The thing is, Bruce can cook, despite what the kids would like you to think. He isn’t a gourmand, but he’s definitely better functioning in that aspect than most single men who for one reason or another grew up never thinking they would have to cook.
Except Bruce knew he would have to cook one day (Bruce had a concept of mortality: Alfred would, eventually, die. And leave Bruce alone. And it would be terrible, and he would need to cook for himself while also sobbing and watching his world fall apart. Ergo: chase down that particular panic attack with the initiation of cooking lessons.) and the socio-economic reality of sexism and entitlement that left men largely helpless and nonfunctional without a woman (whose life expectancy and happiness were statistically rapidly lowered as the man’s rapidly increased) came later.
…but the bottom line was, Bruce could cook, and sometimes, it was even nice.
But Alfred, who follows his role as Butler like a pre-Lutheran Catholic, would never give permission to be served his ward’s cooking, and perhaps once it was a defense mechanism.
Now, it’s just a little strange when Bruce wakes up before Alfred (who must sleep sometime) and decides to just scramble some eggs, and Alfred refuses to have any when Bruce offers them.
Dick did not get the cooking lessons Bruce did, but he managed okay with reading the instructions, as long as he remembers to read instructions. He doesn’t actually believe there are people who can’t cook. He’s never really met someone who cannot cook. He just assumes there are people who know about cookbooks, and people who don’t even want to try.
He’s pretty sure he’s right.
Anyway, Dick knows about cookbooks, he just doesn’t use them so often when a bowl of cereal or some heavy caloric fast-food is easier. But sometimes it’s a quiet night in Blüdhaven and he just gets that itch for chocolate cake.
And he’ll buy the pre-mixed cake mixes! Which Alfred says ‘isn’t really cooking’ but… it’s just not cooking from scratch, and Dick doesn’t feel like melting a lot of baking chocolate in the microwave (also illegal in Alfred’s opinion) and going out and buying flour and baking soda and… yeah. He’d rather pick up two chocolate cake mixes, some eggs, corn oil, and a bunch of powdered sugar and milk (because he will do homemade buttercream, as one of the few times the extra effort is indisputably worth it).
…and then he realizes he can’t make a triple-decker chocolate cake with raspberries and chocolate buttercream icing and like. Eat all of it entirely on his own?
He’s eating egg noodles for dinner and drives back to the batcave just to get rid of some of this cake. He figures he can stick an ‘eat me’ sign on it and Bruce or Tim or Damian will do the rest. But coming in, Dick spots Alfred first, and–
…Alfred refuses the slice, thank you Master Grayson, but it will just be too rich for him.
(Dick isn’t sure if that’s a joke or not.)
Jason didn’t start cooking until he was long gone, which shouldn’t have been as strange a thing to say as it was, but– “long gone” was definitively an euphemism in the Wayne household.
He certainly didn’t cook at the house.
Timothy mostly made smoothies.
Alfred had explained that one could not, in fact, get the total nutritional count of a meal out of a smoothie, due to the disruption of the stability of the food, but Tim just lifted up his brusselsprout-banana-kale-mango-oat-and-protein-powder smoothie and asked Alfred if he wanted a sip.
Alfred did not.
Damian has never dipped strawberries in chocolate before.
He is meticulous. Exact. He holds each strawberry by all of its leaves, never once letting them dip into residue, and he spins the strawberry just like that until it is covered on all side by chocolate–an even spread on all sides.
Then, he holds the strawberry above the chocolate, watching it drip until the outer shell hardens enough that it will not become flat upon being laid down.
Then he cuts off the stems, leaving the entire berry edible, with no refuse to deal with upon consumption.
The whole time, his other hand stirs the pot of dark chocolate, not wanting it to fully solidify, but wanting the temperature low enough to allow it to truly stick to the berry.
…and before eating any, he presents them to Alfred. Stoically. On a tray, each berry on its individual small dish, each cored and presented uniformly; all facing the same direction.
Alfred is reading the morning news with a small cup of coffee when it happens.
He doesn’t look surprised, but this hadn’t been planned, certainly.
He looks at Damian.
Damian looks back at him.
Not a word is spoken between them. Not until Alfred slowly raises his hand, plucking the smallest berry’s plate, holding it by the rim like a tea saucer, and plucking up the small berry with a careful daintiness.
It fits in his mouth without having to bite. For a moment he considers carefully, chewing.
He sets the plate back down on the tray.
“Excellent work, Master Damian. Truly a mastery of the art.”
