TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Last week on the show, we covered the sentencing of Roger Stone, who is perhaps the most undeserving of all the many casualties of the Russian collusion hysteria.

Stone received more than three years in prison. He will be over 70 when he gets out. Officially, his crime was lying about e-mails, e-mails that were themselves entirely harmless.

From the first days, Stone's prosecution was a transparentpolitical hit job. Washington wanted him imprisoned because for 40 years, he was Donald Trump's closest political adviser.

Amy Berman Jackson is the federal judge who oversaw the case, she was appointed by Barack Obama. She is an openly partisan Democrat. She's made no attempt to hide that.

Jackson allowed the foreman of the jury to lie about her political background, which in a normal court of law would have disqualified her immediately, but Jackson let her stay and then defended her.

Then, Jackson herself lied about the case. She claimed that Stone had been prosecuted because he, quote, "covered up for the president," when in fact the charges against Roger Stone had nothing to do that. Amy Berman Jackson is a disgrace to the judiciary. It's frightening that in a country like ours she has power, and she does.

We said that on this show last week. Today during a hearing, Jackson attacked us, and once again she lied as she did it. Jackson accused the show of, quote, "invading the privacy of the foreman of the jury," when in fact, the juror herself has spoken publicly and revealed her own identity.

Many media outlets published her name including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN, all of which of course Jackson approves of because they're on her side. Then, Jackson accused the show of, quote, "harassing the jurors," even encouraging violence against them. That is insane. Of course, we did no such thing.

Finally, Jackson called our criticism of her, quote, antithetical to our system of justice, end quote, which proves that not only is Amy Berman Jackson corrupt, dishonest and authoritarian -- and she is definitely all of those things -- she also has no sense of self-awareness whatsoever.

Follow this link:
Tucker Carlson calls judge in Roger Stone case corrupt, dishonest, and authoritarian and a disgrace to the judiciary - Media Matters for America

A Trojan horse for trashy television ... Love Is Blinds Giannina. Photograph: Netflix

By now, in the final days of Netflixs three-week event, you will have at least heard of Love Is Blind. You may well have watched all of it, suppressing your horror and self-loathing for just one more 50-minute episode. If not, then here is the premise: 30 men and women date each other, in rotation, from isolated pods where sight unseen they pair off, which is obviously to say, they get engaged. Only then do they see each other for the first time one month before their wedding day.

Then, they must zip through relationship milestones first holiday together, cohabitation, meeting the parents before they decide, at the altar, whether or not to say: I do. The weddings episode, the finale, will be available on Netflix from Thursday.

Love Is Blind is, undeniably, wildly addictive as you would expect of a show that combines some of the most controversial reality concepts of the last 20 years with the data and resources of the worlds most powerful streaming platform. Take the close confines and body-con of Love Island, the sensorial restriction of Dating in the Dark, the shonky pseudoscience of Naked Attraction, the prom-y pageantry of The Bachelor franchise and the stakes of Married at First Sight. Throw in Nick and Vanessa Lachey as hosts and a group of extremely free-feeling Americans (some with acoustic guitars) and you have Love Is Blind.

No wonder you cant look away Netflix has its Frankensteins monster of trash TV. In a crowded field, Love Is Blind is reality television at its most compelling and its most repellent; an unparalleled push-pull of programming that you can hardly bring yourself to watch through splayed fingers. For eight straight hours.

The idea we are regularly reminded, especially by the participant who is a scientist is to test the working hypothesis of the title: is love blind? The unhappy singletons complain of a distracted, superficial dating culture (the much-moaned-about apps are not singled out, but we know which ones they are talking about). Without exception, they are ready to meet the person they will spend the rest of their life with.

But the setup of Love Is Blind does not grapple with the question suggested by its title. For a start, all the contestants are highly photogenic. The time spent blind dating, too, is so short as to barely commit to testing the premise: our cautious scientist Cameron proposes to Lauren from behind a wall after just five days.

Ive had meals in my refrigerator longer than that, gushes his charming bride-to-be, with some self-awareness but not enough to save her.

Just as Naked Attraction justifies the gleeful scrutiny of genitalia by posing the question: Can chemistry be judged on physical attraction alone? (before always finding that the answer is no), the faux-scientific experiment of Love Is Blind is in fact a Trojan horse for trashy television of a potency previously unseen.

