Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 215

Trump’s daily routine consists of hours of TV and a dozen diet sodas: report

Since the start of his campaign, the inner workings of President Donald Trump’s mind has been a widely debated topic. Some have argued that he is a man of strategy, while others have said he acts impulsively, and makes momentary decisions that haven’t been thought through.

In interviews with 60 advisers, friends, associates and members of Congress, a new report from the New York Times details the president’s daily routines, which largely consist of hours of television. Trump typically consumes four hours each day, starting as early as 5:30 a.m., but will watch up to as many as eight on some. A habit he has previously denied.

He will also drink a dozen diet sodas per day, with each of them delivered with the push of a button.

“For most of the year, people inside and outside Washington have been convinced that there is a strategy behind Mr. Trump’s actions,” the Times reported. “But there is seldom a plan apart from pre-emption, self-defense, obsession and impulse.”

Trump told top aides to view each day of his administration as if they were watching a TV program, in which he defeats those who oppose him, prior to assuming office, the Times reported. Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner told associates that Trump is set in his ways and won’t change, but rather, will bend or break the office to his will.

“He feels like there’s an effort to undermine his election and that collusion allegations are unfounded,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has spent more time with the president than most lawmakers, told the Times. “He believes passionately that the liberal left and the media are out to destroy him. The way he got here is fighting back and counterpunching.”

He added, “The problem he’s going to face is there’s a difference between running for the office and being president. You’ve got to find that sweet spot between being a fighter and being president.”

Since taking over from Reince Priebus, Chief of Staff John Kelly has shrunk the amount of people who meet with the president, and the door to Oval Office is now often kept closed.

Trump makes several phone calls to Kelly each day, sometimes as many as a dozen, the Times reported. The calls are typically about his schedule, or if he’s seeking advice on policy. The president yearns for approval from Kelly, and while White House aides denied that he seeks Kelly’s blessing, they said Trump “views him as a crucial confidant and sounding board.”

 

But the president, a former reality television star, also has an obsession with seeing his name in headlines. After not seeing his name floating around for two to three days, a former top adviser told the Times that Trump grew restless and wasn’t able to watch.

Trump’s impulsive, and often unhinged tweets are largely derived directly from his TV consumption, the Times reported. He is the only one, besides technical staff, who is allowed to touch the remote.

His favorite shows consist of “Fox and Friends,” and hosts such as Jeanine Pirro, Sean Hannity and he’ll even “hate-watch” CNN’s Don Lemon and MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” on occasion, the Times reported.

“For other presidents, every day is a test of how to lead a country, not just a faction, balancing competing interests,” the Times reported. “For Mr. Trump, every day is an hour-by-hour battle for self-preservation.”

Trump’s obsession with being the center of attention, his hours of TV consumption and his lack of long-term vision illustrate a White House of frazzled staffers who have no real direction besides mitigation and are afraid to get on the wrong side of their boss, who can turn on a dime.

Neil Young’s “Harvest”: The sound of a hippie gatecrashing Nashville

(Credit: AP/Bloomsbury Publishing/Salon)

The differences between Nashville and LA or New York weren’t just musical: they were political. To his audience, Neil Young was a figure of the hippy counterculture. The Buffalo Springfield had been prime movers in the alternative LA scene, embracing its drug culture and opposition to established authority. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s very existence seemed to be a political statement, their every utterance scrutinised for its significance by fans and journalists. When four students were killed at Kent State University in 1970, Young documented his horror in “Ohio.” Recorded by CSNY and rush-released within a month of the event, the resulting hit single was an unequivocal and powerful protest. Then, of course, there was “Southern Man,” Young’s polemic against Southern racism and the Ku Klux Klan.

But country music was the music of the Southern Man, and there was little in common between the country world-view and the hippy outlook. The hippies were anti-establishment: country music was an establishment, and one that was strongly allied with forces of conservatism. Country songwriters might romanticise the plight of the soldier, but not because they were opposed to the Vietnam war. Sensitive hippies at least paid lip service to the rise of feminism; with a few exceptions such as the remarkable Loretta Lynn, country music championed traditional, paternalistic family values. Even walking around with long hair was likely to get men beaten up in parts of the South, while open drug use was unheard of. Hippies and country music fans eyed one another from a great distance, with deep and mutual suspicion.

Embracing country music was thus a brave decision for someone who was a hero of the counter-culture, an icon of radical thought and politics. At least, it was when Bob Dylan did it.

