Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 690
August 13, 2016
We might not have to bail out the banks again, says real-life “Big Short” investor Steve Eisman
Steve Eisman (Credit: Danielle Eisman)
The email came unexpectedly while I was still recovering from a debaucherous weekend in Mexico. I had just published a piece with Salon on why we may end up needing to bail out the banks again, and I got a response from someone who disagreed. It was Steve Eisman, the person Steve Carell played in “The Big Short.”
“I suppose future bailouts are not inconceivable,” Eisman wrote, but he thought I wasn’t speaking with the right people and hadn’t shown how much the banking industry has changed for the better. I had interviewed two economists and gotten a short quote from Noam Chomsky, who had made the claim about bailing out the banks before, but Eisman wanted to offer some insight from within the industry.
“The changes have been massive,” Eisman said in a phone interview with Salon. “You think about the financial crisis as basically two things: way too much leverage in the large institutions, and then a very large asset-class sub-prime mortgage blowup.”
Eisman said these things have changed. Prior to the crisis, bank regulators had two jobs: insuring the safety and soundness of the banking system, and protecting consumers from financial institutions. “They failed at both tasks about as miserably as anyone can fail at anything in the history of Planet Earth,” Eisman said.
In response, how banking was regulated changed and Congress created the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010. While the economists I spoke to for the previous article didn’t think it had been used to change the banking industry in a significant enough way, Eisman said it has.
Dodd-Frank established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Elizabeth Warren has been touting as a major success for years. It’s a watchdog agency that protects consumers from financial institutions. The Bureau has done everything from protecting people from predatory mortgage lending to protecting them from credit card scams. Eisman said they have done a good job reining in the banking industry.
The Fed is in charge of handling the safety and soundness of the banking industry. “If you ever had the misfortune of reading all 2,000 pages of Dodd-Frank, which I have done, and it almost killed me, basically all it does is create a list of all the things it wants the Fed to fix,” Eisman said. It doesn’t give them any direction, so Eisman assumed it would fail, because he thought the regulators were captured. He said he was wrong.
The main person in charge of making sure Dodd-Frank properly regulated the banks has been a member of the Federal Reserve Board’s Board of Governors named Daniel Tarullo. “Daniel Tarullo has more power of the U.S. banking system than anybody since Alexander Hamilton,” Eisman said. “That’s not an exaggeration, by the way.”
Eisman said he’s read Tarullo’s speeches sequentially, and you can see that the man went from trusting banks to not trusting them over time. He’s accomplished a lot in trying to make banks behave properly. Possibly the most important change the Fed has made in its attempts to make the banking industry safer is how it’s forced banks to be levered. As a reminder, we’re talking about how much equity a bank actually keeps.
Prior to the crisis, Citigroup was levered at about 33 to 1, Eisman said, and it was actually more than 33 to 1. A lot the shadow banking activity was not captured on the balance sheet. He said a large amount of that shadow banking doesn’t exist anymore.
“Let’s call it 33 to 1 for the sake of argument,” Eisman said. “Today, Citigroup is levered at 9 to 1. That may not mean a lot to you, but in my world, that’s the difference between Mercury and Pluto.”
Eisman thinks that’s an adequate amount of leverage for a bank to remain safe, and all major institutions have changed their levels of leverage to something around that amount. “Believe me, the banks didn’t do that for you and me,” Eisman said. “They did that because Tarullo told them to do it, and they had to do it. They did it against their will, kicking and screaming, but they did it.”
Instead of a bank operating with 3 or 4 percent in capital, it might now operate holding around 10 or 11 percent in capital. Essentially, if a bank is going to lend out $1 million, it has to have at least around $100,000 in its reserve to do that. “When you’re levered 9 to 1, it’d be unreal for a bank to go down,” Eisman said.
In my previous article, economists argued banks should hold even more equity. Many would like to see banks holding 20 or 30 percent in capital, but Eisman said that’s a bad idea. “At 20-30 percent capital, no bank can make its cost of capital (today cost of capital is around 10 percent),” he said in an email. That means if a bank wants to make any real money while holding that much equity, it would have to do something like charge a lot more for lending, which would be bad for the customer.
Another change in banking practices Eisman pointed to was the Volcker Rule, which is the part of Dodd-Frank that eliminated all proprietary trading and limited how much banks can invest in hedge funds or private equity. He said that has also made the banking industry much safer.
Eisman said he feels weird arguing that the banking industry is currently safe. “It’s a little odd for me to be on this side of the debate, since I was so much on the other side of the debate, but facts change, I change,” Eisman said. “I think the issue is a lot of people don’t know the facts, because a lot of this stuff is very technical, and for whatever reason, the government hasn’t advertised it that much.”
He said the government has done a “terrible job” of explaining how much the level of risk in the banking industry has gone down, and it really hasn’t bothered to explain it at all. Eisman believes there’s still more that can be done to make banking safer, but he thinks it’s slowly coming. “Things are definitely moving in the right direction,” he said. “For the first time since I’ve been studying the financial industry, I don’t worry about the financial system.”
