Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 347

Trump insists his health care plan isn’t dead, three Senate Republicans think they have a solution: Report

Donald Trump; Mitch McConnell (Credit: Getty/Chip Somodevilla/Zach Gibson)

Despite repeated failures, President Donald Trump will not put his plan to pass health care legislation to rest. On Friday, the president met with three Republican senators who hope to achieve a new plan that would repeal and replace Obamacare, according to a report from Politico.

The group is hoping to put forth legislation that would be able to garner 50 votes in the Senate.

Politico elaborated:

The proposal from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) would block grant federal health care funding to the states and keep much of Obamacare’s tax regime. White House officials also met with House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) to brainstorm how to make the idea palatable to conservatives, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.

On Saturday morning Trump went on an angry Twitter tirade in which he said Senate Republicans “look like fools” and that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell must seek to abolish the filibuster rule “now.” But the rant continued into the afternoon as well, and the president threatened to “halt Obamacare payments subsidizing health plans for low-income individuals — an idea adamantly opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike,” according to Politico.

Trump referred to the subsidies as bailouts. “If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!” Trump tweeted.

If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2017

Afterwards he sent out a tweet touting the stock market increases since the election, but a few hours later he still couldn’t put the health care issue to rest. He further provoked Senate Republicans, demanding they come up with a solution. “Unless the Republican Senators are total quitters, Repeal & Replace is not dead! Demand another vote before voting on any other bill!” the president tweeted.

Unless the Republican Senators are total quitters, Repeal & Replace is not dead! Demand another vote before voting on any other bill!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2017

Trump’s hopes for “moving forward on the bill” were still high on Friday, despite the setback earlier in the week. “Yet several senior Republican Senate aides and allies of GOP leaders cautioned against any feelings of momentum coming from the White House on Saturday, particularly after Trump again instructed Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to change the Senate rules to a simple majority and gut the legislative filibuster,” Politico reported. McConnell has repeatedly said he would not change any rules.

Working with Graham are Sens. Dean Heller R-Nev., and Bill Cassidy La., who believe their proposal will be received more positively. They also said it would receive a much better score from the Congressional Budget Office than previous solutions which would have eventually thrown millions of Americans off their health insurance, according to Politico.

“I had a great meeting with the President and know he remains fully committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare. President Trump was optimistic about the Graham-Cassidy-Heller proposal. I will continue to work with President Trump and his team to move the idea forward.,” Graham said on Friday.

“Drunk, obnoxious, smart but not pretentious”: The long, low history of the word “punk”

(Credit: AP/Bloomsbury Publishing/Salon)

While it’s true that debates about the origins of the term “punk” to describe the scene can quickly devolve into triviality, the confusion surrounding the term is central to punk’s anarchic spirit, a confusion that is important to maintain, rather than resolve. Originally, “punck” was used to describe a prostitute or harlot; in 1596—the first known appearance of the word in print—the writer Thomas Lodge used the word like this: “He hath a Punck (as the pleasant Singer cals her).” Over the centuries, the meaning of the word has evolved, variously used to describe something worthless or foolish, empty talk, nonsense, a homosexual, or a person of no account.

More recently, in the decades prior to the emergence of the punk music scene, the word punk can be found scattered throughout novels and stories by the likes of Ernest Hemingway, William S. Burroughs, and others. In Hemingway’s story “The Mother of a Queen” from his collection Winner Take Nothing (1933), the narrator says “this fellow was just a punk, you understand, a nobody he’d ever seen before … ” Dashiell Hammett’s novel The Maltese Falcon (1930) features a scene where Sam Spade tells Gutman “we’ve absolutely got to give them a victim. There’s no way out of it. Let’s give them the punk.” In Burroughs’s first novel Junky (1953), the narrator observes as two “young punks got off a train carrying a lush between them.” And Thomas Pynchon uses the term in V. (1963) like this: “There was nothing so special about the gang, punks are punks.”

The word punk in relation to music is both trickier and easier to trace; while pretty much everyone now knows punk when they hear it, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the term had not yet taken on the coded weight of meaning that it carries today. In his first nationally published work—for Rolling Stone in 1969—Lester Bangs reviewed the MC5’s album Kick out the Jams, and wrote, “never mind that they came on like a bunch of sixteen-year-old punks on a meth power trip.” In May 1971 Dave Marsh, writing in Creem, used the phrase “punk rock,” and the following month in the same magazine in his essay “Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung,” Bangs, writing about the influence of the Yardbirds, said that “then punk bands started cropping up who were writing their own songs but taking the Yardbirds’ sound and reducing it to this kind of goony fuzztone clatter.” Punk, as associated with rock and roll, gradually gained currency, so that by 1974, the word could even be found in the rarefied pages of none other than The New Yorker. Reviewing a New York Dolls concert at the Bottom Line in May 1974, Ellen Willis wrote, in reference to opening act Suzi Quatro, “I was getting a naïve kick out of watching a woman play rock-and-roll punk.” And writing in the Village Voice in November 1975, just a little over a month after the Ramones had signed with Sire, Greil Marcus, in reviewing Patti Smith’s debut album Horses, wrote that “the concepts that lie behind Smith’s performance—her version of rock and roll fave raves, the New York avant-garde, surrealist imagery and aesthetic strategy, the beatnik hipster pose, the dark side of the street punk soul—emerge more clearly with each playing, until they turn into schtick.”

