/Theo Wargo)

Our experiences interacting with what we watch, listen to, read, eat and make are influenced by who we are and where we come from. These 14 shows get up close and personal, critiquing and discussing the music, movies and general happenings in popular culture.

1. “Strange Fruit”

Politics, pop culture and Black gay life are the foundations of this weekly discussion between Dr. Kaila Story and Jaison Gardiner, from WFPL.

2. “Saturday School”

Replace your Saturday morning cartoons with this dose of Asian-American arts and entertainment history.

3. “Slate’s Represent”

Representation in TV and movies is the topic of critical conversations and interviews with the creators of shows and films by and for those historically underrepresented in the media.

4. “Your Fave Is Problematic”

Should we keep loving our faves, even though they’re problematic TV shows, movies and pop culture, or not? This eternal question is answered weekly as hosts Kristen and Elizabeth consider the social implications of the media we love.

5. “The Mash-Up Americans”

A mix of (pop) culture and identity, and what it means to live in the U.S. as a hyphen-American.

6. “Still Processing”

New York Times culture writers Wesley Morris and Jenna Wortham take to the mic to discuss what’s moving them to tears, awe and anger.

7. “Identity Politics”

African-American Muslim hosts Ikhlas Saleem and Makkah Ali look at race, gender and pop culture at the intersection of their multiple identities.

8. “The Cooler”

KQED’s The Cooler weaves together social justice and pop culture in a smart, fun and personal way.

9. “Minority Korner”

Learn, laugh and play with Nnekay and James’ weekly dose of pop culture and social commentary.

10. “The Nod”

The underexplored corners of black art, media and culture, explored by co-hosts Brittany Luse and Eric Eddings.

11. “Latinos Who Lunch”

Get cozy with FavyFav and Babelito as they talk pop culture, identity, politics and art.

12. “Pop Queer-ies”

Hosts Justine and Gwen talk queer identity and feminism in pop culture.

13. “Chatty AF”

Taking on Japanese pop culture with a feminist lens.

14. “Off White”

A panel discussion on the portrayal of people of color and other minorities in popular media.

For more audio collections like this, check out RadioPublic’s guide. Begin listening to the most recent episodes here, or download the RadioPublic app for iOS or Android to follow the shows from any of these links.

Punk rock, absinthe and screaming poets: Björk’s teenage years

(Credit: AP/Bloomsbury Publishing/Salon)

You can track the value that Björk places on group creation over individual ego back to her earliest brushes with fame. When she was 11, her music school had been featured on Icelandic state radio, with Björk singing a cover of “I Love to Love (But My Baby Loves to Dance)” by Tina Charles. The disco romance brimmed with youthful energy, and it proved a hit with the listening public. The young musician was offered a record deal, and her true debut album, “Björk,” was released in 1977. Its tracklist featured Icelandic covers of The Beatles’ “The Fool on the Hill” and Syreeta and Stevie Wonder’s “Your Kiss is Sweet,” alongside a song written by her stepfather, Sævar Árnason, and “Jóhannes Kjarval,” a recorder instrumental written by Björk herself, and named after an Icelandic landscape painter. Björk’s mother, Hildur Rúna Hauksdóttir, a feminist activist and hippyish free-thinker who’d divorced Björk’s father when their daughter was four, designed the sleeve.

Though she’d loved her time in the studio, Björk felt she was being treated as a novelty. Given her restricted musical and visual input, she also felt conflicted about the national fame that this first album brought her—a gold disc, looks in the street, jibes from schoolchildren—because she didn’t feel “Björk” was truly her work. With the proceeds of the album, she bought a piano and began writing more of her own songs, refusing the offer to make a second album with the same team, and rejecting child stardom and the solo spotlight. “I started a punk band when I was twelve,” she told Evelyn McDonnell, author of “Army of She,” in 1997. Craving the mutual spark of working with people her own age rather than the superficial thrill of novelty fame, punk was a natural escape route. “Everyone was equal. That’s partly why it took me sixteen years to be ready to do my record . . . I’ve worked with a lot of brilliant people who have taught me things.”

The band was the all-female Spit and Snot, in which Björk, rather than taking centre-stage, was the drummer, with cropped orange hair and shaved eyebrows. Sadly, none of their work is available to hear, but Björk described their ethos as “girls having fun, and f**k that sitting-around-and-being-cute.” (Astin, 1996) When Spit and Snot came to an end, Björk joined the jazz-fusion group Exodus, where she was able to fully indulge her love of unconventional time signatures and experimentation. It wasn’t long, though, before the talented singer was stolen away by Tappi Tíkarrass (which translates as “Cork the bitch’s arse,” a variation on an Icelandic phrase for something that fits really well), whose guitarist Eyflór Arnalds described the young Björk as a “group person.” Tappi were a riotous, infectious, bass-driven post-punk band with complex rhythms and a spiky danceability, a bit like a happier, scrappier Throwing Muses. You can see them in performance in the 1982 documentary “Rokkí Reykjavík”—a film that captures the birth of a specifically Icelandic version of punk, fitted to the problems perceived by the second generation after Iceland gained full independence.