The simple-minded cannot conceptualize these economic realities, so they turn to biblical “violations” of society as the explanation; and Republicans have exploited this social ignorance for generations!
How does it feel to know that people like you were by and large the reason that Trump got elected?
yes, has nothing to do with the economic depression and total despair in the american industrial heartland in the face of changing economic realities and free trade deals that drain their communities of work and condemn it to forever irrelevance in the eyes of the two big tent parties that only come by and pretend to care during election season. or occupy wallstreet minded young democrats being totally demoralized by a friend of the big banks along with the party they supported crushing the ever loving fuck out of their progressive populist candidate in spectacularly plutocratic manner, but certainly in the rust belt, where most struggling families were wary of Clinton’s favourability toward the TPP and embraced Sanders’ efforts to protect american workers before all else.
1. Effectively 77,759 votes in three states (WI/PA/MI) determined the Presidency: Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump
22,748 votes in WI, 0.7 of a point (3rd party candidates received: 188,330)
44,307 votes in PA, 0.7 of a point, (3rd party candidates received: 218,228)
10,704 votes in MI, 0.2 of a point (3rd party candidates received: 250,902 votes)
2. Just three counties – Macomb County, MI; York County, PA and
Waukesha County, WI – elected Donald Trump. If those three counties had
cast zero votes, Trump would have lost all three states and the
election. By the same logic, just three counties re-elected President
Obama in 2012: Miami-Dade County, FL; Cuyahoga County, OH and
This image is god as far as i care, because no amount of shitposting on the internet wouldve mattered, because these states and their economic misfortune determined the election, not cynical coastal bitches like me on the internet
Author Saul Bellow once stated that every man should be able to hear and bear the worst that can be said about him. What is the significance of such a mentality? It is based upon the conviction thatreality is grounded in itself and not in human opinion (think about it). By contrast, leftist thought is driven by the conviction that reality can be ignored and replaced by human preference and desire. The reality of biological sex can be altered by personal preference. Economic reality can be disregarded, and a political state capable of satisfying our every desire can be created by means of vast funding that a nation does not actually possess. Within one realm after another, desire is elevated above reality. Now if reality is no longer defined in terms of itself, but is defined by the whims/opinions of a community, then negative opinions are no longer things which can merely be ignored. Negative opinions literally become substantive harm. Saul Bellow would tell us that we can always bear negative criticism because if it corresponds to reality, we should alter ourselves accordingly, and if it does not correpond to reality then it simply has no weight and we should be indifferent to it. But when human whim and opinion actually defines reality, that approach is no longer relevant. Negative opinions are a concrete danger that seek to harmfully shape reality in their own image and cannot be tolerated.
At the end of the day, what is tyranny? Tyranny is the doctrine that reality is to bend in whatever direction is desired by the powers that be. The German author Hannah Arendt in her classic work The Origins Of Totalitarianism, said that the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Communist, but a people for whom the distinction between truth and falsehood no longer exists.
“When you’re not rich and your dream is to be an actor or a director – you quickly become even less rich.”
putting your own wage back into the movie so it’s not a profit industry…It’s a real labour of love. You’re
trying to tell a story without expecting to make millions of dollars at
– Joel Edgerton on the economic realities of being an independent filmmaker
An Adivasi woman stands in the heat of a tea garden. (Photo by Luke Horo)
The daily cup of black tea is a global staple, but have you ever thought about the lives of the people who produce this ubiquitous morning beverage? In the northeastern state of Assam, India, tea laborers of the indigenous Adivasi ethnic groups produce more than enough tea leaves to feed a lifelong caffeine craving. The impact of their work is felt by millions around the world, yet the Adivasis’ struggle to preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage is known to very few outside their home country.
In the 1840s, British colonial planters brought indigenous people living in the tribal belt of the Chota Nagpur Plateau northeast to Assam to work as indentured servants and laborers in the industrial tea gardens. Since the early 19th century, the tea industry has boomed while the social and economic reality of the Adivasis has remained much the same. On these expansive terraced gardens, women spend the day trimming tea leaves in the sun while men use high-heat furnaces to roast the leaves to perfection.