Dylan already had a track record for upsetting his fans, having caused consternation among serious young men when he “went electric” in 1965. His decision to cast aside The Hawks and use Nashville session musicians to back him on 1966’s “Blonde On Blonde” must have seemed equally perverse, although there was little on the album that sounded “country”. It was the professionalism of the musicians that had impressed Dylan and producer Bob Johnston: Nashville’s finest had almost certainly never been faced with an epic like “Sad-Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands” before, but they had no trouble picking it up and playing it, straight off the bat.

Having recovered from a near-fatal motorbike crash, Dylan spent much of 1967 recording with his live band. The results, universally known as the “Basement Tapes,” were widely circulated in the music business as a catalogue of new Dylan songs for other artists to record, but he chose not to make them available to the public. Instead, he returned to Nashville to make an album of new material called “John Wesley Harding.” The recordings were stark and unadorned, while the material bore a clear country influence.

Dylan’s next album went even further. It was not only recorded in Nashville, but named after the city. It boasted a duet with Johnny Cash, perhaps the biggest star in country music. Dylan’s songwriting had also undergone a seismic shift. Grandiose allegories and clever wordplay had given way to simple, almost banal lyrics, and the harsh musical landscape of “Blonde On Blonde” had softened to the point where Dylan’s singing actually sounded tuneful. “Nashville Skyline” was not the first or the best meeting of pop and country traditions, but it was by far the most important. It was also the first to be a hit.

Bob Dylan was not the only pop artist to be ahead of his audience in liking country music. The West Coast cognoscenti got turned on to bands like Area Code 615, whose popularity was boosted by the fact that Kenny Buttrey had drummed on Dylan’s albums. Artists like Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard had plenty of admirers in the wider music business, and there were points of contact between country and hippy ideologies. Self-important rock stars craved the air of authenticity that surrounded country, its status as an American folk music. Johnny Cash was seen as the champion of the downtrodden and the outcast, and also had a drug intake that any self-respecting pop star would struggle to match. Meanwhile, other country stars were struggling to break the yoke of artistic control exercised by record company bosses, and looked enviously at the pop stars who were free to make the records they wanted to.

Like many others in the hippy movement, Neil Young was appalled by racism and the other problems that blighted the American South. However, Young seems never to have felt the almost instinctive distaste for country music and its culture that others, such as David Crosby, had to overcome. Young had grown up in Canada, where there was no civil rights struggle, no bitter legacy of Civil War division and slavery. Country radio had come crackling through the ether over the Great Plains just as had pop stations and rock ‘n’ roll shows. All went to make up Young’s childhood musical education. As a good hippy, he would protest indignantly about prejudice and injustice in the South, yet he was never the kind of rock star who would flinch at the sound of a pedal steel guitar. The gut-rooted association between country music and redneck politics never seems to have taken hold in Young.

By the time Neil Young made it to Nashville, the idea of a counter-culture rockstar collaborating with the redneck enemy had lost some of its political significance. “Nashville Skyline” was almost two years old, and its impact had been followed up by the likes of The Band. The city itself was becoming recognised as a place where musicians got things done, quickly and well, and artists of all shapes and sizes were flying there to record. Rock and country were beginning to build a shared audience thanks to syndicated TV extravaganzas like “The Johnny Cash Show,” which showcased country’s biggest acts alongside the likes of Dylan, Joni Mitchell and James Taylor.

Although it could still provoke ill-feeling, in 1971 it was no longer automatically assumed that a pop star going to Nashville was about to become a poster child for the Republicans – in Young’s case, that wouldn’t happen for another ten years. Nor did it necessarily mean that he would come back with an album of country music. It could, however, be a comment on the state of rock music. Dylan’s alignment with the Nashville music industry was a deliberate reaction against the more complex, experimental approach to record production that was becoming commonplace in pop and rock music. The Beatles’ “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” had triggered this rash of studio experimentation on its 1967 release. Many found it inspiring, but Bob Dylan was not among them. “I thought ‘Sergeant Pepper’ was a very indulgent album,” he later said. “I didn’t think all that production was necessary.”

Warning: Keep your hands on the wheels of driverless cars

FILE - This May 13, 2015, file photo, shows Google's self-driving car during a demonstration at the Google campus in Mountain View, Calif. The U.S. auto industry's home state of Michigan is preparing for the advent of self-driving cars by pushing legislation to allow for public sales and operation _ a significant expansion beyond an existing law that sanctions autonomous vehicles for testing only. (AP Photo/Tony Avelar, File) (Credit: AP)

The era of driverless vehicles appears to be rapidly approaching, raising a bevy of urgent questions about how to prevent the emergence of new hazards on the nation’s roads.