Yet even this coupling of “punk” and “rock” didn’t yet capture the meanings we associate with punk rock today. It wasn’t until 1976, and the founding of the magazine Punk by John Holmstrom and Legs McNeil, that the term adapted once again to capture and give name to the emerging scene. As Legs McNeil tells it [in the book Please Kill Me], “Holmstrom wanted the magazine to be a combination of everything we were into—television reruns, drinking beer, getting laid, cheeseburgers, comics, grade-B movies, and this weird rock & roll that nobody but us seemed to like: the Velvets, the Stooges, the New York Dolls, and now the Dictators.” In fact, the group The Dictators and their 1975 album The Dictators Go Girl Crazy! were a direct inspiration for the magazine’s title. Not only did they use the word punk in the song “Weekend” (“oh weekend / Bobby is a local punk / cutting school and getting drunk / eating at McDonalds for lunch”), but an inside sleeve picture of them dressed in black leather jackets eating at White Castle led McNeil to suggest Punk as the title: “The word ‘punk’ seemed to sum up the thread that connected everything we liked—drunk, obnoxious, smart but not pretentious, absurd, funny, ironic, and things that appealed to the darker side.”

One of the best discussions of the punk ethos appeared in the very first issue of Punk in January 1976 in the essay “Marlon Brando: The Original Punk.” Suggesting that punk is above all a sensibility, a way of carrying yourself in the world, the piece suggests that Brando’s films Streetcar Named Desire (1951), The Wild One (1953), and On the Waterfront (1954)” provided media recognition for an inarticulate, rebellious character type, til then ignored by the popular media …. Brando was cool without oppressing the audience with too much sharpness. He was powerful without having to be invulnerable …. Vulnerability in a leather jacket. Brando prowled, not as a predator, but as a formidable victim.” The Ramones, especially, embodied this cool style that reversed the governing codes of 1970s macho rock embodied by the figure of the swaggering lead singer. Joey Ramone was the punk underdog, the impossibly skinny guy who hid beneath his hair and behind his sunglasses. In that same issue of Punk, in her two-page spread on the Ramones, Mary Harron was hesitant to use the word punk to describe the band (preferring instead “punk-type”), and when she did use it, she did so to describe a visual style and attitude, not a sound: “OK,” Harron asked, “why do you affect leather jackets and kind of a punk-type attitude on stage?” Tommy replied: “It keeps us warm, y’know? And the black leather absorbs more heat.”

How a job acquires a gender (and less authority if it’s female)

(Credit: Reuters/Gene Blevins)

“I’m not bossy, I’m the boss.”

So proclaims Beyoncé in a video in support of the #banbossy campaign. The campaign highlights how when little boys take charge, they’re often praised for being a “leader.” But when little girls do, they’re more likely to be scolded for being too “bossy.”

And it matters for grownups, too. Research and media stories abound with examples of how gender stereotypes disadvantage women leaders. A woman manager is less likely to be taken seriously by the people who work for her.

When men direct others, they’re often assumed to be assertive and competent. But when women direct others, they’re often disliked and labeled abrasive or bossy.

Our new study puts a twist on this narrative. Gender bias doesn’t merely disadvantage women, it also can disadvantage men. The reason? We don’t just stereotype men and women. We stereotype jobs.

Firefighters and nurses

Many jobs in the economy are gender-stereotyped. Firefighting is thought of as a man’s job, whereas nursing is thought of as women’s work.

Previous studies have shown that these stereotypes — which shape our expectations about whether a man or a woman is a better “fit” for a given job — are powerful because they can bias a whole host of employment outcomes. For instance, they influence the chances that a man or a woman will apply for the job, that he or she will be hired, the pay each would receive and even performance evaluations that determine promotions.

But how quickly do these gender stereotypes get attached to jobs in the first place? And, to what extent might such stereotypes affect the level of authority and respect that people are willing to give the man or woman who works in that job?

How a job gets stereotyped

To answer these questions, we studied a job that is ambiguously related to gender: a microfinance loan manager in Central America.

In this region, the microfinance loan manager job is new and gender-balanced in its composition. Unlike firefighters or nurses – jobs that are already strongly gender-stereotyped — loan managers at the microfinance bank we studied are about 50/50 men and women.

The nature of commercial microfinance makes managers’ positions more gender-ambiguous. Microfinance is associated with the financial industry, which is traditionally masculine. But microfinance also has a legacy of social service and poverty alleviation, which are female-stereotyped activities.

Additionally, in the context we studied, the loan manager job had been around for less than 10 years, making it even less likely that clients would have strong preconceptions about whether it was a “man’s job” or a “woman’s job.”

Loan managers at the bank we focused on are frequently reshuffled from one borrower to another. This quasi-random reshuffling allowed us to observe how borrowers’ repayment patterns differed when they were paired with male and female loan managers. For example, a borrower might be paired with a male manager initially and then transferred to a female manager. This switching process allowed us to examine how clients’ repayment rates varied when the only thing that changed was their managers’ gender.

We examined borrowers’ missed payment rates as a measure of the authority they afford their managers. Making a payment on time signals that the borrower views the manager as someone whose authority is legitimate and whose directives should be followed. In contrast, missing a payment signals that the borrower feels he or she can approach his or her responsibilities to the manager more laxly. When borrowers miss payments, it suggests the manager lacks the ability to secure compliance and therefore lacks authority.

We found that it took only one interaction before clients assigned a gender to the job and began to treat anyone in that role (man or woman) based on that stereotype, which meant less authority if the loan manager position was seen as a “woman’s job.” So if a client’s first manager was a woman, they would tend to miss more payments on their loan – even if later transferred to a male manager – compared with one who was initially paired with a man. These effects persisted even when we accounted for other factors that might affect repayment, like income and loan size.

Male managers whose clients perceived the job as a “woman’s job” experienced an especially large disadvantage compared to male managers whose clients perceived the job as a “man’s job.”

When men stepped in to work with a client who had initially worked with another male loan manager, the client was highly compliant with his directives. But when men stepped in to work with a client who had initially worked with a female loan manager, the client afforded them much less authority. They were much less compliant than they would have been if they had initially worked with a male loan manager.

Gendered jobs harm us all

When gender stereotypes get attached to a job, it biases the authority that people attribute to the man or woman who happens to work in that position. In this way, men experience negative bias when working in positions that others associate with women.