The scene was based on a prolific, can-do creativity across the written word, music and art, and a DIY atmosphere of mutual support. Björk has claimed that, in the late 70s, there were more punk bands per head of population in Iceland than in any other country. Among the more notable groups were Purrkur Pillnikk, Þeyr and Fan Houtens Kókó (whose guitarist, Þór Eldon, was to be Björk’s first big love, her first husband, and the father of her son Sindri). Around this time, Björk also fell in with Medúsa, a collective of surrealist punky poets. Iceland is fiercely proud of its literary heritage, from the epic histories and myths of its medieval sagas and eddas onwards, and the nation’s bookish tendencies gave its take on punk a distinctly arty, intellectual flavour. “The whole punk scene was always poets,” Björk recalled. “Between the bands, they would stand there and scream. It wasn’t delicate.” (Sjón, ed., 1995)

Screaming poet Sigurjón “Sjón” Sigurdsson, now one of Iceland’s most acclaimed novelists and Björk’s frequent lyrical collaborator, was a leading light in the group, and he and Björk would engage in long, drunken debates about whether art should be based on intellect or instinct. “This is very much her background,” he affirms in the documentary “Inside Björk.” “Serious, avant-garde art.” Serious, but also silly. In 2013, Björk recalled the time that one Medúsa member brought a bottle of absinthe back from Barcelona. The refreshed group then marched to Reykjavík’s hottest club on the top of car roofs, never touching the ground. Bouncers objected to their entering via a window, and then to being bitten in the leg by Sjón. “This brought the police and they handcuffed him, threw him on the floor in the police car, face down. I accompanied him there and held his glasses while he performed André Breton’s surrealist manifesto live in its full length.”

Björk’s formative years, then, were all about wild mutual inspiration and the rejection of ego. Her next band, Kukl—a supergroup of Icelandic punk scene alumni—refused to sign autographs, instead berating fans for abasing themselves (Björk still finds fawning fandom uncomfortable). After two well-regarded albums released on Crass’s label, Kukl collapsed under the weight of their own seriousness in 1986. Their anarchist, ironic, intellectual anti-star ethos, and two-thirds of their lineup, were maintained, however, by Björk’s next venture: The Sugarcubes and their record label/publishing company/general art-terrorism organization, Smekkleysa (“Bad Taste,” motto: “world domination or death”). The Sugarcubes, designer Paul White remembers, “were very conscious of not allowing anyone to be a star.” (White was the director of Me Company, the design agency that designed all The Sugarcubes’, and a large chunk of Björk’s, artwork.) Eventually, though, Björk’s need to express her individual voice, and particularly her love of electronic music, came into conflict with the spirit of solidarity. Creation, for The Sugarcubes, “was very much a democratic process, and that’s why she left—not because she was out of the democracy, but because she was branching out with all sorts of musical ideas that she wanted to do, and the democracy of the band didn’t allow her to do that.”

Enjoy beer on tap without waiting at a bar (or leaving your house)

Keurigs, Mixmasters and Foreman Grills — they’re all totally boring kitchen appliances when you match them up to this SUB® Home Beer Draft System. This handy device means you can enjoy delicious, local beers on tap from the comfort of your home — no bar line (or bar tab) necessary.

This device fits on any countertop and keeps your craft beer fresh, cold and carbonated from the very first glass to the last. And if you’re planning on hosting this year’s holiday party, it’s sure to be a huge hit with all your guests.

The SUB® pairs with Hopsy’s 67 oz mini kegs called TORPs, which get delivered to your doorstep whenever you want. They stay fresh and ready to drink for two to three weeks after delivery — and you get to choose from an ever-changing rotation of delicious brews from more than 20 microbreweries.

Don’t settle for a half-full glass, when you could live will a full cup (of delicious beer): usually this SUB® Home Beer Draft System is $149, but you can get it now for $109.99.

The neuroscience of changing your mind

(Credit: Shutterstock/Getty/Salon)

Every day our brains grapple with various last-minute decisions. We adjust our gait to avoid a patch of ice; we exit to hit the rest stop; we switch to our backhand before thwacking a tennis ball.

Scientists have long accepted that our ability to abruptly stop or modify a planned behavior is controlled via a single region within the brain’s prefrontal cortex, an area involved in planning and other higher mental functions. By studying other parts of the brain in both humans and monkeys, however, a team from Johns Hopkins University has now concluded that last-minute decision-making is a lot more complicated than previously known, involving complex neural coordination among multiple brain areas. The revelations may help scientists unravel certain aspects of addictive behaviors and understand why accidents like falls grow increasingly common as we age, according to the Johns Hopkins team.

The findings, published Thursday in “Neuron,” reveal reneging on an intended behavior involves coordinated cross talk between several brain regions. As a result, changing our minds even mere milliseconds after making a decision is often too late to alter a movement or behavior. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging — a technique that monitors brain activity in real time —t he Johns Hopkins group found reversing a decision requires ultrafast communication between two specific zones within the prefrontal cortex and another nearby structure called the frontal eye field, an area involved in controlling eye movements and visual awareness.