So, how much preparation have federal transportation authorities carried out to meet the challenge of the advent of self-driving cars and trucks? Not nearly enough, according to a new 44-page report by the Government Accountability Office, a Congressional watchdog agency.

Citing numerous scenarios in which autonomous vehicles could cause tragedies, the GAO said a lack of comprehensive planning makes it unclear whether federal transportation officials “are well-positioned to fully address the challenges posed by automation.”

The report’s most vivid sections zero in on practical driving concerns. For example, what happens when an automated vehicle recognizes a hazard, such as a boulder, in the road – but can’t get around it because it’s programmed not to cross a double-yellow line?

Also, how would a driverless car judge what a pedestrian or a bicyclist will do at an intersection?

And what would happen when an autonomous vehicle programmed to drive within the speed limit frustrates drivers in conventional cars who want to speed ahead? After all, it could be years or decades that autonomous vehicles share the roads with cars with people behind the steering wheel.

Most troubling of all, how should an autonomous vehicle be programmed for situations where there is no good outcome – for instance, if a child suddenly decides to cross a road, and the options are striking the youngster, careening off an embankment or barreling into a tree?

Developers and promoters of robot cars say that by eliminating driver errors they could greatly reduce the toll of nearly 40,000 U.S. traffic deaths per year. Driverless vehicles, they say, also will reduce traffic congestion and give the blind and other disabled people a means to motor around their communities.

But the cautionary report comes at a time when, safety advocates argue, auto manufacturers and federal officials seem to be rushing head-long into putting tens of thousands of driverless vehicles on public roadways without resolving safety concerns. Just last week, the president of General Motors, Daniel Amman, told journalists in San Francisco that self-driving cars would be ready for consumer applications in “quarters, not years.”

The debate over regulating driverless vehicles heated up in September, when the Transportation Department issued largely voluntary guidelines for testing automated cars. The guidelines were criticized by consumer groups, including the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, which called it “a hands-off approach to hands-free driving.”

As FairWarning has reported, a series of surveys this year by institutions ranging from MIT to the AAA show that most motorists don’t want to drive, ride in or be on the road anywhere near an autonomous vehicle. What’s more, as development efforts pick up steam, the level of public skepticism seems to be mounting.

Even so, the U.S. House of Representatives has approved a bill allowing self-driving vehicles to operate on public roadways with minimal government supervision. Similar legislation has been OK’d by a Senate committee, but is currently stalled by a handful of senators concerned about safety provisions.

The GAO report, issued last week to leaders of Congressional transportation and technology committees, generally has gotten a muted response from lawmakers. A spokesman for Sen. John Thune, the South Dakota Republican who chairs the Senate’s Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, told FairWarning that the GAO report underscores the need for regulators “to take a systematic approach to safety and cybersecurity” and “for legislation setting a dedicated framework and new authorities to help the federal government keep pace with rapidly advancing technology.”

The Transportation Department, for its part, said it concurs that a comprehensive plan will eventually be needed. But in a prepared statement published alongside the GAO report, a department official said such a plan is “premature,” because of “the nature of these technologies and the stage of development of the regulatory structure.”

The GAO report was based on interviews with 27 manufacturers, industry groups, academics, and government and safety organizations.

Sean Kane, president of Safety Research & Strategies Inc., one of four safety organizations interviewed by the GAO, praised the agency’s recommendations but downplayed the likelihood they would have much impact. Kane said federal regulators have already ceded so much control over automated automotive technology to manufacturers that, by and large, “the train has left the station.”

“Basically, we’re leaving it to the marketplace to make important decisions on functional safety,” he said in a telephone interview. He said the consequences of that approach already are apparent, citing the highly publicized cases in recent years of defective General Motors ignition switches and ruptured Takata airbags.

Things will only get more deadly, Kane said, with insufficient regulation of driverless vehicles.

“It’s a rush to make everything look cool and it’s modeled after software in computers that’s beta tested on the consumer and fixed when there are complaints. But it’s tougher when 4,000 pounds are moving down the road,” Kane said. “But that’s what’s happening – it’s a race to the bottom.”

Russ Rader, spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, another one of the safety groups interviewed by the GAO, urged federal regulators to require on-board data collection to evaluate how driverless vehicles are working.