Eisman said the concept of breaking up the banks is a debate worth having, but much has already changed in banking that has made the industry much less worrisome. That said, Eisman has personally argued against breaking up the big banks.
August 12, 2016
My husband wouldn’t read my memoir: “It’s just too painful”
Zoe Zolbrod (Credit: Elizabeth McQuern)
I was rummaging through the laundry I’d just poured on my bed, looking for my daughter’s soccer jersey, when the stack of white pages caught my eye. It was the full draft of the memoir that I’d given my husband Mark to read almost six months ago, and it sat on his dresser covered in a fine layer of dust. Harried, annoyed at the constant need to rush as well as the mess, I said aloud what I usually just thought to myself.
“I can’t believe you still haven’t read my manuscript.”
“I haven’t had time!” He was bending over the other side of the bed, searching the pile for the shirt he was supposed to wear as the team’s assistant coach. “Every minute I get to read, it’s for my class.”
He was enrolled in graduate school, taught art at a middle school, and did freelance work on the side. But despite how hectic his days were, I was keenly aware that he’d had some chances.
“There was winter break,” I pushed back. “And spring break.” I didn’t add that he’d watched plenty of TV.
As was frequently the case, the moment wasn’t right for us to talk through the conflict. Our youngest child was calling us from downstairs to say she couldn’t find her cleats. The laundry wasn’t done, nor was the grocery shopping. The next day would start another busy week, where our typical schedule had my husband leaving for work before 6:00 a.m. and me returning from my own job 12 hours later.
The opportunity for us to be alone together was limited to begin with, and in my scant free time I often stole away to write. I’d been working for three years on the story of how I interpreted my early childhood sexual abuse at different points in my development, a project that required me to revisit uncomfortable memories and to research sexual assault and pedophilia.
The dissonance between this difficult material and our cozy family life could make me agitated, but I didn’t talk about it much during the late-evening hours on weekends when my husband and I could connect. Our instinct was to relax in each other’s company then, hanging out with friends or curling up on the couch for a show. My manuscript represented to me the complicated internal life I still hoped to share with him but didn’t have the energy to talk about, and his reluctance to read it felt like a lack of interest in the parts of me that didn’t operate as a co-parent. It sometimes also felt like disapproval.
We hadn’t always needed to put things in writing to communicate on deeper levels, of course. Some of the chapters in the memoir cover our early years together, which were heavy on chatty dinners and walks along Lake Michigan. He’d already heard plenty of the anecdotes I was writing about, but my interpretations of them had shifted, and I wanted him to follow where my thinking had gone. I also wanted his take on how I wrote about us.
An important scene in the memoir occurs on our fourth date. Having made out thrillingly the last time we’d seen each other, we were giddy with the certainty that on this evening we were heading to bed for the first time. We couldn’t stop kissing each other at a neighborhood bar where we sat on a tucked-away couch. I pulled away at one point, meaning to suggest that we leave our drinks unfinished and head back to my place. But that wasn’t what came out.
“I was molested when I was little. I don’t think it damaged me or anything, but I just thought you should know.”
The abuse was on my mind because a visit with a relative had stirred up old memories, but Mark wasn’t the first person I had told, nor the first boyfriend. Those other men had been sympathetic, but they’d also left me with the feeling that I’d been broken, and that the cracks showed through the repairs. One of them expressed anger larger than I felt.
Mark reacted differently.
“Should we stop?” His tone was kind but also light—it bespoke no preconceptions.
“No!” I said.
In our first year together, he continued to show a nonjudgmental openness when I filled him in on my past and we analyzed why I might have blurted out my disclosure at a big romantic juncture. This helped me to work out my own feelings about the abuse rather than reacting to others’, something I’d struggled with through the years.
Now, raising two kids in a house we’d bought and rehabbed together, I wanted to know what he thought about the way I’d written about our younger selves. And what about the ways I’d written about our foray into parenting, and our son and daughter? I trusted his perspective on this above any one else’s, but that summer I replaced the manuscript on his dresser with one revised in light of my writer’s groups comments, and the following winter with a third revision that I was sending out to agents. They remained untouched.
I did not quit asking him to read it, in tones ranging from cheerful to plaintive to bitter. He’d answer with vague excuses, and each time he pledged to get to it soon.
We’d been together for nearly 20 years at this point. Most of the things that troubled each of us about the other we’d either been able to work on or adapt to until it was possible to joke about them. But this was one of those cases that can alter the geography of a marriage, a collision of tectonic plates that creates a mountain range. Mark was supportive in other ways related to the memoir—helping me find time to write, comforting me when strong emotions arose. But I couldn’t stop wanting him to read the book, and he continued to tacitly refuse.
