Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 184

Get that money: TV writers open the book on compensation

Mo'Nique; Jessica Chastain (Credit: AP/Willy Sanjuan/Jordan Strauss)

A necessary outgrowth of #MeToo and #TimesUp is a resurgence of discussions about pay equality. Closing the wage gap between women and men in the workplace has long been a pointed topic of conversation, one that spikes whenever lists of what actors are paid become public.

Finding out the wide compensation disparities between the male and female TV stars often takes a back seat to other considerations revealed by those lists, such as the role race clearly plays in how much one series regular or star earns in comparison to others.

Lately the gender pay disparity between male actors and their female co-stars has taken center stage as women have started comparing notes regarding what they make per episode.

Recently an article in The Hollywood Reporter referenced a significant pay gap between what ���Black-ish��� star Anthony Anderson makes and the salary of his co-star Tracee Ellis Ross. While the article did not include any numeric data, a 2016 list published in Variety estimated Anderson���s per episode pay to be $100,000, with Ross receiving $80,000.

Putting this in context, both Anderson and Ross are receiving far less than John Goodman and Roseanne Barr will be clearing per episode of the ���Roseanne��� revival, which has yet to debut. Variety estimates they���ll be making $250,000 per half-hour. Not enough of an apples-to-apples comparison, given that show���s status in the longer view of TV history? How about this: Adam Scott, Craig Robinson and Sela Ward each make $150,000 per episode for Fox���s ���Ghosted,��� which hasn���t even been on a full season.

To the ordinary person whose nine-to-nine-with-some-weekends is barely allowing them to make rent, all of this may seem like high class problems of an existence that���s worlds away from their own experience. This is why the emergence of an anonymously curated list of featuring salary data submitted by TV writers, producers and executives is a crucial model to professionals in a number of industries and with various levels of experience.

The Google doc titled TV Writers Salary went public on Tuesday and can be viewed by clicking here. It lists salaries and pay rates broken down per year and per episode by title, studio and network. Submitters also include information about benefits such as health care and retirement options offered by employees.

Even better, the sheet breaks down these entries by gender, years of experience and whether the respondent is a person of color. (A similar sheet for actors also circulated for a time but subsequently was made private not long after media outlets began reporting on the existence of these documents.)

���Note to all reading: yes, people in industry are fully aware that experience, leverage, etc etc factor into pay �����this is still helpful to many of us to cross check studio/network we’re at. Thanks!!��� a statement on the Rules page reads.

As of Thursday morning the writers salary form responses had netted 119 entries. Staffed writers entries topped 100. Assistants didn���t hold back either. Somewhat predictably, the fewest replies rest under the executives heading.

Certainly in the coming days and weeks someone will parse and crunch this data to come up with averages, but at a glance the statistics are helpful and in some cases sobering.

In one example, a male manager at a ABC Studios with three years of experience reports earning $95,000 a year, receiving full benefits and bonuses, with 5% annual salary bump. Meanwhile a female manager at a streaming service (who did not want to specify the studio she works for) reported a $70,000 annual salary. She has nine years of experience.

The female manager is a person of color. The male manager entered, ���Rather not say.���

The data under the staffed writers category varies more wildly in part due of the assortment of titles, with pay ranges averaging around $4,000 a week for staff writers (with a few making just under $3,000) to an executive producer team consisting of a man and woman clearing $50,000 an episode. ���Worked to this salary over 20 years in TV,��� the entry reads.

That last number notwithstanding, most of the fees and salaries reported are not so far off from the earning of the average office drone. And this is why the existence and accessibility of this sheet is so incredibly important. This isn���t quite an example of television���s power to move culture �����that still relies on the act of broadcasting as opposed to behind-the-scenes dynamics �����but it is an important model for women and male allies in other industries to emulate.

In essence it���s removing some of the discomfort people have in terms of revealing what they make to their peers, which can feel a little bit akin to saying ���OK: on the count of three, we both drop our pants. Ready? One��. . . two��. . . two and a half. . . ”

But collecting this kind of data is necessary when heading into salary discussions. And even then, such negotiations can be an uncomfortable experience. Few people relish doing it, fewer excel at it. Those who garner the greatest success in this arena, or even get a kick out of it, are probably male.

A generalization, yes, one that comes with data to back it up. A 2016 survey conducted by Glassdoor and Harris Poll found that 59 percent of employees don���t negotiate the first salary they���re offered, and among those who do, men were successful at three times the rate of their female counterparts.

Services exist that allow job-seekers to access salary averages for the job their seeking and the geographical market they want to work in, but the writers��� sheet proves the point that a lot of workers quietly grumble about over beers: certain companies and hiring managers assign different levels of value and compensation to individuals based gender and race. Glassdoor and other sites like it won���t provide that data.

Onscreen performers are still the faces of this struggle because we know their names, and that means their pay disparity struggles make news. As such, when E! host Catt Sadler departed after she found out fellow host Jason Kennedy, who she referred to as ���her male equivalent at the network��� made twice her salary, the people who watched them noticed.