“Anyone who uses a computer knows that computers often fail in tasks far simpler than driving a car,” Rader said. “And we need to be equipped to monitor how these systems are working and whether the technology is living up to its safety promise.”

Rader said in an e-mail that while driverless vehicles offer the promise of improved traffic safety, “the aggressive timelines bandied about for consumer use of fully autonomous vehicles are likely overly optimistic.”

He pointed out that automakers have pledged to make a simpler existing technology – automatic emergency braking – standard on all new vehicles, but even that isn’t supposed to happen until 2022.

A key issue the GAO report did not address was cybersecurity, including the possibility that the computers in automated vehicles could be hacked to turn them into killing machines that could be steered into crowds or buildings.

“That’s a whole other issue,” Kane said. “I hate to make predictions but we’re building a substantial structure on top of a very weak foundation. Ultimately, there’s a lot of places where there’s going to be structural failure.”

Puerto Rico death toll after Hurricane Maria is likely far higher than previously known: report

A man walks past a house laying in flood water in Catano town, in Juana Matos, Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria (Credit: Getty/Hector Retamal)

Hurricane Maria devastated the island of Puerto Rico when it made landfall on Sep. 20 as a Category 4 storm, and a breathtaking report has now revealed that the death toll, previously thought to be 64 people, could be as high as 1,052.

Daily mortality data from Puerto Rico’s vital statistics bureau showed that in the 42 days following the hurricane making landfall, 1,052 more people died than usual when compared to the previous two years, according to a New York Times investigation.

The official public death toll was thought to have been 64, with the last two individuals being added on Saturday.

“Before the hurricane, I had an average of 82 deaths daily. That changes from Sept. 20 to 30th. Now I have an average of 118 deaths daily,” Wanda Llovet, the director of the Demographic Registry in Puerto Rico, told the Times during an interview in mid-November. Llovet has since told the newspaper that both figures have gone up by one.

The hurricane pummeled the island and left the entire population, over 3 million people, without any power. But not much as changed as the islands decrepit power grid is still operating at less than 70 percent of its capacity, which has delayed a complete death toll for the month of October, the Times reported. The tally is expected to rise.

One day in particular, Sep. 25, has been determined as the deadliest on the island as 135 people died, compared to the 75 people who died in 2016 and 60 who died in 2015.

With a temperature of 90 degrees and no power throughout nearly the entire island “bedridden people were having trouble getting medical treatment, and dialysis clinics were operating with generators and limiting treatment hours,” the Times reported.

It was that same day in which Puerto Rico’s Gov. Ricardo Rosselló, warned of a humanitarian crisis on the island, and the same day President Donald Trump tweeted about devastation on the island, and the debt they owe to Wall Street.

 

Texas & Florida are doing great but Puerto Rico, which was already suffering from broken infrastructure & massive debt, is in deep trouble..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

 

…It’s old electrical grid, which was in terrible shape, was devastated. Much of the Island was destroyed, with billions of dollars…. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

 

…owed to Wall Street and the banks which, sadly, must be dealt with. Food, water and medical are top priorities – and doing well. #FEMA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 26, 2017

When Trump visited the island on Oct. 3, the official death toll was still 16, which he said was a good thing, unlike the death toll from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. However there were 556 people who had died by the time Trump visited, compared to the prior two years, the Times reported.

“Sixteen people certified,” Trump said at the time. “Sixteen people versus in the thousands. You can be very proud of all of your people and all of our people working together.”

 

While Trump certainly did not know about the actual death toll, he still used the official number to downplay, or undercut the severity of the situation at hand.

The Puerto Rican government has challenged the numbers, however, and argued that they have been coincidental. The government has since “called for morticians and family members to come forward with more information, and it says its forensic science office is reviewing cases.”

The Times elaborated:

For weeks, Puerto Rico’s Department of Public Safety insisted that the surge was coincidental: Government officials believed hundreds of additional people had died of natural causes. But the news media continued to investigate — CNN surveyed half the island’s funeral homes to come up with an additional 499 deaths the funeral directors believed were related to the storm.

Under pressure, the government called for morticians and family members to come forward with more information, and it says its forensic science office is reviewing cases.

As more instances have come to light of deaths because of power failures at local hospitals, or oxygen tanks that ran out, the government has said that it is willing to revise the death count upward.