The stalemate lasted long enough to see us reach a less intense phase of child rearing. Our oldest child began to walk or bike himself to school and rehearsals. Our youngest child was spending more time at friends’ homes. One afternoon when Mark and I were alone, I framed the issue in terms of the general health of our relationship, saying that I couldn’t imagine bridging the growing distance between us if he wouldn’t read my book. Finally he offered me a frank answer about why he hadn’t finished it.
“I’ve started it four times. I can’t get past page 60. It’s just too painful for me to read.”
When pressed, he admitted it wasn’t just the scene of sexual abuse that was difficult for him, it was also a scene of good sex with a boyfriend I’d traveled with when I was 20.
At least this was something specific we could talk about, and we even had the opportunity. But the conversation didn’t break our impasse. Not only did I have trouble accepting his response—he’d known about the specifics of the abuse, and our relationship had not been marked by jealous backward glances. But I couldn’t understand how two early scenes, even if troubling, could prevent him from continuing on when he knew the book was larger in scope, as well as so important to me.
He vowed to try again, but I didn’t believe he would. Meanwhile, I had found an agent, but we were receiving rejections from the big publishing houses, who admired the writing but were worried about the topic from a marketing perspective. I felt dejected. If even my husband couldn’t handle it, could I blame them?
I also grew embarrassed. Plenty of my writer friends had partners who were their first readers, and I developed a knack for zooming in on the lines in acknowledgements pages that praised spouses who’d read every word of the manuscript again and again—as Mark had done with my first novel. It’s one thing to know you shouldn’t compare your marriage to other people’s marriages, and it’s another not to do it—especially when you’re feeling insecure.
When the book sold, the designer asked for my input on cover images. Mark and I looked through his artwork together, discussing each piece in terms of the theme and mood of the book. I felt a pang that I had to explain so much to him, but also pleasure in seeing him gain a spark from my ideas. We submitted several pieces. The publisher chose one titled “Love Poem: Chicago.” It was a collage built around a photograph Mark had taken of the skyline as seen from the spot on the lakeshore where we used to bask.
At a dinner, when Mark’s new employer asked whether Mark read my writing, I could feel him stiffen beside me. I was able to take his arm and say he’d not read this latest book, but that it was his image on the cover. We looked at each other and smiled—an old married pair communicating a long history in a glance. Maybe I was going to be able to accept this state of affairs after all. I wasn’t sure whether eventually finding a way to joke about it would be a sign of our relationship’s weakness or its strength.
The advance readers copies came, and they began to be distributed to early readers and potential reviewers, who often remarked upon the beautiful cover.
“I better read this!” Mark said emphatically one day, as if he’d just realized Christmas was upon him and he hadn’t gone shopping. I started to see him lying diagonally across our bed, leaving other things undone while he was propped on his elbows reading my book.
We were in the kitchen making dinner when he told me he’d finished it. He was enthusiastic, and wanted to talk. At first, I felt shy. My hands went cold around my wine glass, and I found it hard to reply. Was he being sincere? But our conversation became natural. We were cut off when our son came in the door, full of things he had to tell us right away. But that felt okay. I knew that later, there’d be time to continue what we’d started.
How Jeff Bridges built his fascinating body of work: “I tried hard not to develop too strong a persona”
Jeff Bridges in "Hell or High Water" (Credit: CBS FIlms)
Jeff Bridges is a character actor in a leading man’s body. He may be better known for playing The Dude in “The Big Lebowski” than for his Oscar-winning turn as a country music star in “Crazy Heart.” Arguably, however, the actor’s most unforgettable performance is as an ex-con in the astonishing drama “American Heart.”
As an actor, Bridges is a true shape-shifter, moving effortlessly between low-budget indies and Hollywood blockbusters, comedies and dramas, playing villains and heroes. What makes Bridges the best thing in whatever he is in is his ability to continually defy expectations.
Consider his terrific new film, “Hell or High Water.” Here Bridges plays Marcus Hamilton, a Texas Ranger a few weeks from retirement, who is in pursuit of Toby and Tanner Howard (Chris Pine and Ben Foster, respectively). Bridges never makes Hamilton a cliché, putting a wry, comical spin on his intelligent character. He also creates plenty of suspense about how things will play out. The actor is eager to talk about Hamilton, but he insists we do not discuss the plot of the film. “It’s tough to discuss. I want to know as little as possible when I see a film. I’m sure you’re the same way. I want to be surprised.” Suffice it to say, “Hell or High Water” does not go in expected directions. Not unlike Bridges’ career.
The actor spoke with Salon about his iconic roles, his career longevity, the late Michael Cimino, and “Hell or High Water.”
You have given some amazing performances in films like “Cutter’s Way” and “American Heart,” but also “Starman,” “Fearless” and “True Grit.” What brings you to a film like “Hell or High Water?”