By one metric (and probably many of Netflixs), that makes it a success. But in some ways Love Is Blind is less than the sum of even its parts.

No one watches a reality TV show for its insights into modern life and love but sometimes you do pick them up along the way. In 2019, the US Bachelor franchise got its first same-sex proposal, four years after same-sex marriage was legalised by the supreme court. A contestant is embroiled in furore for her alleged support of White Lives Matter memorabilia; past seasons have taken in questions of consent, same-sex attraction, consensual non-monogamy, and abuse.

In the UK, love it or hate it, Love Island is an accurate reflection of some part of modern British culture, from fashion, slang and beauty standards to societys social media-centricity and sexual mores.

Conversely, Love Is Blind says curiously little while claiming to say a lot. In fact, the picture of love and dating that can be extrapolated from its contestants musings through the wall is conservative and weirdly anachronistic. The playboy Barnett dreams of a wife in no more specific detail than a woman whose face lights up when he returns home. Ex-tank mechanic Amber speaks with regret about her abortion. Carlton worries that his bisexuality and past same-sex relationships will repel his future wife on the other side of the wall.

The conservatism of the US means its reality television has never quite managed to separate sex with love but still, all this talk of happily ever after and honey, Im home lands oddly from isolated dating pods. If Love Is Blind really is as has been suggested the final blow to the final nail in the coffin of civilisation, and possibly humanity, it is of a piece with the so-called boring dystopia, where we may not even see the end coming. If we could bring ourselves to look away.

Hugely compelling for containing nothing of substance, Love Is Blind is the output of an algorithm catering to our worst selves. Really, all it tells us is that Netflix knows what we want, in our heart of hearts, better than we do ourselves. Thats the real relationship behind its success dare I say: the only one.

Link:
Love Is Blind: Netflix's hit is dating TV at its most awful and compelling - The Guardian

For the "dominant species" human beings sure do a lot of dumb stuff.

Reddit user HastyTallGuy asked:

What's the dumbest sh*t you think humans have done as a species?

We're not talking about your small-scale-stupid here, folks. The responses people came up with were typically some seriously massive faux pas on our part. It's almost like we have absolutely no self awareness as a species.

We joke about lemmings following each other off cliffs (which isn't actually a natural behavior for lemmings, but we will let you Google the horrific backstory behind that belief. Spoiler alert: Humans caused it because we're terrible.) but if you really study it, we've got a track record for some serious self-destruction.

Don't believe me? Take a look. The whole cliff lemming thing is honestly one of the least awful things we have come up with.

Burning the Library of Alexandria was pretty dumb.

- TatsumakiRonyk

The burning of the Library of Alexandria is nothing compared to the Siege of Baghdad by the Mongol empire, when the vast contents of the House of Wisdom were dumped into the river. One scholar managed to save approximately 400,000 books from destruction and that was apparently a drop in the bucket of what was kept there. The Mongols also killed the majority of scholars, academics, and philosophers that had congregated in Baghdad as it was a major center of learning.

It abruptly ended an age of scientific advancement and destabilized the region in ways that are still being felt 600 years later.

- apathyczar

We're anti-nuclear during a climate crisis. We're anti-GMO while producing 8 billion hungry mouths. We make things we use for ten minutes out of stuff that lasts for thousands of years. We even screwed up something as straightforwardly life-bettering as vaccination. There's fierce competition for dumbest.

- carbonetc

Naming one of the members of our evolutionary tree "Homo Erectus"

- hulidoshi

Well, at a certain point about 40-50 years ago we studied what the impacts of our industry were on the planet, and the results were horrifying. We realized that at the rate we were moving, we would drive ourselves to extinction along with the majority of other species. Luckily, we knew what would need to be done to stop it. We still had time.

We buried those reports and doubled down on the behaviors that are going to kill us all. To this day, even after all the reports are public, the scientific consensus is that we're f*cked, and we're already seeing early impacts of climate change, there are people who make a living simultaneously arguing that it isn't real, and if it is it's not a big deal. And they're preventing us from taking action against it.

So yeah, I pick that one. Deliberate self extinction seems pretty dumb.

- LotusFlare

Putting so many consumer goods in one-time use plastic containers. There's plastic everywhere, and no great way to get rid of it.