The report illustrates a far more grim picture for Puerto Ricans than was previously thought. The island is still very much in need of repair, and recently, lawmakers have attempted to put the U.S. territory on a more stable path.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., have put forth a $146 billion “Marshall Plan” for Puerto Rico, that will use renewable energy, such as wind and solar, to help restore power.

 

This pocket-sized Windows computer is as powerful as it is small

These days, the smaller a piece of technology is, the more advanced it can be — and this Ockel Sirius B Windows 10 Pocket PC is no exception. It’s an incredibly powerful computer that’s as small as most mobile devices, meaning you have all the functionality of a desktop with far more flexibility and mobility.

This tiny PC is powered by an Intel processor and 2GB of RAM, plus boasts high-speed built-in WiFi and Bluetooth. It also includes a wide range of inputs and outputs, so you can link it to just about any device you want — just connect it to an HDMI display and connect it to a power outlet.

That means you get incredible computational power whether you’re traveling abroad or just heading into your office. You can select from two USB 2.0 ports, an HDMI port, Micro SD card slot and AUX in/AUX out — and you can quickly browse files and open applications with the built-in 32GB flash storage. Get work done on the go, or just continue working on your passion projects no matter where you are.

The options are endless: usually the Ockel Sirius B Windows 10 Pocket PC is $249, but you can get it here for $189. Salon readers can also save an additional 15% when they use coupon code GIFTSHOP15 at checkout.

This action-ready camera functions just like a GoPro for a much smaller price tag

GoPros are amazing, but they can get pricey — if you still want to film all your epic adventures, vacations, and stunts, without a massive price tag, just grab this Activeon CX 1080p WiFi Action Camera instead.

Not only does this 1080p WiFi Action Camera have similar functionality to GoPro’s base Hero model, it boasts more features for less money. You can record stunning 1080p HD video and flex your creativity for longer amounts of time with its powerful built-in battery. There’s also a simple two-button control system allowing you to quickly capture epic moments, plus it has four fields-of-vision to relive the moment from its best perspective.

Whether you’re using time-lapse for long exposures, AQUA Mode for underwater shots, or even using the app to record video remotely from your smartphone or upload video quickly to social media, there’s almost no end to the number of ways you could film. It’s the perfect gift for any traveler or adrenaline-fiend in your life.

Keep a record of all your adventures: usually, this Activeon CX 1080p WiFi Action Camera is $99.99, but you can get it for $36.99 — that’s further reduced from the original price of $39.99, or 63% off the original price. Plus, you can get an additional 15% off the sale price with coupon code: GIFTSHOP15 at checkout.

Show off your “Star Wars” geekery with these 3D lamps

“Star Wars” is arguably one of the most epic franchises ever created — and if you’re a real fan, you’re undoubtedly eagerly awaiting “The Last Jedi” to come out in theaters next week. There’s a way to take the edge off your anticipation and show your favorite characters some love: check out these Star Wars 3D Mega Lamps.

Undoubtedly making the journey here from a galaxy far, far away, these brilliant 3D lamps are a futuristic and unexpected way to light up your room or den. Dazzling light breaks through an etched surface in the shape of your ship or character of choice — the result is a 3D illumination that’s as fascinating as it is functional.

Any one of these lamps lasts for up to 50,000 hours — meaning it’ll light up your space up until the premiere, and all the times you undoubtedly go back to watch it again.

Get the popcorn and Wookiee suit ready: usually this Star Wars 3D Mega Lamp is $99, but you can get it here for $39.99, or 59% off the usual price.

Three largest meat producers rival Exxon in gas emissions

(Credit: Alyssa Mae)

According to The Guardian, JBS, Cargill and Tyson—three of the world’s largest meat producers—emitted more greenhouse gas last year than all of France and nearly as much as the biggest oil companies, such as Exxon, BP, and Shell.

Hardly any meat or dairy companies publish their climate emissions, so it’s almost impossible to know the exact amount of greenhouse gas generated. But using the most comprehensive data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The Guardian estimated emissions from animal agriculture, and the results are staggering.

The top 20 meat and dairy companies emitted more greenhouse gas in 2016 than all of Germany, Europe’s biggest climate polluter. This means if these companies were a country, they would be the world’s seventh-largest greenhouse gas emitter.

It’s impossible to take world leaders seriously when they fail to mention animal agriculture in addressing climate action. Raising animals for food emits more greenhouse gas than all the cars, planes, and other forms of transportation combined.