“Hell or High Water” is a smaller film. I’m up for doing a big-budget “Iron Man” where you get to play a super villain—that’s fun for me. I like to mix it up. My father Lloyd, growing up with him, he had “Sea Hunt,” where he played a skin diver. And he did such a good job people thought he was a skin diver. But the ramification of that was that he got a lot of skin diver roles. He was a versatile actor. He did Shakespeare and comedy. I saw how frustrated he was doing that [skin diver] persona. So when I started out, I tried hard not to develop too strong a persona. Loving movies myself, I know when I see a film with someone with a strong persona, it’s hard to overlay another character on top of that. I bring baggage to it. Early on, I tried to do a variety of roles so I could pleasantly confuse the audience, and let the people who finance the movies know I can play many things.
You mentioned “American Heart” by Mary Ellen Mark and Martin Bell. That was something that rang true. That film developed from an assignment Mary Ellen had, to do a photo essay. Then Martin made the documentary [“Streetwise”] and then we made the film. They were so familiar with the life that movie portrayed, it added a richness to it.
In “Hell or High Water” you play a Texas Ranger weeks from retirement. You inject the character with a laconic wryness. How do you not make Hamilton a cliché?
You know, so much has to do with the script. When I read this one, it jumped out at me. It felt so authentic and real. Taylor Sheridan [the screenwriter] must have known something about the Texas Rangers, and it turns out his cousin is a marshal in Texas, so that was true. But also… “Hell or High Water” is the kind of film I want to see. That’s what draws me to being in a movie. This one is filled with ambiguity—who you should be rooting for. That reflects the paradoxical nature of life. In addition, I had seen David McKenzie’s “Starred Up,” so I wanted to work with him.
Hamilton has smarts that belie his years on the force. How does playing a character of great intelligence compare to say, The Dude from “The Big Lebowski?” Both are crime solvers, but approach things in a very different way.
Whenever I can, I try to get a role model. I was fortunate on “Hell or High Water” to have [Haynie] Joaquin Jackson, a renowned Texas Ranger, on the set with us. I got a lot from him. A lot was subconscious. He gave me tips on attitudes and wardrobe, but hanging out with him and soaking up his personality helped.
For The Dude, I looked at myself, saw what I could use, and magnified it for the role. That’s the beginning, and then it’s what aspects of the character do I want to kick to the curb that don’t apply? For The Dude, I used a lot of myself, and the Coen brothers had a guy named Jeff Dowd who was their inspiration. We met and talked, but I didn’t base the role on Dowd too much.
You have played cops and criminals throughout your career. Do you have a preference? Or maybe you prefer to play a character like murder suspect Jack Forrester in “Jagged Edge,” who may be a hero or a villain?
I like both, not one more than the other. It’s interesting to explore the darker side, but the hero piece is interesting as well. It’s like choosing between comedy or drama. I like to do both.
What particularly impressed me about your performance was a key scene where Hamilton has to take a shot. There’s a tension in him to do it, but also a very palpable reaction/response after he fires the gun. Can you talk about how you portrayed this scene, which reveals so much about his character?
Yeah, a lot of that is in the script and hanging with Joaquin. Then there is just the acting of the scene, the “surprise” element; you can’t calculate how you are going to respond. So you let the emotion, in the process of putting yourself in the character’s position, you let it rip through your body. It’s a bit of an improvisation, really. You don’t know what’s going to happen.
Are you a good shot in real life?
Pretty good. In real life, I shot an M1 [rifle] in boot camp.
What can you say about Hamilton’s sense of humor? He has several sly, racist comments about his partner, Alberto (Gil Birmingham), that are amusing and insulting at the same time.
I come from a family of teasers myself. My grandfather was from Liverpool, and he had a dry sense of humor and he would tease us terribly. My brother Beau was so skilled in his teasing that he could get a rise out of me by simply pointing at me. My mother and father would explain it was affection—that Beau knew me so well he knew what buttons to push. But it’s tough being on the other end of that. That kind of teasing is prevalent. And it’s also how you’re raised and treated by your family. You witness your parents’ behavior.
Hamilton’s partner Alberto is constantly teasing him about his impending retirement. Do you think there will come a time when you’ll stop acting and focus on something else?
Well, I’m kind of doing that now in a way with this music thing late in my career—making it professional. I’ve been playing music since I was a teen, but “Crazy Heart” inspired me to get a band together, The Abiders. Unlike Texas Rangers, we actors don’t have a stop date, so I don’t know about retiring. Sometimes I want to stop acting, but then you get a good script!
With all you’ve done in your career, is there a part you always wanted to play, or an actor or director you wish you could/could have worked with?
Not really. I’m not one of those guys who has to play FDR. I like to be so inspired by a script that I’ve got to do it. I do my best to not engage in the scripts. I’m pretty fussy. That’s my method. I don’t have anything I’m dying to do. I wanted to use my music when “Crazy Heart” came along.
You also made beautiful music with “The Fabulous Baker Boys.”