*The representation of slavery in the musical is one of the things that bothered you the most about “Hamilton.” What is your argument about the way that slavery is seen or not seen?*
My argument is basically that the play does a lot of this thing that we call “Founders Chic” as a representational strategy. This is a way that writers of popular history (and some academic historians) represent the founders as relatable, cool guys. Founders Chic tends to really downplay the involvement of the Founding Fathers in slavery, and this play does that 100 percent. Yes, sure, it mentions slavery a couple of times, but it’s twice mentioned in the context of just slavery existing and Alexander Hamilton being opposed to it. And then a couple times it’s mentioned in the context of abolition specifically, and Alexander Hamilton supporting that. So the 12th line of the play where it’s mentioned, “he struggled and kept his guard up” is the line right after talking about slaves being slaughtered and carted away. But we have no idea what Alexander Hamilton’s attitude toward slavery was when he was a boy growing up in the Caribbean. He worked on a slave ship. I mean, chances are probably pretty high that he was in favor of it; that was his livelihood. So few white people were opposed to slavery, especially white people in the Caribbean. It’s kind of bonkers to suggest that he was somehow suffering and feeling like slavery was an injustice at that time. There’s no historical evidence to back that up. So that’s one example of them presenting it as if, Oh yeah, he was around slavery, but he hated it, and we don’t actually know that that’s the case. John Laurens, sure, was very unusual for being anti-slavery; it’s not really clear that Alexander Hamilton was particularly anti-slavery.
*The Schuyler family had slaves.*
Oh yeah! They were huge slave owners. And one of the points Ishmael Reed made that I loved is that for Elizabeth Schuyler to be a Kim Kardashian of her era involved several slaves preparing her to be so gorgeous at that ball where Hamilton met her. And to say that he didn’t own any slaves? He was fucking poor! Before the Revolution, the dude had no money, so of course he didn’t own slaves. It wasn’t a moral achievement, just an economic reality. Later on, yeah, he does seem to have been anti-slavery, in his involvement with the New York Manumission Society and things like that, so the fact that he didn’t then purchase slaves is one thing. It’s also definitely documented that he used slaves, that he employed slaves. It was really common for people who didn’t own slaves outright to rent slaves.
*So a huge thing is also the fact that all of the main characters are being played by people of color, but there are no historical people of color represented. *
Yeah, that bothers me a lot!
*How do you think that could have been done, in an alternate-reality version of “Hamilton”?*
I mention in my article that I doubt if he had a historian of color on his staff that this would have happened, but he was working with a sort of prototypical white historian [Hamilton biographer Ron Chernow]. The way that the story of the founding of the country is told erases people of color so consistently, that it was super easy for him to do it this way. So you know, it’s possible it never occurred to him that black people, for example, were involved in the Revolution. Because that’s probably not what he learned in history in school, and it’s certainly not what he would learn from reading Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton. And so, it would be very easy for him to just have the impression that there are no black people in this history because they’re just not there.
*Can you explain what the difference is for you between race-blind casting and race-conscious casting, which you argue is what’s actually going on in “Hamilton”?*
Race-blind casting for me would mean something like, We’re going to do William Shakespeare, and we’re just going to cast the roles with whoever is the best person for the part. As opposed to race-conscious casting, which is very much saying, These are parts that are designed for people of color. The musical styles of the singing are not white styles. The dance is not white. It would be so appalling to audiences and the show would have just completely been a disaster if they had cast white people to play all of these roles. We would have been completely disgusted with the show, and it would be this weird cultural footnote that somebody tried to do that. So to suggest that it’s race-blind casting is really disingenuous. And the initial casting calls also tend to indicate that as well, that they weren’t looking for white actors to do these roles to begin with. And Miranda talks about when he was writing the music that he was casting different hip-hop stars in the roles in his head. So from the beginning he wasn’t envisioning that this was going to be a white cast.
*And you identify differences in the way the actors were deployed, in terms of musical style.*
I think that comes out really strongly with King George, who is the only major character who’s portrayed by a white actor [Jonathan Groff], and who sings Beatles-style songs, and is obviously representing the Empire, England, as opposed to the revolutionaries, who are all people of color. … And then in terms of the female casting, the female character who sings in a more hip-hop and R&B style [Angelica Schuyler, played by Renée Elise Goldsberry] is black, and the female character who sings more Broadway-style ballads [Elizabeth Schuyler, played by Phillipa Soo] is Chinese American, but she definitely reads as white, and I think that is not a coincidence.
*Your critique is not just about the way the roles were cast, but also about the way that the supposedly “color-blind” casting has been deployed as a way to buttress the credibility of the project.*
Totally. Basically what the supposedly color-blind casting does, is it gives “Hamilton,” the show, the ability to say, Oh, we’re not just telling old, white history. This isn’t your stuffy old-school history that’s just praising white people. Look, we’ve got people of color in the cast. This is everybody’s story. Which, it isn’t. It’s still white history. And no amount of casting people of color disguises the fact that they’re erasing people of color from the actual narrative.