What’s more, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, carbon dioxide emissions from raising farmed animals make up about 15 percent of global human-induced emissions, with beef and milk production as the leading culprits.

But simply by avoiding animal products, you cut your carbon footprint in half. Keep in mind that a pound of beef requires 13 percent more fossil fuel and 15 times more water to produce than a pound of soy. Additionally, a recent study found that switching to a plant-based diet reduces your personal carbon emissions more than replacing your gasoline-powered car with a hybrid.

There is no such thing as “sustainable” meat, and plant-based alternatives to meat, dairy, and eggs take a mere fraction of the resources to produce as their animal-based counterparts.

A vegan diet is not just good for the planet. It also spares countless animals lives of misery at factory farms. Pigs, cows, chickens, and other farmed animals suffer horribly. These innocent animals face unthinkable horrors: cruel caged confinement; brutal mutilations; and bloody, merciless deaths.

“The Disaster Artist”: Why does America insist on celebrating the hard work of the talentless?

James Franco in "The Disaster Artist" (Credit: A24)

When Tommy Wiseau, the auteur behind the notorious “best worst movie ever,” “The Room” (2003), appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” last week, he carried himself with the air of a rock star. He wore his trademark black sport sunglasses, multiple leather studded belts, a matching leather studded bracelet, dark jeans, a shiny blue tie and a silky black vest. Wiseau has Captain Hook hair and Gene Simmons skin, and his introduction was followed by thundering electric guitar chords. When Wiseau walked onto the stage, he immediately raised his arms in a Christ-like position that read, “It’s good to be back” (he’s never appeared on “Kimmel” before).  

The occasion for Wiseau’s appearance was the release of James Franco’s “The Disaster Artist,” a comedic retelling of Greg Sestero (Dave Franco) and Tommy Wiseau’s (James Franco) road to making “The Room.” When Wiseau walked onto the stage, James Franco was already there, having spent the previous segment talking to Kimmel a little bit about the film and a lot about the mysterious Wiseau.  

Though Wiseau projected rock star, to the viewer at home he came off as more of a circus freak. It was evident that Franco was trying to be nice, but he and Kimmel couldn’t help laughing at Wiseau’s antics (such as the menacing billboard he created to promote the film) and at the fact that there’s no other way to describe “The Room” than terrible. The juxtaposition between the clean-cut Kimmel and Franco, who were each wearing crisp charcoal suits and subtly beautiful ties, and the audaciously dressed, slightly unkempt Wiseau heightened the exploitative dynamic: Wiseau was being let into the Hollywood cool kids club, but only for their amusement.

That being said, Wiseau is not some poor, helpless victim. He had the millions of dollars it took to finance “The Room,” and its cult status led him to net a significant profit. He has embraced being the worst, and it has earned him both fame and fortune. And yet, when I watched “The Disaster Artist,” I was left feeling conflicted about Wiseau.

Largely, I felt a sense of guilt because of the earnestness Franco infuses into the character. I hadn’t seen “The Room” prior to seeing “The Disaster Artist,” but I had seen classics like “Retardead” and “Bear.” And as singular as “The Room” may be, if you’ve seen any comedically bad movie, to some extent you’ve seen them all: The stories and actors may be different, but the general soapy aesthetic and ironic audience experience is basically the same. And so, my assumption had always been that the people who made these movies had some sense of what they were doing, that someone had discovered that there’s a big stoned-teen market for this kind of schlock, and proceeded to produce endless masterful crapola (most of which can be found in supermarkets or VOD services).

But “The Disaster Artist” tells another story. Greg aspired to be James Dean, Tommy had notions that he was Hitchcock, and they both, at least at the start, genuinely thought they were making something special.

Though Franco’s film posits that what they created was indeed special — a legitimate hit that has brought endless joy to audiences — it doesn’t try to complicate the talents of this pair. The very first scene finds Greg and Tommy, then strangers to each other, at an acting class where they put on two different kinds of awful performances. Greg, a shy suburban kid with frosted tips, is too nervous to really perform. Tommy, who has a hint of deaf Borat in his “New Orleans” accent, has the opposite problem: He lacks any self-awareness and he is completely over-the-top and melodramatic, quick to writhe on the floor.

Though Greg and Tommy’s lack of talent is never in question, you can see how they fool themselves. Greg, who is the point-of-view character, is handsome and, unlike Tommy, utterly normal; there’s some sense that maybe under the right circumstances, if he could just learn to act a little, Hollywood might give him his moment — like it’s done for Armie Hammer, say. Tommy, on the other hand, is like Rupert Pupkin: a little bit unhinged, utterly delusional and so desperate to be a star that nothing else matters.      