Yes, “The Baker Boys!” Two first time directors, Steve Kloves for “Baker Boys” and Scott Cooper for “Crazy Heart,” and they knocked it out of the park!
Speaking of directors, is it too soon to ask you about working with the late Michael Cimino?
He was a wonderful director and I loved working with him. I did his first film, “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot,” with him, and then we made “Heaven’s Gate.” Both were different experiences and different films, but I’m happy “Heaven’s Gate” is getting more respect these days. It’s a beautiful film. I could go on about Mike. I live in Montana in the Hog Ranch that was used as the whorehouse in “Heaven’s Gate.” Mike gave it to me.
“Making a Murderer”‘s Brendan Dassey’s murder conviction overturned, deemed unconstitutional
Brendan Dassey (Credit: AP/Dan Powers)
Brendan Dassey — one of the subjects of Netflix’s true-crime documentary series, “Making a Murderer” — had his conviction overturned on Friday, according to reports.
Dassey is serving a 41-year prison sentence for first-degree murder, second-degree sexual assault, and mutilation of a corpse for his involvement in the 2005 death of Teresa Halbach.
Dassey’s uncle, Steven Avery — the focus of the Netflix series — is currently serving a life sentence without parole for Halbach’s torture and murder.
According to TMZ, a federal judge ruled, “Dassey’s borderline to below average intellectual ability likely made him more susceptible to coercive pressures than a peer of higher intellect.”
Wisconsin prosecutors have 90 days to appeal. If the State decides not to refile within that timeframe, Dassey will be released as a free man.
Trump on claiming Obama is “founder” of ISIS: “Obviously I’m being sarcastic … but not that sarcastic”
At his rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, on Friday afternoon, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump tried to explain his assertion that President Obama “founded” ISIS.
“Obviously, I’m being sarcastic,” Trump said. “But not that sarcastic to be honest with you.”
Trump mocked less impulsive pundits — like Hugh Hewitt — who told him to lighten his rhetoric and perhaps call the president “an enabler” instead of the “founder” of the terrorist organization.
“That doesn’t sound the same,” Trump explained, before criticizing the media for the umpteenth time: “These people are the lowest form of life.”
Trump returned to his usual quip, saying that, “very soon,” Obama is “going over to pick up his most valuable player award.”
On a similar note, Trump later treated the crowd of 9,000 to a rare spoken-word recitation of “The Snake” by civil rights activist and singer-songwriter Oscar Brown, Jr. Trump has recited the lyrics — which he appropriates to caution against the United States’ acceptance of Syrian refugees — at a handful of his previous rallies along the trail.
Brown’s family has asked Trump to stop using the lyrics.
Do yourself a favor and watch below:
WATCH: Donald Trump reads poem 'The Snake,' draws comparison to refugees https://t.co/zX0SupdamB
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) August 12, 2016
Ann Coulter needs a dictionary — and so does Donald Trump
Ann Coulter (Credit: AP/Andy Kropa/Masson via Shutterstock)
Quick question, my right-wing friends — how’d you do on the verbal of your SATs? Because I’m concerned you don’t seem to know what words mean. I’m not talking the ornate, sesquipedalian variety. I mean really basic ones. Can we take up a collection to get you a dictionary?
First, of course, there’s Trump, whose grip on basic vocabulary words like “sexism,” “rigged” and “war hero” has long been shaky. At a rally on Wednesday, he said that President Barack Obama is “the founder of ISIS. He founded ISIS.” On Thursday, he reiterated the assertion, telling Hugh Hewitt, “No, I meant that he’s the founder of ISIS.”
But then on Friday, he tweeted out to his increasingly appalled public, “Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) “the founder” of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON’T GET SARCASM?”
Dude, if you actually knew the first thing about journalists, you’d know that half of what they say is sarcasm. Could Trump have thought he was engaging in something that is instead called “hyperbole?” Could he have believed that when a person is asked for clarification and says yes, he meant what he said, it actually counts as sarcasm? Because it seems like a working knowledge of how sarcasm truly operates would be a helpful skill for a world leader to have, and that at this point, Trump doesn’t possess it.
Then there’s Ann Coulter. Yes, literally every single thing she says is garbage — and yes, I do know the precise meaning of the word “literally” — but on Thursday she outdid even herself, in a column in which she called Trump a “victim of media rape.” She also condemned “sissy conservatives,” writing, “Craven Republicans who blame Trump for the media’s lies may as well blame a rape victim for wearing a short skirt. Except with Trump, it’s the Muslim standard: They’re blaming a woman’s rape on being a woman.” I think it’s a safe bet that among her numerous shortcomings, Ann Coulter has no idea what rape is.