Lead author Kitty Xu, formerly a Johns Hopkins graduate student and now a researcher at the social media site Pinterest, explains that when it comes to split-second decisions, the longer a decision has to take hold in the brain, the harder it is to reverse. “Stopping a planned behavior requires extremely fast choreography between several distinct areas of the brain, our research found,” she says. “If we change our mind about pressing the gas pedal even a few milliseconds after the original “go” message has been sent to our muscles, we simply can’t stop.” Xu adds that if we change our minds within roughly 100 milliseconds of making a decision, we can successfully revise our plans. If we wait more than 200 milliseconds, however, we may be unable to make the desired change — in other words we may land a speeding ticket or a tumble down the stairs. As we age, our neural communication slows, and that likely contributes to more of these glitches, Xu says.

To identify the brain regions involved in canceling a decision, the new study recruited 21 subjects for a modified “stop signal task,” a commonly used neuroscientific behavioral test that involves canceling a planned movement. Participants undergoing functional MRI were instructed to watch a screen, and to immediately stare at a black dot when it appeared. But just after they focused on the black dot a colored dot would appear, prompting their gaze to shift to the new stimulus — essentially causing them to abandon their initial plan to fix their eyes on the black dot. The researchers watched what areas of the brain lit up during those decision-making steps, and after the volunteers terminated their plan. To confirm their findings, the authors then ran the same experiment on a single macaque. Using an implanted electrode, they saw activation in monkey brain regions analogous to those reported on in humans when the monkey stopped looking at the black circle in favor of the colored dots.

Tracking these eye movements and neural action let the researchers resolve the very confusing question of what brain areas are involved in these split-second decisions, says Vanderbilt University neuroscientist Jeffrey Schall, who was not involved in the research. “By combining human functional brain imaging with nonhuman primate neurophysiology, [the investigators] weave together threads of research that have too long been separate strands,” he says. “If we can understand how the brain stops or prevents an action, we may gain ability to enhance that stopping process to afford individuals more control over their choices.”

Xu hopes these insights into how difficult it is for the brain to amend its plans — a task that only gets harder as we age and neural communication slows — can eventually help researchers devise ways to intervene and help us make faster, safer decisions. In the short term she hopes key targets will include helping seniors avoid falls and modifying last-minute impulses in people with addictions.

“The sooner I can turn off the plan to drink or use the drug,” she says, “the less likely I am to carry out that plan.”

Lies about Santa? They could be good for your child

(Credit: ollyy via Shutterstock)

Christmas is a magical time of year, especially for children. Unfortunately, between elaborate Elf on the Shelf staging and fending off questions about Santa, parents are often left wondering how much of the magic depends on them.

Specifically, many parents worry about whether they should encourage their children’s belief in the physical reality of Santa, about the potential impact of lying to them and what to do when their children realize they’ve been duped.

Rest assured, parents, it’s not all up to you. In fact, the best approach involves supporting your kids while they figure it out on their own. They will, and it won’t be as bad as you expect.

As a developmental scientist, I spend most of my time researching children’s trust. I’m interested in how trust develops and what happens when it’s broken. During the holiday season, I spend a lot of time thinking about Santa.

As a proud auntie of three children under the age of four, my Santa musings have taken on a new significance. But, unlike many parents, I see the development of a belief in the physical reality of Santa, and the eventual myth-busting, as impressive achievements to be celebrated, not feared!

Research in the field of developmental psychology suggests that such fantastical beliefs are not actually harmful, but are associated with a number of positive developmental outcomes — from exercising the “counterfactual reasoning skills” needed for human innovation to boosting emotional development.

When kids question the magic

The vast majority of children will at some point believe in Santa. While many children learn these beliefs at home, the cultural support for Santa is so strong that children in households that don’t actively endorse the myth still sometimes believe.

Yet, despite Santa’s impressive marketing strategy, most children will abandon their belief by the age of eight. Though many parents fear this transition, it’s an inevitable part of growing up.

Santa is a mix of mundane and magical qualities. He is a jolly man dressed in red with a snowy beard. He also flies with the help of reindeer, visits all the world’s children in a single night and knows if you’ve been naughty or nice.

With age, a child’s thinking develops to the point where they start to notice Santa does magical things that physical objects can’t. This newfound knowledge is evident in the types of questions children are asking.

Younger children are often interested in general details about Santa, like: “Where does Santa live?” Older children are more likely to hone in on Santa’s extraordinary abilities: “How does Santa get around the whole world in a single night?”

Should you bust the myth?

Recognizing these challenging questions for what they are — cognitive development in action — may free some parents from the burden of belief.

If your goal is to extend your child’s belief in the physical reality of Santa, you can respond to the questions with plausible explanations or evidence. This is where NORAD, the online tracker that shows Santa’s progress around the globe on Christmas Eve, can come in handy.