Last week, when Mo���Nique reported on Instagram that Netflix offered her $500,000 for a comedy special, leading Wanda Sykes to reveal she was offered less than half of that amount, while Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle pocketed $20 million for their own specials, you���d better believe black women noticed and could relate. (Amy Schumer, by the way, was offered $11 million for her special according to Mo���Nique.)

Now, would the situation have gone differently if Mo���Nique was on a special with a powerful white female comedian? Just ask Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain. Then realize that Octavia Spencer (who, like Mo���Nique, is an Academy Award winner and nominated again this year her work in ���The Shape of Water���) should not need Chastain (twice Oscar nominated, still hasn���t won) or any white actress to go to bat for her to get paid what she���s worth.

These stories join the list of others we already know, including Daniel Dae Kim and Grace Park leaving CBS���s ���Hawaii Five-0��� last year when the network refused to bring their salaries even with their white co-stars.

These are the stories the public sees and, sadly, may interpret actors��� salary negotiations less as a matter of pay equality than how their outcomes will impact the storylines on their favorite shows. The comparatively high paydays actors command also make it easy for consumers to dismiss performers when they speak out. To a person who may not make in a lifetime what these companies will pay for an hour of telling jokes, turning down $500,000 may sound entitled or spoiled.

The TV Writers Salary document, on the other hand, provides a model for professional empowerment. If your co-workers won���t tell you what they make, it helps if a peer in your field with commensurate experience and a similar personal profile will. Before we can close the wage gap it helps to know how much employers are willing to pay for our work, and specifically how much our worth is being discounted for the simple of reason of being born female and/or non-white.

Respect commands higher paydays in the entertainment industry, and the chasm between what female stars and their male co-stars are paid speaks to another element of disrespect women continue to face. Where Hollywood goes, culture tends to follow �����or at least that���s the hope and prayer of the women publicly banding together to push for justice. The images are inspiring. But in the workplace lasting change can only be achieved through a willingness to be honest about real data we���re encouraged to keep secret, and that keeps us separate. Among those who want their industries to deal with everyone fairly, there must be players willing to show each other their cards.

In the wake of the Kentucky school shooting, a look at how kids get guns

(Credit: Getty/Creatas)

Heather Adams sat in a line of cars along Kentucky Route 95, cars filled with parents who had just received the call no parent wants to get: A��shooting��at her child���s school, Marshall County High in Benton, Kentucky. Two 15-year-old students were killed and another 18 injured.

Adams was waiting anxiously to pick up her children, a 15-year-old and a ten-year-old. Both were safe and so she could relax enough to talk a bit. Earlier, she was at the high school with other frantic parents looking for answers about their children.

���I noticed a lady that was distraught, couldn���t find her child,��� Adams said. Adams was texting with her son, and tried to get information for the other parent. That���s when they both learned something terrible.

���That was the shooter���s mother,��� Adams said. She said the woman went into what seemed like shock.

���I held her hair while she threw up.���

Adams says the mother was in shock.

���The shooter took the gun out of her closet,��� Adams said.

Kentucky State Police have not confirmed how the shooter obtained the handgun used at the school. But if Adams��� account proves accurate, it fits a strong pattern.

A��2004 report by the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Education��found that over two-thirds of students who used guns in violent acts at school got those guns from their own home or that of a relative.

That���s why 27 states have some sort of child access prevention law to encourage the safe storage of firearms and make adults liable if children get access to guns. Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia do not.

Safe Storage

���We know that those laws work,��� Hannah Shearer said. She���s a staff attorney at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which formed after Arizona U.S. Representative��Gabby Giffords was shot��in 2011.

���There is research that states that have child access prevention laws have successfully reduced unintentional gun injuries among children and also child suicides,��� Shearer said. ���We know that in states with those laws fewer kids are getting their hands on their parents��� guns and harming themselves with guns.���

Many of the laws have been in effect long enough to give researchers time to assess their effectiveness.��A 2000 study, for example, found that Florida���s law, which carries some of the stiffest penalties for not securing a firearm in the presence of children, to be especially effective, cutting accidental child deaths from guns in half.

A 2005 study��found such laws in 18 states helped decrease gun injuries among minors by about a third, and��a 2013 study��supported the findings that child access laws help reduce gun injuries among children.��Another study from 2004��showed the laws also helped decrease teen suicides by more than 10 percent, likely saving more than 300 lives over about a decade.

Other studies showed mixed results but the scientific literature is clear on one thing: American children face a��substantial risk of injury or death from firearms. Researchers in the field say more thorough��study has been hampered��by political pressure by gun rights groups to block funding for research by federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control.

Failed Efforts

Kentucky State Senator��Gerald Neal, a Democrat from Louisville, introduced a child access law in the last legislative session.