And though we could go on in this vein all day — check out Paul Ryan’s definition of American universities as a “cartel” — let’s just leave the conversation for now with poor Rudy Giuliani, who only Thursday was standing proudly behind Trump in his now “sarcastic” remarks about Obama and ISIS. Speaking on CNN, the former New York mayor defended the comments, calling them — seriously — “legitimate political commentary.” And if that’s not a clear case of someone who has zero idea what any one of those words mean, I don’t know what is.
Quiz! Trump’s tweets: Real or Fake?
Nobody composes tweets quite like Donald Trump does, but we decided to try our hand at it. See if you can separate ours from the real thing.
Real
Fake
Real
Fake
Real
Fake
Real
Fake
Real
Fake
Real
Fake
Real
Fake
Real
Fake
Real
Fake
Real
Fake
New Spotify Gaming wants to be the musical score to your high score
(Credit: Spotify)
Have you ever played Final Fantasy and wished you could feel more like Cloud Strife in everyday life? Well, Spotify wants to help you out with that — at least on an auditory level. The streaming music service just announced a brand new gaming portal, where original video game soundtracks will be featured alongside curated playlists with titles like “Power Gaming” and “Retrowave.”
The range of music available is pretty impressive, with soundtracks from big name games like Grand Theft Auto, Halo, Call of Duty: Black Ops III, and even Madden NFL. The curated content will come from outlets like Mashable and Engadget, and enthusiast magazines like Polygon and Gamesbeat.
Gaming super fans can also contribute their personal favorite track lists, though so far those are a bit more hit or miss. The “Retro Gaming” playlist, for example, contains curious song choices like “…Baby, One More Time,” “Kiss from a Rose,” and, most inexplicably, Shaggy’s “It Wasn’t Me.” But hey, whatever gets you through Assassin’s Creed.
Spotify Gaming will feature range, everything from ‘80’s mono tunes (capitalizing on the current Reagan-era nostalgia craze) to newly released tracks. “Whether you’re jumping down tubes as an Italian plumber, battling hordes of evil enemies, or playing Barcelona at the Camp Nou, we got you covered with the perfect soundtrack,” the company boasts in its press release about the new portal. Spotify Gaming is available on all platforms, including Playstation, via the service’s Browse feature.
Whatever your feelings about the intersection of music and gaming, the creative potential is great. Recently, UK drone artists 65Daysofstatic recorded a score for popular dystopian game No Man’s Land, unprompted by the gaming company or Spotify. So there’s every reason to believe Spotify Gaming could be something even non-gamers can get excited about.
Clinton taunts Trump while releasing her tax returns: “What is he trying to hide?”
Hillary Clinton released her 2015 tax return Friday, issuing a challenge to rival Donald Trump to do the same
“He has failed to provide the public with the most basic financial information disclosed by every major candidate in the last 40 years,” Clinton said in a statement issued by campaign spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri Friday. “What is he trying to hide?”
According to their joint return, the Clintons made $10.6 million in 2015, significantly less than the nearly $28 million they made the year before when the former secretary of state was still doing paid speaking engagements.
In 2015, the Clinton’s paid $3.24 million in federal income taxes, amounting to effective tax rate as 34%, according to the Clinton campaign. The Democratic presidential candidate has proposed under her tax plan that anyone with adjusted gross income over $1 million would have to pay a minimum of 30% of their income in taxes. Taking into account their state and local taxes, the Clintons had a total effective tax rate of more than 43 percent in 2015. The Clinton’s also donated an additional 10 percent of their income to charity.
Clinton’s running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, and his wife also released their 2015 tax return Friday. Kaine and his wife, Anne Holton, reported income of $313,441 for 2015 and paid a 25.6% rate, taking into account federal, state and local taxes
Here's a pretty incredible fact: There is a non-zero chance that Donald Trump isn't paying *any* taxes. pic.twitter.com/Aefxj6CKCd
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 12, 2016
With the release of now 10 years of tax returns, Clinton brings attention to the nearly 40-year bipartisan tradition of presidential candidates publicly disclosing their returns — and Trump’s refusal to do so.
“Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine continue to set the standard for financial transparency as she releases her 2015 personal tax return and builds on the Clintons’ tradition of making their returns public since 1977,” Palmier said in the statement.
“In stark contrast, Donald Trump is hiding behind fake excuses and backtracking on his previous promises to release his tax returns.”
When pressured in the past, Trump has insisted that “there’s nothing to learn” from his returns, pointing to the fact that he has released a personal financial statement — which is legally required.
In a new ad released Friday, Clinton amped up the pressure on Trump.
The ad shows a series of Republicans, including Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz , blasting the supposed billionaire businessman for hiding his tax returns from the public.
“Donald Trump should release his tax returns,” on-screen text reads at the beginning of the video. “Even Republicans think so.”
“There’s so much shame and stigma”: “Abortion Stories” director Tracy Droz Tragos pulls back the curtain on “super complicated” issue
Tracy Droz Tragos (Credit: HBO)
“It’s probably easy to bully someone you don’t know,” says LA-based filmmaker Tracy Droz Tragos. It’s different once you walk in her shoes.” And with her powerful new HBO Documentary Films release “Abortion: Stories Women Tell,” Droz Tragos is inviting you to walk in a uniquely vilified pair of shoes — those of pregnant women seeking abortion, and in a state where their access has been all but cut off.