If instead you want to let your child take the lead, you can simply direct the question back to them, allowing your child to come up with explanations for themselves: “I don’t know, how do you think the sleigh flies?”

Finally, if you think it’s time to usher your child into the common adult understanding of Santa as a beloved fantasy figure, you can provide different, disconfirming evidence and explanations.

My Santa myth was busted shortly after the discovery of Santa’s gift tags in my mother’s robe pocket. Regardless of which strategy you choose, it is inevitable that eventually the evidence against Santa will become overwhelming and the belief will become unsustainable.

Lies with good intentions

If you choose to extend your child’s belief in Santa, and your child realizes you have deceived them, how will they respond?

As it turns out, probably pretty well. In a study examining children’s reaction to discovering the truth about Santa, parents generally took the transition much harder than their children, who actually felt quite positive about the discovery.

And why wouldn’t they? Santa is one of countless things children learn through the testimony of others. Because we rely on others for so much of what we know, humans are surprisingly well-equipped for the task. They evaluate both the source and content of the information they have received in light of their existing knowledge and their memory of past interactions with the source.

This means that, when compared to all of the reliable information that parents share with their children over their lives, it is highly unlikely a single lie will cause irreparable damage.

Children are also discovering the truth about Santa at around the same time they are starting to understand that some lies, like Santa lies, are told with good intentions.

Why Santa is for small gifts

Believing in impossible beings such as Santa is a special kind of magic available only to children.

Research suggests that fantastical beliefs are associated with a number of positive developmental outcomes. So, if your child is still a believer, feel free to protect that belief.

As your child ages, especially if there are younger siblings in the house, there are creative ways to keep the Santa experience positive, even after their belief in the physical reality of Santa has been abandoned.

Finally, always remember, as children are figuring out how the world really works, that they are going to look to the people and things around them for evidence.

It might be a good idea to give modest gifts from Santa and save the big ones for parents, because no matter what your family income, every child deserves to feel loved by Santa on Christmas morning.

Kristen Dunfield, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Concordia University

How plugged-in families can have a device-free(ish) holiday

(Credit: Getty/dolgachov)

What’s topping your kids’ holiday wish lists this year? Chances are it has a screen, Internet access, and games. With a little planning – and kids’ assistance – you can balance your family’s tech activities with much-needed face time. Here’s how:

Be jolly – but firm. Let your kids know that you’ll be enforcing stricter time limits to create more quality family time. And tell them that the rules will apply to the grown-ups as well!

Make a list (and check it with your kids). Don’t go cold turkey. Schedule some daily tech time for yourself and your kids. Get their input on which devices they absolutely can’t live without, and allow some limited use.

Plan a device-free dinner. Put the phones and tablets in a basket and don’t check ’em til the dishes are done. Learn what not to do from Will Ferrell.

Have a download derby. Browse the app store together. Look for games and activities that the whole family can enjoy, such as the ones on our our best app lists.

Make setup fun, not frustrating. No matter how easy to use companies make new devices, there’s always some (often frustrating) setup time. Truth be told, kids often figure out thorny tech glitches faster than parents, so involve your kids in the process. Use that time to discuss responsible use of the new device.

Try some tech togetherness. Unplugging for its own sake isn’t the point. Family time is. Plan a night of video games, movies, or maybe preselected YouTube videos that you can all enjoy together.

Combine on- and offline activities. Document your family memories and consider compiling them into journals, cards, and scrapbooks. This is a perfect time to share your own holiday memories with your kids.

If no creatures are stirring . . . don’t check your email. Remember, your kids learn their media habits partly from you. Use quiet time to reflect on ways you can maximize the benefits of technology without letting it take over your family’s life.

Have an old-fashioned holiday. Challenge your family to choose low- or no-tech versions of favorite activities. Generate fun on your own steam – no WiFi, data, or plugs.

Forget holiday specials: Shop consciously, year-round

Shoppers head into Target just after thei doors opened at midnight on Black Friday, Nov. 28, 2014, in South Portland, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty) (Credit: AP)

November and December are clogged with special days asking you to spend or donate money: Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, Cyber Monday and Giving Tuesday.

Then comes Weeping Wednesday, the day you realize how much you’ve spent.

Sure, each of these days makes for great #hashtags, fun memes or some pretty sweet sales. But all are rooted in the same thing: Sharp marketing hell-bent on getting you to spend money. As the sales saying goes, “Everyone has money. My job is to figure out how to relieve them of it.”

Truly, the spirit of the season.

But here’s a secret intrepid marketers don’t want you to know: The principles these cutesy days are promoting — big savings, shopping locally, shopping online, and giving to a good cause — aren’t just mantras for the holiday season. Some can be incorporated year-round, to your benefit and joy.

Here’s how to keep the spirit of the shopping season with you year-round, with peace of mind and without overspending or looking like a frantic nutcase fighting another consumer for a $9.99 Peppa Pig toy.