Early in the film, Greg and Tommy make a pact that they’ll each never let each other lose sight of their dream. But months into their move to Los Angeles, they have made little headway. Greg gets an agent and lands auditions, but he doesn’t bank any roles. Tommy, on the other hand, is widely laughed at and occasionally advised to pursue a career as a villainous character actor, to which he gets offended. “I hero, you all villain. . . . Yeah, you laugh at the hero. That what villain do.”   

It’s when Greg and Tommy are on the verge of giving up that they have their bright idea: Tommy should write his own movie. The production, of course, is a debacle. Tommy harasses his crew and actors, and they laugh at him behind his back. Unsurprisingly, the finished product is laughable.

In “The Disaster Artist,” the premiere of “The Room” acts as a climax. The audience gets the film in a way that its creator doesn’t. “The Room” wasn’t meant to be a comedy, but everyone laughs at it. Tommy is initially heartbroken at the reaction. He feels like everyone is laughing at him, which they are. There’s a world where he’s a tragic character, someone who earnestly pursues a dream America has sold him, but is constantly laughed at in his pursuit. In this world, we’re all villains for laughing.

Instead, Tommy Wiseau is left having the last laugh. The film has netted a profit of several million dollars and has made him a minor celebrity — enough to warrant his “Kimmel” appearance. Wiseau is a Frankenstein born of the same American experiment that yielded the Donald Trump presidency. That is not to say that Wiseau himself has been a malignant force. But coming in this moment, “The Disaster Artist” forces viewers to interrogate their relationship with characters like Tommy Wiseau. What does it say about us that a person — usually a white man — can get so far by being so bad?  

After the film ended, I thought back to a scene early in the film, where Tommy and Greg are tossing around a football. Tommy, who is as bad with the football as he is at acting, punts the ball into the ground, and, without any trace of irony, exclaims, “Touchdown!” Greg is the audience’s conduit, and he doesn’t say anything. He just lets Tommy think he’s scored a touchdown. And so, really, who’s to say he didn’t?

Heavy lies “The Crown”: Getting to now from then

Claire Foy and Matt Smith in "The Crown" (Credit: Netflix/Robert Viglasky)

By all appearances America and Britain are united in anticipation of what is sure to be the wedding event of 2018, the wedding of Prince Harry and American actress Meghan Markle. The explosion of coverage that occurred directly in the wake of their engagement has calmed to a low-grade hum, comparatively speaking, as various outlets process the meaning of it all. Why are Americans fascinated with a monarchy representing the very country they revolted against? Should we even care, and if we do, why?

Muted within this discussion is the very real weight the princess and His Royal Highness to Be will be taking on. Loving a wedding is easy. Digging into a marriage is decidedly more difficult. Then factor in pressures the average commoner doesn’t have to contend with, such as adherence to ancient protocols, dressing the right way, saying the right thing or refraining from comment altogether.

The dream of living a royal’s life is mostly just a dream, especially when it comes to balancing matters of state with matters of the human heart. This might as well be the logline for the second season of Netflix’s “The Crown,” which debuted in its entirely on Friday.

With “The Crown,” Netflix and creator Peter Morgan conscientiously depart from the stiff and studied public persona the Windsors carefully cultivated over the years, revealing the humanity and toll of obligation that comes with a symbolic title cemented in place by the collective pride of a nation. Claire Foy personifies that struggle with a balance of dignified stoicism and vulnerability as Queen Elizabeth, a woman pressing on despite the emergence of disruptive political threats in the world beyond the palace walls. The second season contains many such crises, bookending its 10 episodes with the Suez Crisis in 1956 and 1963’s Profumo affair, a scandal that threatened to bring down the Windsors as well as tainting the highest ranks of British government.

History is a joining device in “The Crown,” of course. The humanity of its players is the primary fascination, beginning with the queen and Prince Philip (Matt Smith) and rippling out from there, from their immediate family through expanded branches of social and political associates. In season 2 this notion culminates as an examination of marriages and relationships both personal and political, making it a handy, digestible how-to for any soon-to-be royal who might want to get an idea of what she’s signing up for, or at the very least what outsiders think lies in store for her.