*Can we talk about the question of the bootstraps narrative a little bit? The musical relies on it, and it’s grafted on this hip-hop aspect of the story …*
This idea that if you’re smart enough, you can write your way out of the projects, kind of a thing? I do think it accounts for why the musical has been so popular among conservative commentators, who fucking love it. The bootstrap ideology is just super strong in how it’s presented; it’s emphasized over and over and over again from literally the very first line of the show, the idea that this man is coming from nothing and he pulls himself up to become this incredibly important person, and that he does it through the power of his mind. One of the first lines says that Hamilton “Got a lot farther by working a lot harder/ By being a lot smarter/ By being a self-starter.” It’s this idea that we have in this country that the American Dream is achievable if you work hard enough, and if you are poor and unsuccessful, it’s because you didn’t try, and therefore you deserve what you have, or rather what you don’t have. And it fits, frankly, with what Miranda said about how he identifies with Alexander Hamilton. In interviews, he’s repeatedly said that he wants to be like him, he looks up to him; in one interview, he also compares him to his father, a political power-broker in New York state, and in some ways you could say that Miranda’s family fits into that bootstrap narrative. His dad came as an immigrant from Puerto Rico and was successful, and you know, his son went to Wesleyan and became Lin-Manuel Miranda! It’s a politically dangerous narrative, because it has the tendency to obscure the ways in which so many people are blocked from those kinds of opportunities.
*My last question is: What’s it like to criticize something that everyone loves?*
[Laughing] Honestly, I haven’t been getting a bad reaction. I’ve only been hearing from people who like the article. I actually heard from [writer] Junot Díaz last night, he just wrote me out of the blue and said, “I love the article, it was really important.”
Yeah! And I honestly haven’t heard from anyone who says something negative about the article. I think enough people today are exposed to the idea that all your faves are problematic, that there’s no such thing as pop culture that isn’t biased and hugely problematic in all kinds of ways. So I think that helps. I have a good friend who’s a huge fan of the musical who has not mentioned this article to me, though I know she’s read it! I think that’s partially because she doesn’t know what to say because she loves it so much. The last of the four responses to the article that the National Council on Public History is publishing is by [historian] Annette Gordon-Reed [author of several books on Thomas Jefferson and the Hemings family], and her response is awesome. She makes it really clear that she loves the musical, and it’s also problematic in all the ways that I describe.
And that’s how I feel. I’ve listened to the soundtrack I-don’t-know-how-many times. I want to see it again. I think it’s an awesome show. I grew up doing musical theater, and there’s part of me that still fantasizes about being on Broadway. And from the perspective of the theater and working actors, it’s incredible to have a show like this that foregrounds people of color so much, and that it would be such a massive hit that’s going to be touring forever and have regional productions, this is really incredible. It’s an awesome opportunity for so many actors. And I don’t want to downplay that, either. That’s the case with all important cultural works, right? They are not ever all bad.
this interview brings up a number of historical & artistic points that are very good to bear in mind when receiving the show & looking at the show in cultural context…
but at the same time, much of it
(the bootstrap narrative is the part that I agree with) seems to miss the point. it’s so focused on the past that it fails to account for the present & is largely critiquing the show for not being a completely different show from what it is. Hamilton is not a show that aims to say “we were also there then,” but rather one that says “we are here now.” (look around, look around.) it tells the story about how all the hip-hop outsiders can grab their power & build a nation.
one’s fave will always be problematic & that’s a good thing to remember. & certainly the mainstream media likes to simplify things terribly & puff itself up with how the slightest bit of diversity is absolutely revolutionary. but critiques in this vein tend to presume a lot of ignorance on the part of the artists (who certainly have not forgottenabout the issue of slavery, nor ever claimed heroism on that account) & to carry a weird vibe of “[this particular piece of media itself] doesn’t actually mean anything” that is incredibly dismissive toward the people to whom it is, in fact, something very meaningful.
Poverty is not a state of mind; it’s an economic reality. Helen had been trying to get out of poverty for years, but her faith in her own efforts had not made that possible. She had the mind-set the HUD secretary thinks she should, and she believed that it would get her out of poverty. But poor people cannot escape poverty by simply having the right attitude, even though many of them think they can — an attitude that does more to encourage them to blame themselves when things go wrong than it does to help them rise out of poverty.