1. Black Friday

The day after Thanksgiving got its name in post-WWII America, from the day hordes of workers called in “sick.” This, in turn, led to hordes of people shopping that day, which by the early 1960s created a headache for traffic police, who then started calling it Black Friday for all the extra work that tangentially landed in their laps as a result. Is it any wonder retailers started capitalizing on the natural flow of the populace? But lots of retailers have sales year-round. If there’s an item you really want, there’s no reason to battle the crowds or line up at 2am for a sweet deal at Walmart on something you really don’t need. Better to save your money and spend it with a local retailer at a later date. Even if you spend a few extra dollars, the peace of mind you save is worth it. Unless, of course, fighting Black Friday crowds for a cheap TV to put in your dining room is your jam, in which case, go for it!

2. Small Business Saturday

Perhaps the best American holiday ever created by a credit card company — American Express (in conjunction with Facebook) — the intent behind Small Business Saturday sounds pretty good: Shop at your local small businesses. But the fact that we need a day like this, created by a credit card company, speaks volumes about our society. So rather than go out and shop small businesses on Saturday and rest on one-day-a-year laurels, why not shop local all year long? The benefits are exponential, and you’ll be doing your community, and yourself, a service, rather than complying with AmEx’s marketing campaign.

3. Cyber Monday

Another holiday created by marketers to promote shopping online, Cyber Monday was created by Shop.com in 2005. Today, people shop from their offices for a good deal, flipping between Facebook and Amazon looking for coupon codes for stuff they may, or may not really want — but the price is just so good! Rather than waste a workday shopping, why not save your money and spend it locally, on stuff you really do need and want. Do you really need all that stuff from Amazon? Really? Maybe take a deep breath, pause and consider what else you can spend your money on, and where, before absentmindedly clicking “one-click” purchasing.

4. Giving Tuesday

Giving Tuesday was created by the 92nd Street Y in New York City to celebrate generosity. And we are a generous nation. But this day has led to an enormous amount of non-profit time being spent developing social media campaigns to get you to give. Rather than buying into yet another day to spend your money, why not spend some time thinking about the causes that are important to you, and then identify the organizations that are doing good work and could genuinely use a hand, locally and in your community? There are plenty of multi-million-dollar non-profits doing good work. But there are also small organizations in your backyard where a little bit of money will go a long way. Look into those and determine the best way to give to them, and then plan to make regular contributions, year-round. Maybe even become a monthly volunteer. There are 100 ways to give, and 364 other days in the year to do it.

Of course, there is no shame in getting a good deal on one of these days in support of your loved ones. It’s only natural to want to give. When you support local small businesses, and give to people and community and charitable organizations close to your heart, year-round, it’s easy to resist the mass frenzy of spending that surges after Thanksgiving. You’ll rest easy, knowing you don’t overspend, still get some sweet deals and support the people you love. And you’ll smile instead of weeping on Wednesday.

Valerie Vande Panne is an independent journalist whose work has appeared in the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine, Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian, Politico, and many other publications.

Fans lined up to see “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” on opening night predict doom

Star Wars fans waiting for the premiere of "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" (Credit: AP/Joel C Ryan)

In what felt like a galaxy far, far away, there were people actually watching “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.”

But at 10:30 p.m. on Thursday (opening night), there were separate battles between light and dark taking place outside of the AMC Loews on 19th Street in Manhattan.

“You’re being a dick!” a young woman screamed, adding a few choice words and then storming off. She was talking to a young man in a black coat who had angrily accused her of cutting in line. She claimed that she and her friend were just trying to figure out where to queue.

The confusion arose because there were several long, unmarked lines outside of the theater. Fans waiting to see the 10:30, 10:45 and 11:00 p.m. shows lined up along 19th Street, up Broadway and then around 20th Street. The theater was doing its best to direct the flow, but the lines lacked storm trooper efficiency. And tensions were running high — in part because of the wait to see the movie (two years since “The Force Awakens,” one since “Rogue One” and one long hour in front of the theater) and in part because it was colder than Hoth outside.

It would’ve been a good night to wear a Chewbacca costume, but the crowd was, disappointingly, dressed in Western styles. I had come in a ship badly in need of maintenance (the L train), searching for theories: Were the die-hards in-tune with The Force enough to predict what would happen?  

But who even were the die-hards? There were no sabers or blaster guns in sight, no robes. Only Canada Goose and pea coats. Were these lines even for “Star Wars”?

“No, ‘Harry Potter,’” one snarky scoundrel said.  

“No, ‘Wonder Woman,’” said another.    

I opened my mouth to “WUUAHAHHHAAAAAAAAAA,” but as I did, I spotted it: a storm trooper mask!

I approached the man, Rageef, who was waiting with three of his Death Star (finance) colleagues. “I think Luke’s going to go dark,” he said. Why? “Because he’s the classic hero. Hero on the edge. Gotta have a Shyamalan twist at the end, right?”

Reid, a 25-year old who, with his Harvard hoodie, Ohio State beanie and Iceland scarf, was dressed for everywhere but faraway galaxies, similarly predicted that things wouldn’t end well for Luke. “I actually think the Last Jedi is probably going to be Rey. I think Luke’s done.”