- Don_Day_Elbano

I'm always amazed that as a planet we have the knowledge/resources/funding to invent literally anything yet we cant figure out a way to dispose of a plastic bag.

- night_breed

We can literally make biodegradable plastic, but we don't because of lobbying. I think lobbying can be great if done properly, but corporations with too much power keep sustainable economies illegal.

- Future_Jared

Producing electric, hybrid and/or solar cars should have been a priority a very long time ago.

How to limit, process and/or eliminate garbage from the planet/ocean should have been a priority a very long time ago.

Allowing and voting in a bunch of Boomer politicians to decide what our world should look like when most of them are at the end of their lifespans. They really don't care what the environment, national debts, AIDS or cancer looks like, because they won't be alive long enough for it to affect them. If you can ask someone "Where do you see yourself in 10 years?" and they can honestly answer "The Grave", why do we vote them into office?

- gampeegamp

The constant effort to prolong lives of people that are dying or should be dead. For the most part we do this for the well being of friends and family not the individual that is dying.

I also don't think we should use paramedicals to prolong the life of people who can simply change their lifestyle and/or diet to be healthier. If they cant make the effort to take care of themselves, why should they continue to be here other than to support pharmaceutical companies?

Harsh, I know, but logical to me.

- BodhiBill

Falling for snake oil salesmen in the 1800s, apparently forgetting about it, then once again believing oils have magical powers in 2000 with the advent of the essential oil fad.

It's like every 100 years or so we are doomed to forget that various oils are not magical.

- UnlikelyPerogi

Listen you all are going way to high for dumb how about when WE WERE EATING TIDE PODS?

- CrazeCranium

Honestly, this is a good answer. A lot of the other answers on this topic are explainable, or even justifiable.

For example - why do we pollute? Because we created a lot of ridiculously convenient inventions that produce waste, and it wasn't clear until later just how bad that waste was for the planet. By the time it became clear, most of the population was dead-set in using those conveniences so now it's really hard to go back.

But eating Tide Pods? People should've known better.

- Tesla__Coil

The USA insisting that all other countries ban hemp because of the racist fear of jazz musicians.

Almost 100 years of scientific research delayed by a few old white men trying to make a dollar. The medical, industrial and chemical uses could have greatly advanced humanity. Not to mention a biodegradable alternative to all the plastics currently choking our oceans.

- ALinIndy

View original post here:
People Share The Dumbest Things Humans Have Done As A Species - Comic Sands

Standing up unapologetically for your company's culture will help you zero in on mismatches that could become liabilities later.

February 20, 2020 5 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Hiring isnt just about grabbing the best talent, and job hunting isnt only about landing the gig. Both sides should be considering the best fit to set everyone up for success. After all, even a candidates most admirable qualities may be incompatible with how your company operates.

I've hired hundreds of people. Heres why they got the job plus some guiding principles to help you determine whether candidates are a good fit for your company.

The perfect candidate for one position, or one company's culture, could be a terrible fit for another. While its tempting to seek out the seemingly sparkling resume or perfect technical skills and let the rest take care of itself, this can be an expensive and frustrating mistake. Asking the right questions during the interview will help you determine whether the candidate youre considering could be more likely to help you meet goals or drag you off track. If youre interviewing an ambitious team lead who wants a specific number of direct reports and an office with a door, they could feel undervalued from the start by your agile start-up with its open-floor layout. Someone who depends on written procedures and rigid hierarchies mightfeel unmoored and undervalued by your more laid-back culture. That doesnt mean theyre bad candidates, but not every candidate is self-aware or forthcoming enough to tell you those are their top priorities.

Interview questions to determine cultural fit cant be downloaded from a template or duplicated from your competitors; that would only tell you if a candidate would be a good fit for another company, not yours. Knowing your culture (or the culture you want to create) and standing up for it unapologetically will help you zero in on mismatches that could become liabilities later.

No one should expectemployees to be perfectwith no weaknesses. Failing to answer the classic interview question Whats your biggest weakness? (or worse, dodging with a humblebrag like"Im a workaholic and never leave the office")shows immaturity, if not outright narcissism. An honest answer that shows some humility, self-awareness and a strategy to improve can be more telling than any "strength." The ability to identify your own shortcomings is a critical component of self-improvement, and hiring for values over skills at any organization will help lead to a team well-positioned to grow with the company.