Our findings show that, when men work in a managerial job that people associate with a man and male stereotypes, they are able to wield a substantial amount of authority over clients. But when the very same managerial job happens to be associated with a woman, men who work in that position are viewed as significantly less legitimate sources of authority.

In other words, our study suggests that stereotyping a job as “women’s work” and societal biases that grant women less authority than men harm us all.

Ideally, we want to live in a world where we perform the work that is best suited to our abilities and where an individual in a position of authority receives the same respect, regardless of gender. If we all can support both men and women who work in gender-atypical roles, perhaps we can become less likely to devalue some workers on the basis of arbitrary and old-fashioned gender stereotypes.

Sarah Thebaud, Associate Professor, Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara and Laura Doering, Assistant Professor of Strategy and Organization, McGill University

VW to build electric vehicle stations in diesel settlement

(Credit: AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

Volkswagen will build a massive network of electric vehicle charging stations across California as part of a settlement over its diesel emissions scandal.

The California Air Resources Board has voted unanimously to approve the $200 million plan as the first of a number of steps the German automaker has proposed to take to help cut greenhouse gas emissions in California. In total, the company has agreed to spend $800 million on zero-emissions electric vehicle infrastructure in the state over 10 years.

The plan calls for 2,500 vehicle chargers to be installed at more than 450 stations across California, complementing a nationwide network of charging stations the company is installing in 38 states. Stations will be spaced an average of about 70 miles apart in California.

In 2015, the state and the Environmental Protection Agency found that Volkswagen had installed a “defeat device” in its diesel vehicles that would improve vehicle performance and cut pollution during emissions tests.

When the vehicles were being driven under normal conditions, they would emit nitrogen oxide pollution up to 40 times the levels that the EPA allows. The discovery of Volkswagen’s cheating led to three criminal felony counts, $2.8 billion in penalties and an agreement to prevent future violations.

The air resources board approved the first part of Volkswagen’s plan on Thursday, giving the company permission to build the electric vehicle charging station network. It intends to use a percentage of the money to create a “green cities” program providing disadvantaged and low-income communities with access to electric vehicles.

The program will focus on neighborhoods in two cities, Sacramento and another to be named. Volkswagen’s subsidiary, Electrify America, will commit $44 million to Sacramento to build charging stations, provide electric vehicles for ride sharing and other electric vehicle-related projects.

Volkswagen issued a statement saying Electrify America is pleased with the board’s decision and is looking forward to implementing its zero-emissions vehicle investment plan.

California Air Resources Board Chair Mary D. Nichols said in a statement that Volkswagen can proceed with building electric vehicle charging stations in areas of the state that do not currently have them.

“This will help the state as a whole, and especially some of our disadvantaged and underserved communities, to shift to the cleanest vehicles on the market to help clean the air and fight climate change,” she said.

Anti-LGBT groups celebrate Trump’s ban on transgender citizens serving in the US military

(Credit: Shutterstock/Salon)

In a series of Tweets Wednesday morning from his personal Twitter account, President Trump stated that “the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” Anti-LGBT groups including hate groups who’ve advocated for this policy celebrated the announcement.

The statement comes just days after the Republican-controlled House voted down an amendment to a defense spending bill that would have banned the military from funding any medical treatment related to gender transition. The amendment would have impacted currently active transgender personnel as well as transgender dependents of service members.

Though that amendment was not adopted, Defense Secretary James Mattis already had delayed an Obama-era policy that would have implemented a process for allowing transgender people to enlist. Slated to begin July 1, Mattis delayed the policy until January 1, 2018. The Trump announcement reverses another Obama-era policy in which transgender people were allowed to serve openly in the military.

Estimates vary on how many transgender people are currently serving in the armed forces. A 2016 RAND Corporation study puts the numbers at a low end of approximately 1,300 to 6,600 on active duty with an additional 1,500 in the Reserves, while a 2014 Williams Institute study estimates that number at 15,500 (combined active duty and Reserves). The RAND study determined that the cost of gender reassignment surgery for troops who wished to pursue it would be between $2.4 million and $8.4 million, an infinitesimal fraction of the Pentagon’s multi-billion dollar budget. A 2015 study in the New England Journal of Medicine reached similar conclusions.

According to the Los Angeles Times, a Pentagon spokesman described Trump’s Twitter posts as “new guidance” rather than an order, and said the Pentagon would issue “revised guidance” to the military “in the near future.” The Times also reported that Defense Secretary James Mattis was out of Washington and on vacation this week and that the Pentagon appeared caught off guard by Trump’s Twitter pronouncements.

Congressional Democrats, as well as several senior Republicans, offered strong support for transgender individuals serving honorably, and condemned the President’s Tweets. “I don’t think we should be discriminating against anyone,” Sen. Orrin Hatch R-Utah said in the Times. “Transgender people are people and deserve the best we can do for them.”

It’s unclear whether the transgender troops already serving would be purged.

Below, is a round-up of reactions from the anti-LGBT right. Groups marked with an asterisk are considered anti-LGBT hate groups.

Family Research Council*  posted a statement praising Trump’s Twitter announcement. Just last week, FRC used an image of Chelsea Manning in an anti-trans advertisement advocating for this policy. FRC president Tony Perkins, applauded President Trump, while greatly exaggerating the estimated cost of gender-reassignment surgery to the Pentagon:

[F]or keeping his promise to return to military priorities – and not continue the social experimentation of the Obama era that has crippled our nation’s military. . . . The last thing we should be doing is diverting billions of dollars from mission-critical training to something as controversial as gender reassignment surgery . . . As our nation faces serious national security threats, our troops shouldn’t be forced to endure hours of transgender ‘sensitivity’ classes and politically-correct distractions like this one.

American Family Association*  applauded the president’s “courageous decision to end the usage of our military for social engineering and political correctness” in an Action Alert sent out via email.