Me, before the Brexit debate started:
"The basic concept of the EU is great- it’s about unity, working together, communication across borders, and keeping the peace. But maybe the EU politicians are overdoing it a little bit. Maybe the political integration is going just a little bit too fast. In addition, the EU has repeatedly put its ideology -which is a commendable one nevertheless- above the economic reality; for example when it let Greece join the euro, even though Greece had falsified its economic records. Some of the regulations the EU imposes are useless and the Commission has taken quite a few political liberties in the last few years -like when they insisted that they wouldn’t need the national parliaments to approve a TTIP deal. Maybe it’s time for the EU to focus on the economic aspects of the union again and postpone the political integration.”
Me, after Brexit:
*takes a deep breath* “I lo…”
Everybody who has ever spent five seconds around me:
“Yes, I know, you love the EU, you love the EU so much, it’s the light of your life, your sun and your twelve golden stars on a blue background, you love it so much, you just love the EU, I KNOW, you love the EU, you love the European Union so much, this wonderful political and economic union of 28 states which has kept the peace in Europe for 60 years, ok I know, I get it, YOU LOVE THE EUROPEAN UNION, all you need is EU, you can’t live if living is without EU. I. GET. IT.
As a former Chris fan, I cringe that the only way Chris can get work is if he writes it for himself because no one will cast him.
Yes, that poor darling. Taking an opportunity to showcase his acting, writing, and creative contacts all in one space with a respected production studio, and perhaps even try a new opportunity as a director. Because it’s not like he was ever cast in something where the part was written just for him simply because Chris was so uniquely talented! Except, y’know for those times that actually happened with “Glee” and the Noel Coward film. (The fact that production was stalled due to economic reality doesn’t actually change the fact that Chris was hand-picked by the director and the heirs of Coward himself.) Other than that, though, I agree that it isn’t like he’s been offered opportunities to act with anyone famous. I mean y’know, except for the likes of Betty White, Carol Burnett, Martin Sheen, Kevin Bacon, Julie Andrews, Jennifer Saunders … I mean who ever heard of those folks, right?
Of course, we all know that Chris has just been loafing around doing nothing in the two years since his gig on Glee ended. I mean, those five or six books written in that interim were nothing, right? After all, it’s not like the ones that’ve been published have done any business … except for the past 2 years comprising at least a third of those 30+ weeks he’s spent on the New York Times Bestseller top 10, natch.
But hey, not everyone can count on the opportunity to grovel to Ryan Murphy and kiss his ass when they need a job! Poor Chris, forced to rely on his own creativity, talent, and good reputation in Hollywood. It’s a pity, but he can dry his tears of shame on some of those millions he’s earned.
A variety of Liberal media outlets have been publishing articles criticizing the protectionist philosophy of the president; and while I am indeed an opponent of protectionism, it is fascinating to see the Left being forced to honestly and candidly discuss the issue of employment. What they are being forced to admit is that the general plight of the American worker (including his wages) is not simply a product of the unfairness of business owners after all. Millons of American manufacturing jobs have, over the last few decades, been lost to technology and automation, a reality which President Trump’s protectionist policies cannot repair these writers explain to us. But automation is never instant; it is a continual process that increasingly replaces jobs over time. As this happens, the value of those types of jobs begin to decrease, and consequently the wages for the remaining jobs decrease. a lower ceiling is placed on the amount of money they can demand.
This is not only an effect of automation, but of outsourcing itself (which many of the writers of these articles also support). Alternatives reduce the value of a commodity. And this is the problem with Liberal-Progressives pointing to lower class wage statistics over the last several decades in discussions of income inequality , and arguing that any absence of growth is due to unfair compensation by businesses as the economy has grown. Economic realities are far more complex than that.
For people living with the virus, HIV is more than a health issue; it affects their social and economic realities, as well. HIV status exists alongside their gender identity, sexual orientation, race and religion. After an election that brought identity politics into laser focus, people with HIV are trying to look into their crystal ball, figure out how Trump’s policies will affect their complex existences and create a roadmap for their own activism.
No. A lot of people my age visit their parents in the summer, or even are forced to live with their parents long term due to poor job prospects and rising cost of living (as I was after I graduated from BCIT but couldn’t find work).
Some older people may view it as weird, but its a sign of the times, and the changing economic reality for many people my age. I do wish I was more financially secure and could give back to my parents for their hospitality. I’ll do that eventually when I’m able to hold down a career.
My parents are happy to have me here for the summer, anyways. :)