For Reid’s friend, Bassam, things weren’t so simple. “As far as Luke goes, I think there’s going to be a lot of grey areas to his character. I think in the original trilogy he was painted in a very positive light; in this one, I think he’s definitely going through more hard times, and he’s not as clear cut as we’ve seen before.”

This, at least, was what Bassam hoped. “What I like about this director [Rian Johnson] is that he’s good at giving more nuance to his characters. I think they’re getting some more texture to their motivations and personalities. It’s nice to have some complex characters back in ‘Star Wars,’ because the prequels kind of sucked.”   

Across the board, the fans I spoke with were prepared for an unhappy ending. “I think Luke and Leia are both going to die in this movie,” said Evan, a 29-year-old bearded software engineer who was at the show with his girlfriend and another friend. “It’s going to follow the same story structure as ‘Empire Strikes Back.’ So it’ll be pretty dark and it’ll end with Rey getting upset and fighting against the dark side.” The basis of his theory being that, “‘The Force Awakens’ follows the same structure as ‘The New Hope,’ so I think it’s going to be a similar situation here.”

Other fans, though, didn’t want to think about what would happen. An Australian man behind Evan in line got upset that Evan might spoil something.

“These are just theories,” I said.

“Well if your theory’s true then it feels like a spoiler,” the man said.

There was one theory he didn’t mind though. His friend, a lanky young man with whisked brown hair, in his wry Aussie accent said, “I have a theory that it’ll be good!”

The FCC sold us out to Big Telecom

(Credit: Getty/mediaphotos)

The Federal Communications Commission handed the internet to Big Telecom on Thursday. They sold our public utility down the river. Nobody will benefit but the rich.

The online world was built on the principle of net neutrality. Neutrality meant that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) had to treat all data the same: a New York Times article would move through the digital pipes at the same speed as a celebrity sex video. Much like your parents, ISPs were required by federal law not to pick favorites. Under net neutrality, AT&T couldn’t charge you more for Facebook than Google, or deliberately slow down your service. If you wanted to tweet “I love u, Dylan McDermott” to Dermot Mulroney at 3 a.m., by God, that was your right.

Well, goodbye to all that.

All Trump appointees have one thing in common: they hate the agencies they lead. Scott Pruitt sued the EPA 14 times. Betsy DeVos doesn’t believe in public education. And the FCC is no exception. The Commission is in the hands of corporate shysters who have spent their lives shilling for private interests. The current chair, Ajit Pai — one of the most loathed men in the country — was a longtime attorney for Verizon.

On Thursday, Pai led a straight party-line Commission vote to dismantle the Open Internet. The grinning sewer eel knew exactly what he was doing. Before the vote, he said “It is not going to destroy the internet. It is not going to end the internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle free expression online.” Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. If you care so much about ordinary users, why not mention Big Telecom’s buying spree?  They spent over $101 million to shut net neutrality down. They gave money to Sen. John McCain of Arizona ($2.5 million) and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts ($1.6 million), Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon ($1.6 million) and Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland ($1.4 million). What generosity!

The two Democratic FCC commissioners, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, voted to keep neutrality. Both delivered hide-skinning rebukes. Clyburn wrote: “I dissent. I dissent from this fiercely-spun, legally-lightweight, consumer-harming, corporate-enabling Destroying Internet Freedom Order … the public can plainly see, that a soon-to-be-toothless FCC, is handing the keys to the Internet — the Internet, one of the most remarkable, empowering, enabling inventions of our lifetime — over to a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations.”

The representatives from telecom — Pai, Michael O’Rielly and Brendan Carr — voted the way their owners wanted. We should call the FCC’s sellout of net neutrality what it is: Pai’s Auction.

If Pai’s Auction is unopposed, broadband monopolists will take the Net from the poor, and slow it for everybody except those who pay top dollar. Some time next year, your ISP will begin peddling “Slow,” “Normal,” and “Fast” packages. If you want Netflix, you’ll need to pay more for it. Want Hulu? Ante up. Need Twitter? Make with the green. Facebook? That’ll be 20 dollars extra this week, ma’am. What’s that? You crave Reddit? Well then, big spender, how ’bout you upvote some legal tender? Unless we fight Pai’s Auction, that’s our grim meathook future. What we saw on Thursday was a commercial exchange between the Trump administration and the one percent.

There is one way to stop it: public awareness. Very soon now, the FCC will be sued, and Congress will eventually be dragged into action. That will be our chance to set right what the telecoms so desperately want to keep wrong.

Why the auction happened

Pai whined to the media that he was being hassled for his “position.” This makes sense. Muggers are big believers in their victims being obedient. But this slimy Harvard hustler has a point. Pai’s Auction isn’t just ludicrously bad planning, it’s unabashed, unapologetic greed. Pai’s Auction is the economic history of America in miniature.

Here’s how that usually works: The American people fund a public good, like highways or medical research. While the public is doing the hard work, private interests figure out ways to profit. They bribe their way into power so they can seize this good. They hire sleazy lawyers to do their dirty work. Then, after the rich guys have taken over, they sell that same good back to the public. Socialized expense, privatized profits. Here’s a simpler way to say it: The public makes, and the wealthy take.