American Family Association-Indiana also supported Trump’s decision, stating that it is the correct one:

The purpose of the military is to defend the US, not to be a test tube of liberal social experimentation. Those accepted into the military need to be mentally stable, mentally able, and mentally capable. A gender identity disorder is a mental disease that needs counseling, not camouflage.” The statement went on to say that the “far left and their allies in the media are going to flip out over this news,” and that, “Homosexual activist demonstrators may well become violent.

Note: Though the American Family Association is considered an anti-LGBT hate group, it has seven state affiliates, including AFA-IN. Two of its state affiliates are considered anti-LGBT hate groups: AFA-PA and the Illinois Family Institute. AFA-IN is not listed as an anti-LGBT hate group.

The Catholic League Tweeted, “Kudos to Trump for banning men and women who switch genitals from the military. The armed forces are not a lab for sexual engineers.”

Illinois Family Institute, a state affiliate of AFA, posted a piece on their website by its cultural affairs writer Laurie Higgins in support of the decision, saying, “Finally, a president who listens to the voices of reason, wisdom, and military expertise rather than to the cacophonous, incoherent voices of fools, Leftists, and military-antagonists.”

Gender dysphoria,” Higgins continued, “leads to profoundly destructive actions that have moral, political, social, and military ramifications. Gender dysphoric men and women…seek to invade the restrooms, locker rooms, showers, shelters, semi-private hospital rooms, nursing home rooms, and sports teams of persons of the opposite sex. They seek to impose hefty fines on citizens who refuse to refer to them by pronouns that correspond to the sex they are not. They seek to force all citizens to pretend that men can menstruate, become pregnant, and ‘chest-fed.’ They offer children as sacrifices to Moloch.

Higgins moved on, referring to trans people as “biological-sex-rejecting persons with perverse desires,” who are attempting to “impose their twisted, truth-denying vision of human nature on the rest of our young soldiers.”

Liberty Counsel*  claimed in a press release titled “Trump Says No ‘Transgenders’ in the Military,” that Jonathan Alexandre, director of public policy at the Counsel, “met with White House officials and discussed the issues, stressing the importance of the President’s power to direct his generals to prioritize unit cohesion and military readiness rather than sacrificing them to the demands of the transgender lobby.”

I applaud President Trump for making American safe again,” Liberty Counsel president Mathew “Mat” Staver said in the press release. “The military is a lethal weapon designed to protect America and our allies. It is not a social club, a social experimentation petri dish, or ClubMed. …The duty of military officers is to appropriately lead and prepare their personnel to serve and protect, and they cannot do that when there is confusion, dysfunction, and safety issues within the barracks.

National Organization for Marriage sent out an email that used the incorrect term “transgendered” rather than “transgender” in its headline. The group claimed that it “has helped lead a nationwide grassroots movement to oppose the gender ideology of former President Obama and the left, which has attempted to force the transgender agenda on the military, public school children and all institutions of government.” (“Gender ideology” is a right-wing conspiracy theory used to attempt to discredit and further marginalize LGBT people.)

The statement went on to say:

Mr. Trump is correct to cite not only the costs but the disruption that the transgender agenda causes. These gender-confused individuals are a tiny fraction of the population, yet everyone else is expected to succumb to their demands or risk being labeled a bigot, homophobe or worse. They expect school children, women and victims of sexual abuse to risk their safety and privacy by allowing biological men into intimate areas reserved for women and girls. Massive fake outrage has been manufactured by LGBT extremist groups and their allies in government, media, large corporations and big-time sports leagues against anyone who resists.

Former Colorado state representative Gordon Klingenschmitt, director of The Pray in Jesus Name Project*  [sic], said in an email blast that,

This will temporarily end, thank God, the threat to all women in the military of sharing showers with cross-dressing men, and men wearing women’s uniforms, and wasting tax-payer dollars on life-long hormone treatments or genital mutilation surgeries that actually harm the mentally ill more than they help. Trump got this right.

 

3 things you probably didn’t know about humans’ ancient relationship with dogs

(Credit: Britta Pedersen/AFP/Getty Images)

Dogs were the first animal to cohabit with humans, and modern research increasingly reveals the many ways in which humans and dogs have grown in tandem for thousands of years. New research out this week reveals that has likely been the case since the Early Neolithic period in ancient Europe, which dates the canine-human relationship back much further than previously theorized. New DNA research published this week in the journal Nature Communications shows modern dogs likely came from a single pack of wolves between 20,000 — 40,000 years ago in Eurasia.

While previous studies suggested there may have been two separate instances of wolf domestication, the new study notes that most dogs of today can be traced back to a single Ancient European dog genome. While the study narrows the origins of dogs down to a 20 thousand year period, the exact location and timing remains a mystery.

Science has shown that the relationsihp between dogs and humans has always been a mutual one, and our ancient ties likely began because of a few hungry and particularly friendly wolves.

Here are three key scientific theories about dog-human co-evolution:

1. A genetic mutation made some wolves (and dogs) want to cuddle with us and be our friends

Dogs like to stay closer to humans and gaze at us longer than wolves do, a new study of canine genetics at Princeton University observed. And, the likelihood of an animal doing this correlates with that animal’s given DNA.

As an article in the LA Times about the new study notes, similar genetic mutations in humans are linked with a rare developmental disorder called Williams-Beuren Syndrome (WBS).

“People with WBS are typically hyper-social, meaning they form bonds quickly and show great interest in other people, including strangers,” the Times piece notes.

In the study, researchers found that the more social dogs and wolves had similar mutations in three genes called GTF2I, GTF2IRD1 and WBSCR17. Those same genes have been observed in other studies to cause increased social behavior in mice and are thought to do the same thing in humans.

2. Dogs probably domesticated us, not the other way around

Some scientists theorize that friendly wolves sought out humans. They probably made the first move in our thousands-of-years-old relationship, as a 2013 National Geographic feature details.