The eighth episode, “Dear Mrs. Kennedy,” crystalizes this idea by depicting a socially awkward meeting between Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip and President John F. Kennedy (Michael C. Hall) and First Lady Jackie Kennedy (Jodi Balfour). Hall’s the more recognizable of the two actors, but Balfour’s portrayal delivers the harder punch mostly because of what she represents. Elizabeth first sees Jackie in a television broadcast of her visit to Paris; studying Jackie as she speaks perfect French, Elizabeth’s aristocratic poker face fails to hide her jealousy of the American woman’s stylish elegance.

When the Kennedys visit, despite the best efforts of the royal stylist, and the American couple’s embarrassing breach of social protocol, Jackie’s modern couture outshines Elizabeth. The queen would hate her except that Jackie candidly admits during a moment when the women are by themselves that the image of the Kennedy White House as America’s Camelot is entirely fictional.

“That’s the thing about unhappiness,” Elizabeth observes long after their meeting (and a tense lunch that follows). “All it takes is for something worse to come along, and you realize it was actually happiness, after all.”

Happily ever after is probably more possible for the royals these days than in previous decades, and season 2 of “The Crown” depicts the very human reason as to why this is so. The larger conflict Elizabeth faces is the desire to be both accessible and respected by the public, but all the more so by her own husband.

Foy’s Elizabeth has acclimated to being viewed as Elizabeth Regina, putting aside the vestiges of innocence and the shelter of privacy to become the symbol of a nation. Doing so during a period of quickly evolving technology and the rise of celebrity presents challenges her predecessors could not have dreamed of.

As conflict spikes in the Middle East and rumblings in other parts of the world threaten Britain’s perceived supremacy on the international stage, the queen is encouraged to remain neutral in her positions. But she’s also the figure her public looks to in times of strife, which often leaves her in the position of seeming cold and distant. The risks she takes, such as waltzing with another country’s leader — gasp — seem so minor in today’s world of lewd gaffes. But as seen in the drama, even the littlest steps, like having a smile of true joy captured in a newspaper photo, serve to melt away the wall between an untouchable monarch and the rest of the world.

One of the best qualities of “The Crown” is the ease with which Morgan weaves between the delicate and brutal politics in which Elizabeth has a stake and the waning sense of the royal family’s power and influence as the 20th century progresses. The most effective scenes intertwine the two, such as when Prime Minister Harold Macmillan (Anton Lesser) attempts to use a controversial event as an allegory to express his opinion on the royal marriage. The ever-astute Elizabeth, in turn, cloaks a retort that clearly means he should mind his own business in a generic observation about diplomacy.

Marital strain is as evident in terms of the union between Parliament and Buckingham Palace as it is between Elizabeth and her husband. Philip’s envy, seeded in the first season, blossoms in these new episodes as he predictably takes advantage of his position to travel on goodwill tours far and wide, reaping the benefits that come with being the husband of Britain’s monarch.

Theirs is but one relationship stretched to nearly snapping — and in fact, compared to the impact their social station has on others, their plight isn’t even as miserable as it could be. As hard as their road may be, they’re also restricted from taking the exit available to many others, as Elizabeth points out in a contentious moment as the season starts. Others, including her sister Princess Margaret (Vanessa Kirby), are trapped by barriers that all but ensure their unhappiness.



Macmillan and his predecessor Anthony Eden (Jeremy Northam), too, cannot emerge from under the weighty legacy of Winston Churchill. But Macmillan’s situation is rife with pathos, since he struggles for respect within his government and in his own home. Not even his wife can see fit to grant him emotional quarter.

And there’s more bitter than sweet in this season, to be certain; that doesn’t sour the story, however, which speaks to Morgan’s skill in building the story and the history, which he strengthens by making season 2 more of an ensemble piece and less reliant on Foy, who exits the series after this round of episodes to make way for Olivia Colman to portray Queen Elizabeth’s middle years.

At the end of the season Elizabeth points out how little time has passed in these two season of “The Crown” — a little more than a decade, she reminds Macmillan irritably, adding that in that time she’s remained while he and his predecessors have seen fit to abandon her. “A confederacy of elected quitters,” she dubs them.

No such luxury is available to Elizabeth, and she knows it.  She may not have spoken the words “’Til death do us part” upon her ascension to the throne but it’s the truest relationship within “The Crown,” that of duty and the figure upon whose shoulders it rests. Being queen is no fairy tale, but because of Queen Elizabeth’s will, maybe life — and marriage — will be less constrictive for a thoroughly modern princess.