For better or worse, who gets hired is a subset of who gets interviewed. If you want to hire more diverse candidates, be deliberate about seeking out candidates who complement rather than duplicate your current team.

Diversity isnt just nice to have;its essential to maximizing your teams potential. Be intentional about it. For the company I'm with in particular,working in fintech makes this particularly challenging because were at the intersection of two industries (financial services and technology) that, historically, are bothrelatively homogenous. No matter your industry, it's important to make a conscious commitment to finding and cultivating a demographically diverse workforce by prioritizing strategies such asrecruiting from historically black colleges and universities, attending community career fairs, hosting meet-ups and offering visa sponsorship to anyone, of any background, who shares your values. Diversity doesnt just make us better; it makes us who we are.

One example that stands out in my experience? A few years ago, I hired a young woman who was a former convict. Sheknew her strengths and shortcomings, and shehad a strong self-awareness that I believed would thrive at my company. Within two years, she was an adored team manager and eventually left to start her own business to give opportunities to other women with criminal histories. Her successful business is now one of my company's trusted vendors.

Authenticity is an important part of company culture; it's a good idea to prioritize that team members feel they can bring their whole selves to work. For example, my company asks in panel interviews about candidates favorite curse wordsand what one word theyd want on their tombstone, since our culture is irreverent and we want people to be both comfortable and vulnerable at work. It's okay if your interview questions deter some qualified applicants because thats part of the process, too. Not everyone is right for the job, and no job is right for everyone. The trick is to find out before you hire.

When my company had just launched, we tended to hire generalists people who could get things done quickly and turn on a dime when a test strategy fell flat. But as we grew past 100 employees, we were eager to hire team members who possessed niche knowledge who coulddive deep into very specific skills needed at critical points in projects. Now we rely on an internal farm system of flexible, fast learners, who can be put onto specific tasks and build expertise as needed.

One of the great challenges of building a business, not just staffing one, is finding high performers who can grow with you and step into new roles as the business's needs change. If you're hiring for the company you're going to be 18 or 24 months from now, for example, you could be looking for talented generalists with can-do attitudes.Your culture and values are unique to your business, but whatever your challenges, dont just hire employees. Find, curate and invest in a team of individuals who exemplify your values in order to make a game-changing impact.

View original post here:
I've Interviewed and Hired Thousands of People. Here's What to Keep in Mind Before Offering the Job. - Entrepreneur

Everyone knows the theory behind the wisdom of crowds namely that pooling judgments from multiple individuals can lead to greater accuracy is often exhibited when you try to guess how many jelly beans are in the jar. Ask 500 people and no one gets it exactly right, but take the average of the 500, and the number tends to be spot on.

Wharton professor Barbara Mellers and doctoral student Ike Silver have some thoughts on what should be the appropriate composition of the crowd, as well as normalizing for its potential for overconfidence.

They say that if the leader of the group is truly knowledgeable, then collaboration works well, but if the person doing most of the talking has his head in a unique configuration, then the likelihood of getting it dramatically wrong is dramatically increased. On the other hand, if you let the group talk to each other first, without a leader, then their errors can become correlated, which is a fancy way of saying that in that case, groupthink tends to take over, amplified by conformity pressures.

The question that Mellers sets up to solve is under what conditions does discussion really help peoples judgment? They tried to understand the confidence calibration, which is a way of measuring the nexus between confidence and accuracy. Remember the famous phrase attributed to many CEOs, Often wrong, but never in doubt.

Silver says, Theres something about talking to other people that makes you really feel like youre getting smarter. Now lets be careful here. On the one hand, it is true that a great group thinking hard and true might find the diamond in the rough, but by the same token, the idea that you actually got smarter, that your IQ increased, is, of course, an illusion. But they argue that feeling smarter does allow you to be more inclusive of the other opinions being voiced.

However, just because the group is talking and coming to a confident consensus does not mean it got the right answer. Maybe the loudest dissident in the group truly is more knowledgeable. He might be disagreeable, but he also might be right. And the mitigating behavior he needs is to demonstrate is self-awareness and reasonable humility to balance the risk of potential arrogance and overconfidence.