The article explains that the theory that humans used dogs to hunt doesn’t hold much water because humans were “already successful hunters” without wolves, and didn’t tend to be friendly towards other carnivorous species. It theorizes that friendly wolves likely made the first move, and sought out human relationships:

“The wolves that were bold but aggressive would have been killed by humans, and so only the ones that were bold and friendly would have been tolerated.”

Over time the physicality of those friendlier wolves changed.

“Domestication gave them splotchy coats, floppy ears, wagging tails. In only several generations, these friendly wolves would have become very distinctive from their more aggressive relatives.”

3. Dogs and humans ate together as we evolved, so our digestion has developed similarly

As researchers on a 2013 study of dog genetics explain, there are a number of corresponding genes in dogs and humans particularly when it comes to processing food.

In both of our species, the genes responsible for metabolism and digestion, such as the genetic code for cholesterol, changed similarly. Researchers theorized those changes could be due to dramatic changes in the proportion of plants vs meats dogs and humans were consuming around the same time.

A modern-day Beatles vs. Stones?: Why people love arguing about the merits of R.E.M. vs. U2

Michael Stipe; Bono (Credit: AP/Getty/Salon)

It’s safe to say that Arcade Fire’s latest album cycle has provoked outrage. Throughout the lead-up to the release of a new LP, “Everything Now,” the band has drawn the ire of fans and foes alike with parodies of fake news sites, mock-ups of music websites and a pretend corporation supposedly controlling promotional content such as a re-recorded BBC theme song. This is (ostensibly) all part of what’s meant to be ironic commentary on modern society and how the line between art and commerce has blurred, although the campaign has mostly led to confusion and cynicism.

It should be no surprise Arcade Fire’s promotional gambits have attracted controversy. After all, the most contentious online debates (besides politics or religion, of course) involve music-related topics. Take the vinyl boom. Buying records is fun, right? Not necessarily: Topics such as pricing, sound quality, Record Store Day and whether the revival is fading frequently spawn heated, lengthy discussions. Arguing about the merits of lead singers opens another can of worms: Woe to the person who poses the question, “Was David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar the better lead singer of Van Halen?” without having hours available to moderate a flame war.

Comparing and contrasting R.E.M. and U2 also remains a lively topic of online conversation. On the surface, it’s easy to see why people have found this a vital discussion for decades now: To several generations of music fans, the two groups were akin to the Beatles and the Rolling Stones — rock bands who transformed culture via powerful art. Passionate art, of course, produces passionate fans — and liking U2 and/or R.E.M. signaled that you stood for something and looked at the world through a specific lens.

These lenses didn’t always overlap: For numerous reasons, Bono and co. were and are a polarizing presence that attracts plenty of vitriol. However, U2 and R.E.M. do share somewhat parallel career arcs and aesthetic influences. Both groups are deeply inspired by Patti Smith and the Velvet Underground, as well as the visual work of Anton Corbijn, and prioritize sonic integrity and sincerity. Both bands were (and are) politically minded and represent the activism-oriented, principled bent of the 1980s, the same decade each connected with increasingly larger audiences.

From a sonic perspective, both spent the ’90s pushing their sound forward. R.E.M. released the orchestral “Out Of Time” and elegiac “Automatic For the People,” cranked up the volume and electric guitars on “Monster,” and then went in lush, expansive directions with “New Adventures in Hi-Fi” and “Up.” U2, meanwhile, applied several coats of irony and mystique to their approach upon the release of “Achtung Baby” — a record filled with buzzsawing guitars and sinewy grooves — and dabbled in electronic textures and dance culture for “Zooropa and “Pop.”

Throughout their respective careers, both bands also used live concerts to enhance artistic expression. R.E.M.’s recently reissued “Live at the Olympia,” a record that documents the 2007 concerts the band spent woodshedding new material at a theater in Ireland. U2, meanwhile, has been trying out a new song, “The Little Things That Give You Away,” during the encore of select “The Joshua Tree” dates. That tour, for the record, is being heralded for its cutting-edge screen and projections.

Despite all of these similarities, both bands diverge in several significant ways. The obvious one is that R.E.M. broke up in 2011, while U2 has continued to tour and work on new music. However, while still extant, the former continued down a sonic path lined with reinvention, culminating in 2011’s “Collapse Into Now,” a distillation of the band’s influences and strengths. R.E.M. never made the same record twice.

U2, meanwhile, toned down its brazen experimentation and went to a more back-to-basics sound starting with 2000’s “All That You Can’t Leave Behind.” That didn’t mean the Irishmen also didn’t try to push themselves forward — 2009’s “No Line on the Horizon” featured more atmospheric electronics in spots, courtesy of Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois, while 2014’s maligned “Songs of Innocence” hasn’t received a fair shake for its depth — but the formula-tinkering occurred within a familiar, safer framework. As a result, it’s far easier to hear echoes of U2’s groundbreaking work in its modern sounds.

What it comes down to is that U2 and R.E.M. fandom isn’t an either/or proposition: Each group has its strong and weak albums; curveballs that people liked (and ones that they didn’t); and assessments and preferences that vary depending on personal tastes. As each group evolved, their music slowly accumulated disparate influences, nuances and experiences, which facilitated even more differentiation. For these reasons alone, placing the two bands against one another is inherently silly.

Yet, on a deeper level, the endless U2 vs. R.E.M. debate is a byproduct of the way people relish playing devil’s advocate, as well as society’s bizarre fascination with pitting artists against one another, regardless of whether the pairing is based in reality. After all, unlike the Beatles and the Stones — whose alleged rivalry is muddied with twists, turns and uncertainties — R.E.M. and U2 aren’t and were never at odds. Its members played together in a collaboration dubbed Automatic Baby for MTV’s 1993 Inaugural Ball for President Bill Clinton. More recently, R.E.M. shared a New Yorker story about U2 fandom on its Facebook page, and called the band a “great bunch of Irishmen!” In fact, Questlove even Instagrammed a video of Michael Stipe and Patti Smith having a blast at a recent U2 tour stop.