���Young people are losing their lives to carelessly stored firearms,��� Neal said. ���What I wanted to do was lift up the discussion. It is intolerable for us not to be proactive about doing something.���

Neal said his bill is not about gun control but about gun safety. He compared it to laws on wearing seat belts. Still, the bill went nowhere. In Ohio, similar bills met a similar fate in the last three sessions.

���I thought it was just good common sense legislation,�����Ohio State Representative Bill Patmon, a Democrat from Cleveland, said. ���It seems that the thing that was lacking was how to store and keep your firearm so as not to endanger children and innocent bystanders.���

The Ohio Valley region has a high percentage of state lawmakers who get a positive rating from the��National Rifle Association��for votes or campaign pledges that limit regulation of firearms. The NRA did not return requests for an interview for this story.

An analysis of the NRA���s recent lawmaker conducted by��The Trace, a journalism nonprofit covering gun violence, shows Kentucky has the nation���s highest percentage, 88 percent, of legislators who got at least an A-minus grade from the NRA. In Ohio, 67 percent of lawmakers got As; In West Virginia, about 60 percent.

Gun culture is strong in this part of the country. But even among some gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, secure storage of firearms is a topic that resonates.

Common Ground

Connie Courtney, of Crestwood, Kentucky, is a volunteer with the Kentucky chapter of the group��Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which advocates for secure storage of guns and background checks on gun purchases. She says she finds a lot of common ground with gun owners around the state, including some who are members of her group.

���Our group does support the Second Amendment,��� Courtney said. ���I think most people support the same issues we support. It just seems to break down with our leaders in Frankfort and D.C.���

Missy Jenkins-Smith, of Murray, Kentucky, is another member of Moms Demand Action. She is also a survivor of a school shooting, which killed three students and left her paralyzed from the chest down.

Just a month before the Marshall County High shooting Jenkins and others marked the 20th anniversary of a shooting at��Heath High School��in Paducah, just about 30 miles from Marshall County High. Jenkins said the news of the Marshall ��County shooting hit her hard.

���All of the sudden it was like my entire body kind of felt weak, like I had the flu or something,��� she said.

Today, Jenkins also works as a counselor. What she���d like to see now is community support for the victims.

���They can send letters and cards to people who have gone through this because those are things that I have kept and still have today,��� she said. ���That is definitely what kind of kept me going. It was kind of like, I went through something and people weren���t forgetting me.

There is another parallel to the Marshall County High shooting. The student who shot Jenkins and others 20 years ago had easy access to the guns in a neighbor���s garage.

Heather Adams, sitting in the car waiting to pick up her children at the Marshall County schools, said she supports the rights of gun owners. She also thinks those gun owners need to secure the guns.

���You have to keep your guns locked,��� she said. ���Children are impulsive. Their brains are not fully developed and they will act accordingly, and this is what happens when you don���t do the right things with your weapons.���

WFPL reporter Ryland Barton and ReSource reporter Aaron Payne contributed to this story.

This article was originally published on Ohio Valley ReSource.

Malcolm X: On stage, in person and human at last

"X Or, Betty Shabazz v. The Nation" (Credit: T Charles Erickson Photography)

In The Acting Company’s “X: Or, Betty Shabazz v. The Nation,” currently running at the Theatre at St. Clement’s in New York City, Malcolm X’s widow seeks justice for the slain civil-rights icon by putting the Nation of Islam on trial.

In the play written by Marcus Gardley, there is a courtroom (the theater) a plaintiff (Shabazz) and a jury (the audience itself). But the justice that Shabazz receives��at the��its end does not come in the form of a revelation about the identities of her��husband’s assassins, let alone their punishment.��No, this trial offers��some more vital: The restoration of Malcolm��X’s humanity.

“You hear about the big speeches, you hear about the controversy, you hear the highlights of the story,” Obie Award winner Roslyn Ruff, who plays Betty Shabazz, says of the usual tropes present when resurrecting Malcolm X in book, on stage or on screen. She argues that “X”��offers a different,��more human portrait of the man, achieved by focusing not solely on��the man himself, but also on his wife who knew him most intimately. “This woman,” Ruff says of Shabazz, “was left was without a husband and these children were left without a father, and at the end of the day, first and foremost, that���s who he was.”

The production, too, offers new��avenues to��the familiar figure. A fusion of comedy, drama, romance, history, music, singing, audience participation and even stepping, it’s��consistently innovative. There’s also Shakespearean echoes on offer, thanks to a script influenced by The Bard’s “Julius Caesar.” But this engaging��mix of artistic forms and theatrical conceits is secondary to the deeply human portrait of Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz it offers.

Brilliantly played by Jimonn Cole, Gardley’s take on��Malcolm X moves away from the sweeping, simplistic��generalizations usually pinned to the memory of the civil-rights leader: that he was violent, that he was angry, that he was militant. In this staging, an ever-growing Malcolm��X, one unafraid to reexamine his principles, comes to life. That said, the portrait of Malcolm X as the��doting father and loving husband is��perhaps even more��essential to the work. As Ruff tells Salon, it’s an��element of every person’s life often glossed-over or forgotten��in representations of “people of his ilk.”