Roughly half of all women will have an unplanned pregnancy in their lifetimes. As many as one in three will have an abortion. Yet we still live in a country in which the opponents of reproductive choice have the advantage of pretending that this constitutional right is only exercised by a certain kind of woman. You know the caricature — the selfish, reckless one who sees pregnancy as an inconvenience, who coldly rejects the beautiful blessing of new life. And if the forty-plus years since Roe v. Wade have taught us anything, it’s that it is very easy to make that imaginary woman a political pawn. In reality, the woman who finds herself facing a choice doesn’t fit neatly into one particular type.
Like its stunning predecessor “After Tiller,” “Abortion: Stories Women Tell” depicts the intense and thoughtful process that women go through — and it also takes time to try to understand the perspective of the anti-choice believers as well. Centering on Droz Tragos’ home state of Missouri and what has happened there since abortion access has become severely limited and a mandatory 72-hour waiting period for abortion has been in effect — even in the cases of rape and incest — the film follows a wide selection of women.
There’s a Christian couple who planned their pregnancy, but have a fetus with a fatal condition. There’s the abused woman who says, “My son’s father was going to beat the baby out of me anyway.” There’s the single mother of two who’s already working over 70 hours a week, who says, “I cannot put my family through this.”
There’s the doctor at the Hope Clinic in Illinois, who sees women who’ve traveled far for the procedure they can’t easily obtain in their own state — and who’s been the victim of targeted harassment. There’s a tough clinic security guard, who faces down protestors and tells them, “Protest the people who keep having kids.” There’s a young woman whose plans for adoption fell through, now raising her baby instead of attending college as she’d expected. There’s the fresh-faced, evangelical anti-abortion crusader. There are older women who, decades later, are grateful for the lives that reproductive choice enabled them to have.
They have names. They have faces. They have complex, emotional stories, ones that deserve to be seen — regardless of where you stand on the issue.
Salon spoke recently to Tracy Droz Tragos — whose previous films include “Rich Hill” and “Be Good, Smile Pretty” — about her new movie. The film opens in select cities today.
What made you choose to focus on your home state of Missouri for this story?
I knew that it was a state that was conservative. I new that education was largely abstinence-based and that it was hard to access birth control. I started working on the film on the eve of the 72-hour waiting period. It was really clear what we had to do this, and in ways that never felt manipulative.
Was it challenging getting women to speak on camera?
There were often days at the clinic where there were women who were supportive, but couldn’t put it on their shoulders, because they did fear the shame and stigma and being punished in their families and jobs and communities. That’s the big goal with more women sharing their stories, more women being seen — not just their feet but as real women and full-faced. We’ve launched the web site as destination of sorts. [The Stories Women Tell site has an option for guests to anonymously submit their own abortion story.] There’s a real movement toward women coming out with their abortion stories.
It was interesting to see a film that showed such a spectrum of experiences and perspectives; it’s definitely not your typical pro- or anti-choice kind of story.
That’s probably one of the most common comments. It’s such a fine line to walk. I have not had an abortion, but access is personal and important to me. The big, big goal from way back when was to shift the conversation back to women — back to women who are affected — and away from the abstraction. It’s people, you know? These are not bad people.
We knew there was going to be a cumulative effect. We couldn’t have just one woman’s story. Abortion is accessed by women of all walks of life, all circumstances. There’s no poster person for that. It was really important to cast as wide a net as possible — which was a logistical challenge because there are many more stories.
I’m coming from a very privileged place to not have had to make that decision. I just came back from seeing Dr. King [the Hope Clinic abortion doctor featured in the film]. I had dinner with her and she had to take a call because she had a patient who was ten. This is not something that’s particularly rare.
There’s no medical basis for that [72-hour waiting period] law. That’s about someone else thinking, “Maybe women with more time or more hurdles will give up” — and some of them do. I think the abortion foes think if they had time to think they’d realize that motherhood is the best path. It’s not so easy for anybody. Having an abortion is not something anybody sets out to do. It’s not a thing you look for. People have a plan. It’s not fun to have to give up a basketball scholarship and an opportunity for education. It’s not fun to care for a child you feel ambivalent about. It’s super, super complicated.
And you show that there are women who are grateful to be having an abortion, even as they also really struggle with their feelings.
It was important that this not just be dismissed as an advocacy film and preach to the choir and have the lines we’re all comfortable with. Women are complicated beings. We can hold at the same time relief and sadness, but people think you’ve either got to have an abortion and feel fantastic about it, or regret it. No matter what a woman’s choice is, there’s so much shame and stigma — like the young woman mocked for being pregnant at 16. It’s a lose-lose-lose situation.