With such rock band comparisons, rankings tend to be heated and (mostly) in good fun, (except when talking about Bruce Springsteen or Bob Dylan, two acts whose canons are untouchable to many). But calls to determine what’s “the best” or “the greatest” bring out the competitive edge in people. Fans want to defend their beloved art because it’s an extension of who they are and what they stand for. Rationally, someone saying that R.E.M. is better than U2 (or vice versa) is personal opinion. But to someone who has years of fond and meaningful memories associated with the slighted group, it can feel like a stinging personal affront.

What’s amusing about the U2 vs. R.E.M. argument is that there is no clear endgame. Vocal U2 haters — and, again, this is a large population — likely won’t have their minds changed. People who think R.E.M. wasn’t the same after a certain milestone (leaving I.R.S. Records, say, or post-Bill Berry) also generally aren’t swayed by debates. The U2 vs. R.E.M. argument isn’t one where someone can declare a clear “winner” or “loser” because there simply isn’t one; there are too many variables at stake. Perhaps that’s the whole reason why the argument endures: There’s no tangible metric to determine who’s better, so all people can do is stake their claim on a side and dig in their heels.

“The Last Tycoon”: Visually rich, spiritually poor

Matt Bomer as Monroe Stahr in "The Last Tycoon" (Credit: Amazon)

Amazon’s “The Last Tycoon,” released Friday to Prime subscribers, drapes everything in satin and pearls. Even suits on its leading men Matt Bomer and Kelsey Grammer are crisp, impeccably tailored, lush. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s vision of the 1930s, rendered in his final unfinished novel “The Love of the Last Tycoon,” serves as the basis for the streaming service’s series, and given the author’s fondness for opulent settings and lush living, a show like this could not be effectively realized without soaking everything in romance and nostalgia, even the ugly parts.

From a business point of view, serving up “The Last Tycoon” is a smart way to cut through the summertime clutter if only to get people to talk about the service. Hollywood’s Golden Age is a seductive cultural siren even in this era of convenience, CGI trickery and lightning-paced production. Cinema of the 1930s was no less dominated by artifice, but it wore a luxe glow sadly missing from today’s television series and films.

The visuals alone in “The Last Tycoon” are mesmerizing; aesthetes can see the painstaking attention to detail with its set design, lighting and costumes. This stylistic feast frames outstanding performances by its cast — not just from Bomer and Grammer, but Lily Collins, Rosemarie DeWitt and Jennifer Beals, whose chameleonic portrayal lends a necessary poignancy to a storyline propped up by the artistry enveloping it.

Leading with glamour is what Hollywood does, of course, but looks alone aren’t enough to definitively carry nine episodes of drama and buy a viewer’s patience. There’s an adage that a TV series make its stars, not the other way around. “The Last Tycoon” exemplifies that.

However, if that old Hollywood idea that stars can make a picture somehow applies to this series on an hour-by-hour basis, Bomer’s wunderkind producer Monroe Stahr does provide a person plenty to enjoy in slices. As developed by screenwriter Billy Ray, who penned the pilot, Stahr is a man in love with the movies and in mourning for the wife he recently lost. She just happened to be the top starlet at Brady American, a production studio where Pat Brady (Grammer) toils that is struggling to stay in business in a market hungry for escapism but drained by the Depression and hovering on the brink of war.

Stahr loyally serves his boss Brady, but Brady envies his protégé’s talent and desirability and brazenly wields what clout he has to bed the women he desires. The studio king exemplifies the chauvinism, machismo and casual bigotry of the time and place. Grammer pours an abrasive gruffness into the character, but tempers it with a warmth that makes Brady a curiously appealing figure  nevertheless. When forced to confront the ramifications of his abusiveness, his Pat Brady displays a measure of empathy.

And yet Bomer’s Stahr is the more enigmatic of the two “Last Tycoon” leads, a figure likely to draw comparisons to “Mad Men” lead Don Draper due to his near-religious belief in the magic of filmmaking and its power to speak to the human experience.

Natural parallels with AMC’s signature period piece abound, including the two faces its characters wear in order to succeed and to survive. “The Last Tycoon” also takes a soft swipe at addressing issues of racial discrimination, mainly through Stahr’s handling of his Jewish heritage, which he masks to help him maintain his position among the town’s major players, even as Germany’s Nazi regime increases its insistent influence. Brady casually makes racist jokes and tosses off epithets in front of his subordinate, but Stahr lets them roll off of his back, playing the long game in a town that rewards youth and beauty.

And the younger producer’s quality of standing out even as he blends in endears him to those in his orbit who adore and desire him in equal measure, including Brady’s ambitious daughter Cecelia (Collins), whose aspirations are higher than simply being a Tinseltown princess.

Cecelia wants to wield her father’s level of authority and cultivate Stahr’s eye for uncovering brilliance. She also realizes he’s “the only person in this whole phony town who actually behaves like the men in the pictures,” and that gives him a unique appeal and leverage among the other men who pull the strings in Hollywood.

The flaw in this visual and stylistic gem, however, is that the plot beneath all this polish does not contain much in the way of human significance or honesty for a viewer to grab onto.

Collins’ Cecelia is designed to be the populist within the Brady household, inserting herself among the skilled laborers in her father’s company to develop empathy for the less fortunate in this world. The subplot feels contrived, although the fault does not lie with Collins who, like every other member of the cast, does her absolute best with shallowly written slices of character and story development.

Perhaps this is the flipside of that rigorousness from which the vision of “The Last Tycoon” benefits. In a quest to get every wisp of atmosphere specific to the era just right, the writers conformed too closely to a notion of how people in this era are supposed to sound and how action is supposed to unspool, and neglected to breathe spirit and soul into the script. Without such ballast, “The Last Tycoon” falls shy of meaningfully moving the viewer in a way that rouses a desire to see what happens next.