There’s something real, something touchable about the love between Malcolm and Betty in “X”. She speaks of his laughter, likening it to music in a particularly sharp and tender moment. Now, Malcolm��X’s more well-known��work is not crowded out by such personal moments. Quite the opposite. Here, Gardley draws��attention to the deep duality of the man and his message. He illustrates how��Malcolm X was both proud and deeply loving and, and perhaps most radically,��reminds us that��black men and civil rights leaders, “are capable of equal greatness,” as he says.

Gardley tells Salon that during the script-writing process, his most significant discovery was��“the love that [Malcolm X] had for his wife. They had a deep, abiding love that really drove him. That was really his number0-one motivation for his life.”��In watching “X,” one begins to understand why.

Throughout,��the work��not only demonstrates the ways in which Shabazz was��the great man’s personal��support system, but��the ways in which she was��his moral and intellectual equal as well. As much as the play humanizes the��colossal figure of Malcolm X, it restores��Shabazz’ voice and��place��in the historical narrative as well.

One of the most gut-wrenching lines in the play is said by one of the several secretaries��of Elijah Muhammad who the Nation of Islam leader��impregnated. “We���re women, secretaries, Negroes, and we���re Muslim,” she says. “If there is a low on the totem pole, put us there or put us under the pole.”

While��Shabazz��was never a secretary for the Nation, she’s too often relegated��to a footnote��in Malcolm X’s story; put under the pole, if you will. In “X,”��she is center stage, a��fully realized being and something beyond a partner to a great man. Ruff’s Shabazz is��a regal caretaker and articulate warrior,��one who tirelessly demands justice for her husband and family even as she mourns him. She said it was Gardley’s desire for and success in giving Shabazz a voice that piqued her interest. It is, unfortunately,��something rarely afforded��women in the movement.

To Gardley, Malcolm X is one of the��more misremembered and��undervalued American heroes. He sees Betty Shabazz in much the same way. In response, he’s offered us a play��that tells the story of the famous couple with rare understanding, nuance, appreciation and humanity, a work he and Ruff see as��imminently relevant today.

“I feel like Malcolm X���s message has such a current resonance,” Gardley said. “A��lot of people are angry, and a lot of people feel like traditional protest is not working for them.” Ruff added, “It���s going to be awhile before plays like this aren���t relevant.”

Gardley describes the play as a “love letter to Malcolm X,” but he also wants��his audience to take their jobs seriously as jurors and, afterwards, as messengers. “The play really is a call to arms,” he said. “The play asks you to take this story and to tell people who Malcolm X really was and by virtue of doing that, justice is being served.” And, yes, you leave��“X: Or, Betty Shabazz v. The Nation” changed, a bit transformed, much as Malcolm X himself was later in life as a leader, as a thinker, as��el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz.

Gardley says one of Malcolm X and Betty��Shabazz’ daughters, Ilyasah Shabazz, came to see the play��recently.��The first thing she said to him afterwards was that he managed to evoke something she had never seen before and told him, “thank you for giving my parents their true humanity.” Gardley described it as “the biggest compliment of my life.”

Trump’s immigration framework leaks, and everyone hates it

(Credit: AP/Evan Vucci/Getty/Spencer Platt)

Since his campaign days, President Donald Trump has promised his supporters that his administration would bring about sweeping changes to the U.S. immigration��policy. Indeed, a mainstay of his public statements has been his tendency to��scapegoat immigrants ��� particularly Mexicans and Muslims ��� as the source of America’s problems.

Now, after��years of rhetoric, the Trump administration has reportedly proposed a ���take it or leave it��� draft of immigration reform legislation that could put as many as 1.8 million��Dreamers ��� currently undocumented citizens who came to the United States as children �����on the path to citizenship,��in exchange for terminating immigration policies and building a massive a border wall, according to the New York Times.

Stephen Miller, Trump���s top immigration lieutenant, and White House Chief of Staff, John F. Kelly, drafted the plan that has reportedly been released to lawmakers. Miller, in particular, is known for his odious racial politics. A New York Times profile of him described multiple incidents in which Miller took offense at bilingual signage, and broke off a friendship in part due to his (former) friend’s Hispanic heritage.

According to PBS Newshour correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor, who tweeted a photo of the proposed legislation’s framework, White House officials are expected to share more information about the immigration��plan on Monday.

Here's the one page immigration framework released by the White House to Republican lawmakers today. I just talked to a White House official who said they sent it early because lawmakers asked for it. That official said the WH expected to release little more detail on Monday. pic.twitter.com/Lh6lN4OVjk

— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) January 25, 2018

The��screenshotted��draft��of the framework explains that��the Department of Homeland Security ���must have the tools to deter illegal immigration.����� The proposed ���tools��� include a $25 billion trust fund for the ���border wall system��� which include entry ports, border improvements and enhancements; and additional funds to hire new Department of Homeland Security personnel, ICE attorneys, immigration judges, and other ���law enforcement��� professionals.