You also don’t demonize the opposing side.
I don’t think everyone in the anti-choice world — or as they like to call it, pro-life movement — is the same. I do think there is the fringe and that they’re bullies, they’re hateful. But we’re talking about a real fringe, a probably troubled bunch of people, and who knows what their motivations are or what their true situations are? Who these folks are that feel that they have so much hate or they get to judge what you do is beyond me. But not everyone is such a bully. As long as we’re coming from a place of compassion and respect, everybody deserves dignity and personal decision making. I think there is a pro-life message that is heard here, and I hope if people are pro-life and they’re interested in women, this is an opportunity to understand and see the faces of those affected.
Every day the beat goes on. When you sit across from someone or walk in their shoes, it becomes so much clearer that women’s rights are human rights. And women are not bad because they’ve had sex. Anyone who gets pregnant should have access to the healthcare that they need. I hope audiences who see this film come away with greater appreciation of what’s at stake and deeper compassion, whatever their choices.
High hopes get dashed: The feds reject legalizing marijuana — and take a small step in the right direction
(Credit: AP/Robert F. Bukaty)
Several months ago, two former Democratic governors filed petitions asking the DEA to strip marijuana of its Schedule 1 status and reclassify it as a drug with known medicinal uses. Schedule 1 narcotics (LSD and heroin, for example) are considered the most dangerous. Such a classification implies two things: that a drug has a high potential for abuse and that it has no medical value. Not a shred of evidence suggests marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, to say nothing of opioids, which are Schedule 2 drugs. And it’s preposterous to claim marijuana has a higher potential for abuse than OTC drugs or virtually any of the controlled substances regulated by the government.
In any case, the DEA released its report this week and reform advocates hoped, among other things, that they would reschedule marijuana. They refused to do so, however, and the justificatory logic was both familiar and false. The DEA won’t say that marijuana is as dangerous as LSD or heroin, but they continue to claim it has no medical value – or, more precisely, that we don’t have conclusive evidence to that effect. First, that’s untrue. As Dr. Mark Alain Dery, director of the Baton Rouge Medical Center’s Tulane T-Cell Clinic, told me nearly two years ago, “there is no question that marijuana is an effective and viable treatment option.” “The benefits are as clear as can be,” he added.
The other problem is that reason researchers have found it difficult to satisfy the government’s evidence threshold precisely because the drug remains Schedule 1, and thus there are numerous restrictions and mountains of red tape to scale. It’s absurd for the government to reproach researchers for failing to produce a sufficient amount of evidence while simultaneously limiting the amount of research they can conduct.
Furthermore, the research that is allowed or incentivized has been needlessly constrained. I spoke with David Brown, an attorney and drug law reform lobbyist who serves as president of the advocacy group Sensible Marijuana Policy for Louisiana (SMPL). Brown says “The catch-22 has always been that the federal government only funds research into the alleged harms of Cannabis and by maintaining the bizarre Schedule 1 status, ensures that next to no research can be undertaken that would provide the necessary peer-reviewed scientific counterpoint.” This will have to change in order to push the science forward.
There is a bit of good news, though. While the DEA refused to reschedule marijuana, they did permit changes that will foster greater research capacities. “The new policy,” the DEA said its formal announcement, “will allow additional entities to apply to become registered with DEA so that they may grow and distribute marijuana for FDA-authorized research purposes.” This doesn’t go as far as it should, but it is progress. John Hudak, a policy analysis at Brookings, made a crucial point: The DEA’s decision “strikes a balance” and, however flawed, it’s a “clear sign of the growing political complexity around cannabis policy in the United States.”
It’s also true that the concrete implications of rescheduling aren’t as significant as one would think. Mark Kleinman, an expert on drug policy, has noted that an “administrative rescheduling would not make medical marijuana, or any other kind, legal at the federal level. Its practical effect would be identically zero.” Kleinman’s point is that what matters is opening up the research flood gates (currently the University of Mississippi has a monopoly on research cannabis) so that a “specific cannabis preparation” can be developed and put through clinical trials. Eventually, the thinking goes, this would lead to a “reproducible chemical composition” that the FDA could formally approve. Otherwise marijuana will remain a highly controlled substance, regardless of its scheduling classification.
Ultimately, marijuana will be decriminalized entirely. The dominoes are already tumbling – not fast enough, but tumbling nevertheless. As resistance to the misbegotten drug war mounts, so too will the public calls to de-schedule marijuana. That the DEA is starting to bend, despite working under a perverse incentive structure, is a good sign. This latest announcement is a pale half-measure, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Quiz! Trump’s tweets: Real or Fake?
Nobody composes tweets quite like Donald Trump does, but we decided to try our hand at it. See if you can separate ours from the real thing.
RealFake
RealFake
RealFake
RealFake
RealFake
RealFake
RealFake
RealFake
RealFake
RealFake