Regardless of this, “The Last Tycoon” may have legs. Streaming services such as Amazon are loath to cancel their series, especially projects wrapped in the fabric of prestige programming. And remember, Fitzgerald never wrote an ending to his story, which leaves the way open for many new chapters. The producers of “The Last Tycoon” may yet find a way to give its plot the same level of passion and integrity that they so keenly emphasized in its look. But they’d best hurry: The cruel truth about Hollywood and glamour is that audiences get used to beauty very quickly. As its initial impact wanes, so fades our obsession.

“There is power to the temporary relationships you have as an actor.”: John Cho stars in “Columbus”

Haley Lu Richardson and John Cho in "Columbus" (Credit: Sundance Institute)

John Cho has the starring role in the extraordinary new film, “Columbus,” written, directed and edited by the mono-monikered Kogonada. The Korean-born actor plays Jin, a translator for a publisher in Seoul, who travels to Columbus, Indiana to be near his father, an architecture professor who is in a coma. Jin reveals that he is not especially close with his father, but he does develop a deep, meaningful friendship with Casey (Haley Lu Richardson), a young woman who loves architecture and has stayed in Columbus to care for her mother (Michelle Forbes). Cho and Richardson have an ingratiating, natural rapport that develops as they visit various architectural sites and discuss their lives.

Cho gives a finely calibrated performance that is both profound and affecting. The actor, who is perhaps best known for his work as Sulu in the “Star Trek” films or from the goofball “Harold and Kumar” comedies, appears both enigmatic and transparent in “Columbus” — sometimes within the same scene. Jin may come off as serious, even hard at first, but as the film progresses, he and Casey reveal their emotions, vulnerabilities and sensitivities.

The magic of Kogonada’s exquisite and very moving film extends to how the director frames every shot brilliantly, incorporating Columbus, Indiana’s modernist architecture as a way of expressing the characters’ thoughts and feelings

Cho spoke with Salon about starring in “Columbus,” and the things and people that move him.

There was a buzzy twitter campaign, #starringjohncho, that raised concerns over the lack of leading man roles for Asian American actors. Can you discuss starring in “Columbus”?

There’s not much planning to my career. It’s more “this moves me, and I have to do it.” That was the case with this script. I met Kogonada and I had to do it. I’ve done things for reasons other than passion, and you can’t strategize your career — or at least, that doesn’t work for me. In the political context you’re speaking about, it’s not a reaction to the plight of the Asian American male, but I wear that as a badge of pride. “Columbus” doesn’t play to stereotypes by fighting them. It’s confident enough to be its own story and shrug off the noise about stereotypes and diversity. That’s why I was attracted to it. I’m less concerned with politics and more about expression and truth.

“Star Trek” was satisfying to me because it was living out a fantasy of my youth and being in a film I would have seen when I was 12. It was thrilling. “Columbus” is a film I would have seen and loved at 20 or 22, that age when you realize film is an art form, and you are getting excited about the past masters. This was so connected to that moment of my youth.

Do you feel pressure to deliver an audience?

I’m not sure what the formula is — and I thought about this a lot — other than: What is the strategy to convince the current gatekeepers their model is flawed? The end of the day, for me — and I’m not dismissing the question — but the answer is to behave independently, and follow your heart, and do what you’re interested in. Thinking about or reacting to stereotypes is its own trap. I’m trying as best I can to not think about it, and I think less about Hollywood and the people who hold the strings of power, and more about Asian Americans and pleasing them and making them proud, or giving them something they can point to and say, “This is good.” And that’s its own trap, too. I don’t know that an artist should be pleasing his own group. It should be about expressing himself. But I can’t deny pleasing my own people.

Casey and Jin develop a bond that is stronger than either of their relationships with their parent. Can you describe a person that has impacted your life in a profound way?

Wow. That’s tough. I was reflecting today that I am drawn to older brother types. My father programmed me because he grew up fatherless, and he looked for older brothers to lean on for guidance. I’ve constantly sought out older men to guide me. It’s strange; they are usually unreliable. [Laughs]. I can’t think of a person who is quite the crutch that Casey and Jin are to each other. I think of the character [played by Everett Sloane] in “Citizen Kane,” who tells the story of girl with the parasol that he saw once, and he thought of for fifty years.

There is power to the temporary relationships you have as an actor. You go in with these casts — and even as a college student, it was amazing how fast you would get intimate with these people — and then you’d never see them again. That is part of the appeal — the ephemeral, transient nature of these people. We are attracted to them because we know they are going out of our lives, possibly forever.

There are a few gestures of kindness from strangers that keep me alive. I was in junior high, and we were moving around a lot. There was an art teacher, Ms. Matsuda — I hope she’s alive and reads this. They were closing the school, and during the summer she called me and said she thought I was talented. We were dirt poor. She told me to come over to the school, and she gave me a box of art paper. I used that paper sparingly for years. I thought of her every single time I drew something, and I was so thankful she gave me this art paper I couldn’t have afforded.

[Pauses, continues]. We were in Seattle and this church family invited us to their home for Christmas and they gave us gifts. I’ll never forget that. It’s a reminder to me not just to be thankful, but for the elasticity of humanity. As much awfulness as there is in the world, this happens also. These kindnesses, you can live on them for years.

There’s a line in the film about Koreans placing importance on family but more importance on work. Can you talk about your family and how they view your work as an actor?

They have always been worried more than anything else. They didn’t forbid me. When I was first starting, they were very unimpressed, even though I was getting shows and plays. But at some point a Korean newspaper interviewed me, and after that I was golden. I had arrived because of “The Korea Times.”

In the larger picture, they can relate deep down as immigrants to the pursuit of happiness, even if they prefer I do something more stable. But they take pride in that I’m representing Asians well. To them, that’s the highest calling. My father was a preacher, so if there’s a service angle, he likes it. My career does a service for the community. That pleases them.

Jin’s dress sense is very deliberate in the film. How would you describe your personal style?