Yet there are concessions to Democrats, who��are unlikely to approve an immigration bill that is so uncompromising. In return for the aforementioned concessions, the proposal would reportedly provide legal status for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipients, and provide a 10 to 12-year path to citizenship. However, citizenship status could be subjected to revocation for criminal conduct or ���public safety and national security concerns.���

The proposal also requests eliminating the diversity visa lottery which randomly selects individuals to come to the U.S., arguing that it is ���riddled with fraud and abuse��� and ���does not serve national interest.���

Some conservatives were dismayed at the obvious concessions to the Democrats’ immigration agenda.��Former Republican congressman Joe Walsh tweeted that Trump ���just threw away the entire reason for his presidency.���

Trump's immigration deal?

Amnesty for more illegals than even Obama proposed, in exchange for "maybe" some money in a "trust fund" for "maybe part of a wall."

Smh. He just threw away the entire reason for his Presidency.

Not surprising. But damn disappointing.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) January 25, 2018

Republican co-host of The View, Meghan McCain also took to Twitter to share her thoughts. “If Trump’s base jumps for a bill that is ostensibly an imitation of the gang of 8 path to citizenship bill after this entire ant-immigrant 2016 election – he is no more than a cult of personality,” she wrote. “This is not about conservatism. (and FYI I am a supporter of DACA/dreamers).”

If Trump's base jumps for a bill that is ostensibly an imitation of the gang of 8 path to citizenship bill after this entire ant-immigrant 2016 election – he is no more than a cult of personality. This is not about conservatism. (and FYI I am a supporter of DACA/dreamers).

— Meghan McCain (@MeghanMcCain) January 25, 2018

Michael A. Needham, CEO of Heritage Action for America, a conservative policy advocacy group, condemned the��proposal in a statement.

���Amnesty comes in many forms, but it seems they all eventually grow in size and scope. Any proposal that expands the amnesty-eligible population risks opening pandora���s box, and could lead to a Gang of Eight style negotiation. That should be a non-starter.���

Democrats aren���t happy either. Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill., said on Twitter it��didn’t pass the ���laugh test.���

$25 billion as ransom for Dreamers with cuts to legal immigration and increases to deportations doesn���t pass the laugh test. #twill #heretostay #chicago #DreamActNow

— Luis V. Gutierrez (@RepGutierrez) January 25, 2018

Dozens of Puerto Rican families had FEMA housing funds cut: report

A flooded area after the passing of Hurricane Maria, in Puerto Rico, September 27, 2017. (Credit: AP/Carlos Giusti)

More than two dozen Puerto Rican families whose homes were devastated as a result of Hurricane Maria in September were abruptly informed that their temporary housing assistance in Connecticut would be cut short, after��receiving an extension that was later determined to be a system error.

“I write today to request immediate reversal of the Federal Emergency Management Agency���s (FEMA) sudden decision to rescind” aid for 36 Puerto Rican families, Connecticut’s Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy wrote in a letter to FEMA head Brock Long on Jan. 18, NBC News reported.

Numerous families who were ousted from their homes due to the awful conditions left behind by the storm have received “short-term housing assistance under the��Transitional Shelter Assistance (TSA) Program”��and have been staying in hotels in Connecticut.

Initially,��the state put in a formal request for a two-week extension on Jan. 11 for roughly 45 families. The extension was granted through Feb. 14.��Currently, there are roughly 166 families from Puerto Rico in the TSA program across the state, with��3,894 total survivors benefitting from the program across 42 states.

Less than one week later, on Jan. 17, “FEMA allegedly changed the status of those families in their database to terminate their hotel stays beginning the following day,” NBC reported.

“This about-face is outrageous and unacceptable, and because of your agency���s abysmal management of this situation, 36 families ��� all of who are American citizens ��� are now, with no warning, being told by FEMA that they have no place to live,” Malloy added in the letter.

The Connecticut governor was not informed of the change until Jan. 18, two hours before families were told to leave their hotel rooms, NBC reported.

“All things considered, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that the federal government sees the United States citizens who inhabit Puerto Rico as second-class,” he added.

The error happened because there was a recent change in eligibility requirements, and the 36 families were no longer qualified for protection.

NBC elaborated:

The TSA program was extended to March 20 by request of Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossell��, with eligibility reviews after the original program ended on Jan. 13 and again on Feb. 13, Booher said by phone later Wednesday.

“As part of the extension the government of Puerto Rico has placed some additional eligibility requirements,” he said.

“That���s when the subset of 36 families came up as ineligible,” he said, adding, “The original extension for this subset was done in error.”

So far, 12 of the families have had their eligibility restored, and the remaining are working with FEMA, NBC reported.