The quality that I look for in a leader is the willingness (and to some extent eagerness) to change their mind to change not only when confronted with compelling alternate facts, but to be comfortable continually challenging themselves, seeing if they can find the hidden flaw in their reasoning, to continually test and tease the pieces of the puzzle and to not be afraid to look weak or small by juggling multiple possibilities. They cant all be right all the time, keep testing.

The challenge for the leader is to find a way to have an effective discussion and that starts with assembling the right group to do the talking and thinking. Within that subset is the requirement that confidence and conclusion do not walk in the door initially; rather they emerge and increase as the group gets smarter. The CEO can elect to stay out of the discussion, aggregate the input from several groups and then make the ultimate decision alone. Sort of like the jelly beans in the jar.

I have been thinking hard this year on good decision-making and several of my columns have touched on this theme. The good leader is equally skeptical and agile. Change, of course, is not a weakness if it is the right course. I am constantly asking myself, what did I miss, what is the unintended consequence that has been overlooked or discounted?

Mellers and Silver both stress that the one key critical component that must exist in the discussion model is the need for trust. The participants must trust each other and trust that the group will act in the best interests of solving the problem and that individuals will not act in their own personal best self-interests.

In the end, reaching the right decision always remains a balancing act: The wisdom of crowds, on the one hand, the loud domain expert with certainty, on the other. Imagine the possibilities if the CEO had a third hand.

Rule No. 645: You can always use your toes.

Neil Senturia, a serial entrepreneur who invests in early-stage technology companies, writes weekly about entrepreneurship in San Diego. Please email ideas to Neil at neil@blackbirdv.com.

Read the original here:
Can you improve decision-making with help from the crowd? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Will you marry me?

I dont know. Whats in it for me?

Anything you want.

In a sequence in Dazed and Confused, incoming freshmen girls are hazed by rising seniors, forced to objectify themselves and pretend to offer up their newly-christened womanhood to sleazy, problematic men.

When a young girl unwittingly falls into the lewd trap, where a senior asks her if she spits or swallows, she walks away dejected. The senior chuckles its only a joke, right? and his friend shakes his head and tells him its degrading and terrible. But he does so between laughs, sociologically confirming the fact that the senior probably shouldnt have done that, but its not like its a big deal.

The nature of the so-called nice guy, the apex of allyship, is a sham. If youve ever claimed you werent like all men, distanced yourself from the uncomfortable yet necessary pushback against male hegemony, thought that anything could now constitute as sexual harassment or laughed off your bros lighthearted rape-culture-encouraging joke (because, hey, its not like you say that kind of stuff) this applies to you. You are also the problem.

There is a distinction to be made here: Nice guys, who are polite and seemingly conscientious, are not always good men. The typical male ally stands with and for women that is, until there arent any women around. In laid-back settings, when hes only surrounded by other men, this self-identifying ally isnt actually an ally at all, passively encouraging misogynistic behavior and language by remaining silent.

Jennifer Brown, a renowned diversity consultant, states that allyship occurs on a spectrum, ranging from men who are apathetic (clueless about gender issues) to those who are aware (having some knowledge on issues but not actively trying to solve them) to active (those who are well-informed and willing to have uncomfortable conversations) to advocate (who actually work to advance womens rights).

The reality is that most men fall into the former categories, proclaiming themselves feminists on the surface yet failing to contribute to or engage in honest, oftentimes uneasy, conversations about privilege a direct result of indoctrination into the cult of hypermasculinity.

Men who stand up for women in the workplace are perceived by both men and women as more submissive, less competent and, through their allyship with women, more feminine, according to a study published by the American Psychological Association. And while most men say they care about gender parity and are working to uplift women, a national survey conducted by Promundo, an organization that promotes gender equality, reveals otherwise. Although 48% of men surveyed said they have become more aware of sexism in the workplace in the past year, approximately 60% of women and men agreed that its rare to see men speak out against it.

This gap in allyship is incredibly harmful, actively undermining hard-fought achievements toward gender equity. When men give into toxic masculinity into bro culture they not only dehumanize themselves through facades of emotional detachment and nonchalance but they also encourage a world where linguistic violence toward women flourishes. As language then influences normative values, shaping sociological interactions, so then is actual violence toward women accepted.