[Laughs]. I don’t know … I sometimes think I dress very normal American boy, jeans, t-shirts, and it doesn’t seem much of a choice. But nowadays I’ll run into someone from Korea and think they are well dressed, and I look like I’m in cowboy drag. It’s almost comical. I remember saying to Emily, the film’s costume designer, I wanted to look like the modernist buildings.

Casey shows Jin her favorite architectural locations in “Columbus.” What was your favorite architectural location from the film?

Maybe because I grew up in churches, my number one is the North Christian Church designed by Saarinen’s son [Eero]. In that church, the preacher is in the center, below the congregants, so the congregants are seated in the round in this beautiful, hexagonal place. They look at each other. God isn’t the building. It’s us, and the preacher is your servant. It was a great example of how space can encourage a certain feeling or thinking. It was holy to me.

There’s a terrific speech in the film where Gabe, played by Rory Culkin, talks about books versus video games. What are your thoughts on the ideas in “Columbus?”

I look at [Gabe’s] speech in the film as, don’t bring a prejudice into knowledge, or think that one thing is more preferable than the other or that we’re dealing with ideas that are loftier. It’s all meaningful, and it’s a mistake to put labels on knowledge or categorize it.

I’m in a place in my life where I’m trying to learn or unlock my own psychology, and I’m at an age where my parents are getting older, and I’m thinking about habits, culture, and why I am who I am, and how my parents are who they are, and applying that to how I raise my children. I love it all, and now I’m inundated with knowledge because I have children. They are great because any fact is thunderous to them. Did you know that a tadpole becomes a frog? In the most basic way, it’s vital.

Packing heat in Kansas, part 2: “I do not want to be a victim”

In the second part of our exploration into guns in the heartland, we talk to newer members of the community about what made them want to learn about firearms.

Walking into a gun range in Kansas is a bit like walking into an underground community meeting. The people in charge have a strict regard for the rules, the regulars seem to all know each other’s names, and each member has a unique reason for joining. This club meeting features display cases filled with handguns and rifles and areas to shoot those weapons.

Kansas has been an epicenter of debate around guns, but there has been little conversation around why someone might choose to own a firearm.

The gun laws have gotten less restrictive in Kansas in recent years. Kansas now allows concealed carry on the campuses of all public universities and colleges. The Kansas Personal and Family Protection Act (KPFPA) law enables Kansans to carry concealed weapons in public buildings. Kansas also removed the requirement that individuals have a permit in order to conceal and carry a handgun in 2015

Two shooting and training gun ranges, Thunderbird Firearms Academy and RANGE 54, are working to create a more inclusive gun culture in the Wichita area. Both facilities offer classes on handgun fundamentals, conceal and carry, and self-defense.        

The people that use these businesses were asked what prompted them to be a firearm owner. Each reason for owning a gun is distinctive, but many share similar themes of safety, empowerment and self-reliance.

Ryan Pennock, owner of Thunderbird Firearms Academy, said that his goal is to help people feel safer and more prepared through focusing on the defensive aspect of guns. “I help people live safer lives through training by teaching them about the safety, fundamentals and defensive skills involved with using guns,” said Pennock.

Click the photos to enlarge.

Lori (asked not share her last name for safety reasons)

“Guns are about protection and safety. I went to the range to understand more about guns. My husband gave me my first gun after I found which one I liked the best. I like shooting and guns not only for the safety that they provide but for recreation as well. It’s one of the things that my husband and I share.”

Tiffany Beahan

“Prior to coming to work at the gun range, I had never handled a firearm before, never owned a firearm, wasn’t raised with them in the house, didn’t go hunting, nothing like that. It was a big introduction to me. When I first came and first started learning about them, it was the sports side of shooting. After I’d grown into learning about the guns and shooting them, I grew to respect them. The reason that I now own a firearm is because I do not want to be a victim. I want to be able to defend myself if I ever have to or am put in a situation where I need to, that I could.”

Lisa Jones

“I own a firearm because my husband is out of town a lot, and I have two kids, and I wanted to be able to protect us if I needed to. I also enjoy shooting. I’m signing up for a conceal and carry course so that I will able to understand the laws and everything that surrounds firearms. The reason I’m doing this is for the safety of my children.”

Tiana Kuntz

“Some girlfriends and I decided to go out shooting for recreation. I enjoyed shooting. I know a lot of people that have guns for home protection and didn’t see any reason why that we ourselves shouldn’t be able to. So we come to the range to get educated to know how to properly use guns and know the laws so that we are doing things right. We shoot both for fun and I’ve been blessed to never have to use it for protection but I do know how to if I have to.”

Angel (asked not to share her last name for safety reasons)

“I’m a single mom, and I own a firearm for personal protection of myself and my kids. It’s turned into a crazy world, and I think women are a huge target for people, and I don’t want to be caught off guard. I don’t want to have anything happen to my children or myself. I also enjoy shooting. I like to go the ranch and shoot targets. It’s fun and it’s a stress reliever.”

Richard (asked not to share his last name for safety reasons)

“I decided to purchase a firearm for my personal protection in case multiple people try to break in or try to mug me. One-on-one is coo,l but two-on-one is a different story. That’s why I became a gun owner. I feel confident walking the streets and in my house. Also my sister and my nephew came to visit, and I taught them how to shoot to get the feeling of firing a gun. So they got the scaredness out of their head.”

Devaughn and Angela Granger (son and mother)

Devaughn: “I wanted to pick up another hobby. That’s where it started. I have a couple of close friends that are gun owners, and I came to the range with them once or twice. I got started there, and then it eventually grew into something that I have a passion for and do multiple times a week now. I decided to get my mom involved, and it developed into something that my mom and I do together.”

Angela: “I like guns for personal protection purposes. I got into them because of my son. He’s also a gun owner. He started before I did. I love being at the range with him. Anything we do, we are very competitive. To have him teaching me something is good and he’s a very good teacher.”