The news comes months after the storm and several news cycles later, but the people of Puerto Rico have still been unable to fully recover from the devastation from Hurricane Maria. In the immediate aftermath, President Donald Trump’s administration was highly criticized��for having a slow response. Many critics saw Trump’s overall lack of engagement as blatant neglect. “We cannot keep FEMA,��the Military & the First Responders […] in P[uerto] R[ico] forever,” Trump tweeted in October.

Why is Burger King better at explaining net neutrality than the FCC?

(Credit: AP/Elise Amendola)

Burger King released a new three-minute long commercial on Wednesday that attempted to explain the concept of��net neutrality using their trademark burger, the Whopper, as a metaphor.

In the commercial, an unseen narrator��polls people on the street for��their thoughts on the net neutrality repeal. All three passers-by��express uncertainty over��what ���net neutrality��� means.��The commercial then cuts��to a Burger King interior where Whoppers are sold in tiered packages, modeling how Internet packages are sold in countries without net neutrality rules, like Portugal. Customers hoping to purchase a Whopper are told that they have to pay $26.99 for faster service, or pay less for a hamburger that takes much longer to arrive.

The scenes are filmed reality-TV style, and a title at the end explains that the customers are real people, not actors.��Naturally, customers become increasingly aggrieved at the wait times and the inequity over whose Whopper gets delivered first.

���Burger King corporation believes that they can sell more and make more money selling chicken sandwiches and chicken fries, so now they���re slowing down the access to the Whopper��� one of the employee-actors says.

Customers in the ad call the system a ���bad dream��� and ���worst thing I���ve ever heard of.���

At the end, Burger King interviews the customers. Some admit��surprise at how much they learned about net neutrality through their experience trying to buy a Whopper.

���A Whopper taught me about net neutrality. It���s stupid, but true,��� one says.

���I didn���t think that ordering a Whopper would really open my eyes up to net neutrality,��� says another customer.

It���s unclear which parts of the ad were staged and which ones weren���t, or whether more informed customers were edited out. Still, the ad exemplifies the degree to which many Americans are uninformed��about internet access politics.

Net��neutrality advocacy has been ongoing since��the Obama administration passed an order that classified the Internet as a Title II entity under the Communications Acts. That move��established restrictions for Internet providers that inhibited them from blocking content, accessing content, and throttling Internet content �����meaning��when Internet Service Providers intentionally slow (or speed) a specific Internet service. As President Obama explained a few years ago, ���no service should be stuck in a ‘slow lane’ because it does not pay a fee.���

Once incumbent President Donald Trump appointed Ajit Pai as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has regulatory power over communication media like the internet, Pai made it the FCC���s priority to reverse Obama���s net neutrality rules. In his proposal, net neutrality regulations would essentially become obsolete. The vote passed to repeal them 3-2 along party lines on Dec. 14.

The FCC net neutrality vote wasn���t open to the public, and��indeed, it is not too late to demand a reversal of the repeal. Thus, Burger King points its viewers to a Change.org petition at the end of commercial. Likewise, some state officials are taking a strong stance against the FCC���s vote, like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The current Trump-era FCC��pushed an anti���net neutrality agenda��from the beginning, despite widespread (and ongoing) public opposition to repealing net neutrality. Commissioner Pai��made a video��that purported to ���explain net neutrality��� in December. The video, which was widely derided as condescending and insulting to the American public,��poked fun at Millennials and typified them as ignorant,��while��highlighting��how Internet users would still be able to ���[Insta]gram their food��� and ���stay part of their favorite fandom.��� It was also released on the day of the vote.��Pai’s video didn���t explain how repealing net neutrality would change Internet pricing packages, mention throttling, or any of the real concerns experts had been raising before the vote.

It is��odd that Burger King of all companies��is��engaged in educating the public on what net neutrality is, and the implications of the December FCC vote. But if the government isn���t going to take activists’ concerns seriously, at least somebody else is ��� even if that somebody is the marketing team of a major fast food chain.

Trumps request Van Gogh from Guggenheim, offered gold toilet instead

Donald Trump; Melania Trump (Credit: Getty/Saul Loeb)

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump��asked the Guggenheim Museum if they could borrow Vincent van Gogh’s 1888 work “Landscape With Snow” to decorate some of their��private living quarters in the White House. It’s not particularly unusual for a president to make such a request of a museum. Still, the Guggenheim’s chief curator demurred, offering a perhaps even more appropriate work of art for their household.

According to the Washington Post,��Nancy Spector told the White House��that Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan’s�� “America” was available instead. An interactive work more strikingly modern and bold than “Landscape With Snow,”��“America” is��an 18-karat gold, fully functioning toilet that’s been on display for at least a year in a public restroom��and used��by visitors��on the fifth floor of the Guggenheim’s��New York location. Frankly, it’s somewhat shocking the First Family didn’t own four or five of these already.