Whenever a city spends billions to build a football stadium, just because some yacht-owning Yalie doesn’t want to spend a dime of his heirs’ cocaine fund, the public makes and the wealthy take. Whenever the public finances drug research, just so Martin Shkreli can overcharge cancer patients for medicine, the public makes and the wealthy take. Whenever a small town funds a police department, and Wal-Mart skimps on security because they know the local cops will be forced to park their cruisers outside the store, the public makes …. and the wealthy take. And take. And take.

The public built the internet. We did. All of us. And the ISPs got rich. By the early oughts, the telecom giants were making money hand over fist … but they wanted more. You know how it goes: new car, caviar, four-star daydream.

So, during the Bush years, the ISPs made their move. They began to strategically limit certain kinds of internet use. In 2002, RoadRunner began to selectively block user ports. In 2005, Madison River Communications was caught blocking VOIP traffic. The FCC opposed them. The case was dropped. In 2011, Verizon sued the government to fight net neutrality. In 2012, AT&T blocked FaceTime. Finally, in February 2015, Obama’s FCC decided to classify broadband as “a common carrier” under Title II of the federal Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the 1996 Telecom Act. Under Title II, the government treats the internet like a public utility, more or less. That is the ruling Pai and his cronies just voted to undo.

You may ask: How can I can be so sure that Big Telecom will block and throttle the internet? Answer: Because they have already tried. Many, many times.

History shows us why net neutrality is important. My objection to Big Telecom isn’t just philosophical; it’s chronological.

There is no argument for this

There’s a lot of naiveté in America. For instance, some people still believe Trump’s GOP has the genetic capacity for shame. Nonsense. Pai and his friends have the sentimentality of Victorian wharf pimps. And of all the GOP’s shameless cons, Pai’s Auction is the most blatant. This is as obvious as politics gets, folks.

The sell-out of net neutrality is massively unpopular. As Motherboard’s Jason Koebler wrote, a new poll released by the University of Maryland “found that 83 percent of Americans — and 75 percent of Republicans — favor the current system (the group that conducted the poll clearly explained the current regulations as well as the proposed ones).” Eighteen attorneys general sent a petition to the FCC demanding they pause on the vote. Reporter Mallory Shelbourne noted, “The letter comes after a separate letter from the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) said as many as 2 million comments regarding net neutrality filed to the commission were falsified.”

Defending his vote, Pai said “Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.” No they won’t, you human-shaped pile of Verizon receipts. We know this because in 1995, the government paid Big Telecom to add digital infrastructure … and they didn’t. As telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick wrote in 2014, “By the end of 2014, America will have been charged about $400 billion by the local phone incumbents, Verizon, AT&T and CenturyLink, for a fiber optic future that never showed up.”

But really, what did the public matter? Big Telecom had the power, and they used it. No wonder Chairman Pai smiles like a podiatrist hiding human limbs in the trunk of his Volvo. Telecom revenue is projected to be a $2.4 trillion business in 2019. It’s nice to have rich friends who owe you a favor.

No wonder people hate Pai’s Auction. No wonder the entire internet rose up hissing like a thousand-foot cobra. No surprise that tech gurus went public with their devastating deconstructions of Pai’s made-up tech facts.

Fiction changes. The truth doesn’t. Ask yourself the following questions:

Does the internet belong to Big Telecom? No. It belongs to the public.

Did the public want to sell the internet? No, they did not.

Were the people who sold the internet disinterested parties? No, they weren’t.

Does selling the internet to elite parasites encourage innovation? It does not. It limits it.

Does Pai’s Auction let the states devise their own net neutrality policies? No. It forces the states to follow Washington.

Does selling the Net encourage entry? It does not.

Does selling the Net give freedom to the people? No, it clamps down on their freedom.

Will the Telecoms build new lines? We have proof they won’t.

Will they abuse that power? They have before.

Most importantly, who profits? I think we know the answer.

Net neutrality must return. In Pai’s Auction, there’s only one relationship that counts, and it’s the same one that obtains between a hired servant and a wealthy master: dinner is served, sir.

 

Why 2017 was R&B’s return to glory

SZA (Credit: Getty/Randy Shropshire)

Look around, and it can seem like this country is losing its soul. This year, we witnessed the rise of one of the most overtly disastrous political administrations, along with a spike in the toxic attitudes and behavior that swept it into office.

But now listen, and you’ll hear signs that we’ve got a lot of soul still left. Disastrous as it was politically, emotionally, spiritually, 2017 was still a triumphant year for that soulful genre: R&B.

“What a year!” Nadeska Alexis, senior editorial producer at Complex told me on a recent episode of “Salon Talks.” “Honestly, we didn’t deserve all the R&B we got. . . there are too many great albums out this year.”

The acclaim being given to these albums and artists isn’t just coming from fans of R&B, either. The Grammys took notice. In Best New Artist category, three out of the five performers nominated are from the genre. Two R&B albums are up for Best Album of the Year and two R&B songs for Best Record of the Year.