From a sociological standpoint, people especially young people desire a sense of belonging to and acceptance from a community. Within male friend groups, masculinity acts as a toxic constraint on all the choices men make, even those that have seemingly nothing to do with gender. Loyalty is crucial, and this friendship is sealed by an adherence to misogyny, rejection of feminine behavior and passive participation in sexism if not overt aggressive behavior.

The What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas mentality, the clear delineation between what can be said in public versus the locker room (and the fraternity house, military barracks, Wall Street business meetings, among other male-dominated environments) still governs male interactions, dictating what they can or cant say.

When it comes to oppression, marginalized groups are never given the space to advocate for themselves, never mind the fact that the burden of educating others out of their ignorance should not lie solely on their shoulders. Women have tried, time and time again, to make themselves heard, push themselves into spaces where they are unwanted, all the while meticulously performing gender expression gymnastics to avoid being called bitches.

It is absolutely vital that men begin educating other men.

Willfully engaging in dialogue about how you and your friends are a part of the problem is uncomfortable and takes a level of self-awareness and poise most men dont have. It means losing friends (ones you probably shouldnt want in the first place, though), and it means being feminized something our culture views as the worst thing you can be.

Read more:
Why you should be wary of nice guys - Daily Trojan Online

The serious moments take us by surprise. BoJack Horseman. Photograph: Netflix

BoJack Horseman, which came to an end last week, is a Netflix cartoon about talking animals. So why has it come, over the course of its six seasons, to inspire such love and debate? One of the answers to this question lies in the way the script is shifting around what is allowed to be profound. Our lives, lived online and deeply connected at all times, have made us simultaneously more attuned to the significance of the everyday, while also distancing us from things that might appear hokey or overly sincere. We use the therapists office as a structure for setting up Twitter jokes about the ways we are lacking as people. We pepper our everyday speech with words like dissociate and trauma. All this self-awareness is painful, and funny. But Ill be the first to admit that I didnt expect this subtle culture shift to manifest in the form of a talking cartoon horse.

Somehow, the writers pull it off. Part of BoJacks charm is to do with the fact that is tightly scripted full of dynamic, hilarious and profound dialogue. But at the far limits of experience, language is inadequate. So its testament to the visual narrative and the careful pathos of the show that one of the best episodes is scriptless. Fish out of Water, a season 3 episode devoid of dialogue, follows BoJack through an underwater world, perfectly capturing the frustrations of being unable to navigate everyday spaces or communicate adequately with those around you. These frustrations are an inherent part of depression and addiction. Its dreamlike in the way that day-to-day life can be dreamlike with certain mental illnesses: unable to be part of the world, we float away to some other place on the periphery.

Comically, the episode also accurately mimics the frustrations of a life where everything repeatedly goes wrong BoJacks attempts to make things right are thwarted at every turn. Connection is just out of reach. Without giving the ending away, the entire episode also serves as the build-up to one of the funniest, purest punchlines in the shows history.

And thats the success of the show overall. It rarely allows itself to linger for so long on painful existentialism that it cant manage to do the simple job of making audiences laugh; whether thats through the use of unexpected plot twists, animal puns, or the slapstick humour of watching a hammerhead shark trying to hammer a nail using his actual head.

The form lends itself to this sort of comedy, and its this use of juxtaposition that means the serious moments take us by surprise, and cut deep. I feel like I was born with a leak, BoJack says. And any goodness I started with just slowly spilled out of me, and now its all gone. And Ill never get it back in me. Its too late. Life is a series of closing doors, isnt it? He says he doesnt know how people get up every day and live, and yet every episode there he is doing just that. Making jokes, having sex, behaving in ways that he is expected to behave and then being punished for it. Thats the beauty of the sitcom set-up. Life is like that, isnt it? A series of episodes of varying success.

There are still questions about how this show gained such an obsessively cultish following. Do we find solace in BoJacks self-obsession because it excuses our own? Are we desperate to see the cartoonish aspire to be profound? Perhaps! Probably! Isnt that what art is all about? When I make a pilgrimage to stand in a room full of paintings by Rothko and feel something, I do it with the self-importance that we tend to assign to highbrow pursuits. When I am watching the misadventures of a cartoon horse, and I am suddenly face to face with myself, that takes me by surprise, and I am moved deeply and without warning.