With the exhibit now over, the toilet was up for grabs “should the President and First Lady have any interest in installing it in the White House”��Spector said in an emailed response to the First Couple’s request.��She added that the artist “would like to offer it to the White House for a long-term loan. . . It is, of course, extremely valuable and somewhat fragile, but we would provide all the instructions for its installation and care.” How nice of them.

Cattelan, who’s been critical of Trump and is known for satirical art, hinted that the golden toilet is representative of excess wealth and income disparity,��telling the Post that “America” is “1��percent art for the 99��percent”. And Spector has��also spoken out against��Trump,��writing the day after the election on social media,”This must be the first day of our revolution to take back our beloved country from hatred, racism and intolerance.”

Yet, her��email to the White House was perfectly polite and even included a photograph of the toilet, “for your reference.” She added that “Fortuitously,” “America” was now available after having been “installed in one of our public restrooms for all to use in a wonderful act of generosity.” “We are sorry not to be able to accommodate your original request,” Spector concluded, “but remain hopeful that this special offer may be of interest.”

Oh well, at least the Trumps can always grab that famous “Renoir” off of Trump Force One to fill up wall space.

Doomsday Clock inches to 2 minutes to “apocalypse” after Trump’s button bluster

(Credit: Getty/ImageTraveller)

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced today that they have moved their Doomsday Clock ��� the fully figurative measuring system it uses to gauge how close its experts feel humanity is to destruction �����30 seconds forward to��“two minutes to midnight”.�� It is the closest the world has been to the hour of apocalypse since the peak of the Cold War in 1953.

As��a rationale for moving the��clock forward, the group cites “reckless language in the nuclear realm,” “an insufficient response to climate change” and “the abuse of information technology.”

The Bulletin said the world���s security is “more dangerous than it was a year ago ��� and as dangerous as it has been since World War II.” The last time the minute hand of the Clock swung so close to the end of the pendulum had been when the United States tested its first thermonuclear device. Nine months later, the Soviet Union tested its own hydrogen bomb.

 

Rachel Bronson, the CEO and president of the Bulletin, blames Trump���s failure to provide “practical alternatives: to the Iran nuclear deal, as well as the Trump Administration���s “rush to dismantle rational climate energy policy,”��such as the Paris Agreement, for ticking the clock forward. Bronson also alludes to Trump’s fiery language about burgeoning nuclear power North Korea, which is best exemplified by the tweets below.

Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who is obviously a madman who doesn't mind starving or killing his people, will be tested like never before!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 22, 2017

Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at U.N. If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won't be around much longer!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2017

Created��in 1947 by scientists, engineers and experts “to convey threats to humanity and the planet,” the Clock has become a measure of the world���s susceptibility to civilization-ending catastrophe. Every year, the Bulletin���s Science and Security Board, which includes 15 Nobel laureates, decides whether to move ��� or leave in place ��� the minute hand of the clock. The Clock has never been more than 7 minutes away from “midnight”.

To wind back the Clock, the group suggests that Trump “refrain from provocative rhetoric regarding North Korea” and recognize “the impossibility of predicting North Korean reactions.” It also advises the U.S. and North Korean governments to “open multiple channels of communication” and keep “diplomatic channels open for talks without preconditions” to reduce tension. (The Bulletin did not mention Twitter in this regard).

To further reduce tension, the Bulletin advises the Trump Administration to “abide by the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for Iran���s nuclear program” and to negotiate peacekeeping measures along the NATO borders with Russia. The group also emphasizes the threat climate change poses and states, “U.S. citizens should demand action from their government.”

Read the full statement from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists here.

Republicans overwhelmingly praise Trump as a good role model for kids

(Credit: Getty/Mark Wilson)

There’s a question that’s on top of everyone’s mind when it comes to President Donald Trump: Should he��serve as a role model to children?

To most of the world, the answer would be “no.” But to Republicans, it’s a resounding “yes.”

An overwhelming majority of Republicans ��� 72 percent ��� told a Quinnipiac University pollster��that they��believed Trump is a good role model for children. This despite a majority of white voters with no college degree ��� who, as Quinnipiac pointed out, are a “key element of the president���s base” ��� disagreeing with the sentiment.

Unless Republican respondents were trolling Quinnipiac��pollsters ��� which some undoubtedly��were �����most��Republicans��think the president who went to��a Boy Scouts Jamboree and spoke of a friend��by alluding to��past orgies on a yacht is someone they want��their kids to emulate.

It’s just the latest part of the great moral whitewashing of the party of so-called family values to embrace Trump. Earlier this week, Franklin Graham ��� a key figure in the evangelical Christianity movement and a close ally of Trump ��� gave��the president a pass for allegedly cheating on his wife with porn star Stormy Daniels. Other movement leaders looked the other way in 2016, as woman after woman came forward with tales of sexual abuse and harassment��by the then-candidate. Last May,��Trump was invited to speak at Liberty University.