As well, Time Magazine called R&B breakout artist SZA’s “CTRL” the number one album of the year. “Like all the best artists, her experience is so specific that it rises to the level of universality,” Time said. “She may be one of a kind, but she’s speaking the truth of a whole generation.”

It’s a vastly different story than it was even just a few years ago. “For a while, it felt like R&B would fall into this transient category,” Sam Wolfson wrote in The Guardian in 2015. For years, it seemed as if artists were rejecting the R&B label, as if the music wasn’t selling, as if traditional R&B groups were too expensive to sign, as if there wasn’t really a place for it commercially and, as if offerings from the genre were just not as good as they used to be.

But that didn’t mean people didn’t miss the music. Many pined for a return to that soulful ’90s sound that was largely missing from popular music. They wanted their old R&B back.

But something changed in 2017. Artists, producers, media, fans and industry execs have stopped trying to confine R&B to its past. By letting go of their old R&B, they’ve allowed the form to survive, evolve and, it seems, flourish.

“I think back in the 90s there was a definite R&B sound that was easily distinguishable,” vocalist Alessia Cara told the Guardian (she’s up for Best New Artist at the Grammys). “But now, I feel like music has become tailored to the specific artist. There is no longer a ‘set’ R&B sound. There is a ‘Frank Ocean’ sound and a ‘Miguel’ sound. I love that music is doing that.” 

This newfound freedom is certainly a spillover from 2016. That year’s “A Seat At the Table” by Solange is often called one of the best albums of the last decade, as is Frank Ocean’s 2016 release, “Blonde.”

But it’s not just singers with an established toehold in the industry that had an impact in 2017. A new crop of young R&B artists hit the scene this year with releases that were strong, soulful and each of them remarkably different from the others.

There’s Daniel Caesar, the 22-year-old Canadian crooner who released his debut LP “Freudian.” Up for Best R&B Album at the Grammys, it’s anchored by a brilliant sound that’s almost spiritual. That’s not to say it’s definitively connected to God. Rather, it’s so full-bodied and expansive that it’s both commanding and ethereal all at once. On “Freudian,” the production is a dreamscape that glides under Caesar’s syrupy vocals and meditative songwriting.

Then there’s Kehlani’s debut “SweetSexySavage,” on which she straddles the pop and R&B world with a radiant sound grounded by her velvety vocals. Sean “Diddy” Combs himself credited the Oakland native with saving R&B.

Kelela’s debut “Take Me Apart,” layers her alluring, almost dizzying vocals with deeply introspective lyrics. The production is eclectic, it’s at times warped, sometimes lush, sometimes whimsical. As well, the lead singer from The Internet, Syd, released her solo album “Fin” this year. On it, her voice is more subdued than that of her peers, letting a futuristic, experimental sound and vibe take precedence over her vocals.

Even Ty Dolla $ign, who’s not new to the scene, delivered an incredible album in 2017, “Beach House 3.” His commercial success can be seen as a blueprint for upcoming singers and proof that R&B is still viable. “I wanted to show that you could be on the radio and not have to hold back,” he told Rolling Stone of his latest release. “I sung my ass off. But it’s still gonna be a mainstream vibe. That’s all I’m trying to do: Make a lane for the singers.” 

There are many others rising in R&B, and it’s the diversity in sound, the multitude of voices they offer that’s most exciting. “The variety really is incredible,” Alexis said.

These differing artistic statements, all of them under the seemingly larger than ever R&B umbrella, speak to a newfound freedom within the genre, one that is helping to transform audience and industry perceptions of it. Yet, despite this new elasticity, there’s something as old as the R&B itself that is helping it succeed.

Singer PJ Morton said that one of the reasons R&B is resurgent is that it rediscovered its identity and embraced an authenticity that it had perhaps lost. “Soul music touches people,” he said on “Salon Stage.” “We got back to just wanting to be ourselves, and I think once we stopped trying to compete, we eclipsed pop music.”

Alexis believes that there’s a tech factor here, too. She sees streaming services as central to R&B’s victorious year. “A[t] Apple Music especially, they really championed artists like 6LACK and Daniel Caesar,” she said. Both those artists are now Grammy nominees. 

Angela Yee, radio host of Power 105.1’s “The Breakfast Club” agreed, saying that streaming services allow listeners to dive down rabbit holes of musical discovery that even hitting the record store or word of mouth never really offered. Playing SZA, can lead to Kelela, which can then lead to Daniel Caesar, which might bring you to Syd, and then on to any number of the newer, equally sensational R&B artists. In a lot of ways, the shifting nature of the recording industry may be hurting sales, but it’s helping R&B.

Whatever the case, the prospects are bright for even more evolution and success in 2018. “I hope we get even more R&B that we don’t deserve next year,” Alexis says (though that’s no easy task after the plethora of quality releases in 2017.) As NPR declared “R&B has never been healthier.” Whatever happened in 2017, at the very least, we’ve got our R&B back.