But Graham and Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr. are only following in the footsteps left behind by even those in the Republican establishment. Tere is no sin Trump could��commit that is unforgivable. GOP leaders held their noses after Trump was inaugurated. Ostensibly, it’s because he turned a page, as conservatives would say. But one of the steps to betterment is admitting mistakes ��� and even Trump’s late campaign��admission��claim that he was indeed the man he bragged about being on the Howard Stern show was short-lived.

Is a unified Korea possible?

North Korean Troops (Credit: Getty/Kim Won-Jin)

North and South Korean athletes will march under one flag during the opening ceremony of the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics in South Korea.

The ���Korean Unification Flag��� is both a highly symbolic marker of reconciliation and a reminder of a divided Korea, a condition that has lasted since 1945.

As a scholar of East Asian international relations, I���m fascinated by the question of reunification that has been a mainstay of reconciliation and dialogue between North and South Korea. Unfortunately, history suggests such efforts to reunite the peninsula as a single country often don���t go far.

What Koreans think

Most South Koreans are not optimistic about reunification. According to a 2017 Unification Perception Survey conducted by Seoul National University���s Institute for Peace and Unification Studies, 24.7 percent of South Koreans don���t think that unification is possible. Only 2.3 percent of South Korean respondents believe that unification is possible ���within 5 years,��� while 13.6 percent responded ���within 10 years.���

However, the same survey indicates that 53.8 percent of South Koreans believe that reunification is necessary.

Beyond that, however, there is little consensus as to what kind of country a unified Korea should be. Nearly half of South Korean respondents want to keep South Korea���s democratic political system, while 37.7 percent support some form of hybrid, a compromise between the South and North Korean systems. Still, 13.5 percent of South Koreans answered that they prefer the continued existence of two systems within one country.

Three strikes

The first time North and South Korea held talks since the 1950-53 Korean War was in 1971. They agreed on basic principles of the reunification. According to the July 4 South-North Joint Communique, reunification should be achieved through 1) independent efforts of the two Koreas, 2) peaceful means, and 3) the promotion of national unity transcending differences in ideologies and systems.

Despite its significance for later agreements, this d��tente soon collapsed due to the leaders��� lack of genuine intention to follow through. North Korea viewed the inter-Korean dialogue as a way to wean South Korea away from the U.S. and Japan. South Korean leader Park Chung-Hee saw it as a useful tool for consolidating his authoritarian rule.

In the late 1980s, tides shifted as the Cold War broke down and inter-Korean reconciliation once again seemed possible. The 1988 Seoul Olympics spurred South Korea to pursue improved relations with communist countries to ensure their participation. The Olympics hosted a record number of countries from both blocs of the Cold War, including the Soviet Union and China. This, even in the face of North Korea���s attempt to throw the games off by bombing a South Korean airliner killing 115 people in 1987. With the help of South Korea���s rising international status and active diplomacy toward normalizing relations with the Soviet Union and China, Pyongyang agreed to talks with Seoul.

By 1991, North and South Koreans had once again come around to the idea of reconciliation and signed the Basic Agreement. In it, Koreans defined their relationship not as two separate states, but rather one going through a ���special interim��� ��� a process toward ultimate reunification. In 1992, they produced the Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. However, by the end of 1992, inter-Korean relations grew seriously strained. North Korea refused to accept inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and objected to the resumption of a U.S.-South Korea joint military exercise.

Another milestone took place in 2000. North and South Korea held the first summit that amounted to the most substantial and frequent engagement between the two Koreas yet. South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung and his successor Roh Moo-Hyun���s Sunshine Policy meant to provide for a gradual change of North Korea toward the reunification through inter-Korean cooperation on humanitarian, economic, political, social and cultural issues. But in the face of Pyongyang���s continued provocations and nuclear development program, this type of engagement-oriented policy had serious limits. Over time, it became less and less popular with the public.

The conservative governments that followed upheld the goal of the reunification, but made inter-Korean reconciliation conditional upon Pyongyang���s behavior. North Korea���s nuclear and missile tests, and provocations like a torpedo attack on a South Korean navy ship and the shelling of a South Korean island, backpedaled much of the progress made during the 2000 summit.

After three major attempts and failures, is reunification feasible in 2018?

What these past talks show is that reconciliation has not been sustainable without the tangible progress in eliminating North Korea���s nuclear capabilities.

At the same time, the current South Korean President Moon Jae-In is more open to departing from the more conservative approach and pursuing engagement without such assurances. This may be a game changer. Without a doubt, he is much more proactive about creating opportunities for inter-Korean reconciliation.

President Moon faces the same harsh realities as his predecessors. With Pyongyang���s increased threat, the South Korean government will have to work more closely with other countries currently implementing sanctions against Pyongyang. If Seoul works out a deal for inter-Korean exchanges and joint projects and North Korea continues to engage in a provocation, skeptical South Koreans will not likely support the government���s engagement policy.

Ji-Young Lee, Assistant Professor, American University School of International Service