I know BoJack. I know where hes from, who brought him up, what he has done, the thoughts that plague him. Its all monumentally shitty. And yet, theres no other way his life might have gone, because he sees himself as a person (or rather, a horse-man) without qualities. He expects less than nothing from himself, and when good things happen, he waits for the other shoe to drop. He expects that he will fuck up, and he uses his past to justify his future. And through the ups and downs of knowing BoJack, I have also come to know these things about myself.

Eli Goldstone is the author of Strange Heart Beating

Visit link:
BoJack Horseman is a cartoon about a horse, so why does it feel so profound? - The Guardian

A true thing: A teacher wrote The Third Rainbow Girl. A true thing: A student wrote it. A true thing: There was a double murder in a field in the United States National Radio Quiet Zone, where the government restricts Wi-Fi and cell towers so a giant satellite dish can track interstellar signals. A true thing: There are no true things.

In her debut work of nonfiction, Emma Copley Eisenberg recounts her time as an AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer teaching writing at a camp for teenage girls in West Virginia. An excerpt from her class notes, included in the book, reads: Does the story have more than one point/idea/theme? Could it be read in more than one way? Does the character have flaws and contradictions? Are all the words carefully chosen? Is every word necessary? Is it physical?

The Third Rainbow Girl ticks all of these boxes.

Its web of complexity stretches from themes of personal and shared experiences, silence in all its permutations, and misogynys place in the groundwater of every American city and every American town, to outsiderness and community, truth and its subjectivity. It can be read as a memoir, as a deeply researched true-crime report, as a work of philosophy. And the language isphysical and visceral in its description of both the corporeal and the psychological. By Eisenbergs own rubric, this book succeeds on many levels.

Eisenberg is a skilled researcher, a truth made clear by the troves of detail about the Rainbow Murders case, expertly laid out in engaging prose. On June 25, 1980, 26-year-old Vicki Durian and 19-year-old Nancy Santomero were murdered in an isolated clearing inside the federal Quiet Zone in Pocahontas County, West Virginia. They were shot at close range. They were hitchhiking to a Rainbow Gathering an annual, loosely knit convergence of a counter-culture group called the Rainbow Family that focused on peace, freedom and respect which in 1980 took place not far from where Nancy and Vicki were killed. The titular third woman is Elizabeth Johndrow, who had been traveling with Vicki and Nancy but decided to skip the gathering at the last minute.

The real third rainbow girl, however, is Eisenberg herself.

The search for justice in the Rainbow Murders case quickly ballooned into a complicated, shifty pursuit. Seven local men with reputations for rowdy drinking were accused in various capacities of having something to do with the crime, but it wasnt until 1993 that a local man, Jacob Beard, was convicted and sent to prison. Later, a serial killer (already imprisoned in a different state) confessed to the murders, and Beard was released. In reporting the many grim details of the case, Eisenberg explores the nature of truth and its connection to the idea of justice; she analyzes the case from the vantage point of storytelling archetypes, psychological theory and, most compellingly, her own shortcomings as an outsider.

Many outsiders narratives have been imposed on Appalachia, something Eisenberg readily acknowledges and grapples with. Despite her love of the place, her years living there and the community with which she shares a deep and complex relationship, she is not from the area. Perhaps in an attempt to reckon with this fact and to be as objective as possible, Eisenberg injects the book with two vital lifelines: her own memoir-esque chapters, and copious historical context. The narrative is expansive, but it doesnt get out of hand. It is engagingly written and well paced. Eisenbergs life in Pocahontas County was complicated by men her familial love of men, and harm experienced because of men.

Harm will always permeate a world with misogyny in the groundwater. I felt harmed and also that I had harmed others with my weakness and my silence and my actions, Eisenberg writes. Things kept returning to me and knocking, demanding to be heard for I was not just a witness but a part of all of it, a person who wanted oblivion for my own reasons.

Oblivion is sometimes preferable to knowledge, but it, too, is ultimately harmful. It is in the relentless pursuit of often unanswerable questions where the narrative becomes queer. While queerness is only explicit in the book a handful of times, the very bones and blood of it the ways in which it looks in all the corners, always asking why is where the authors queer lens shines. Ultimately, the book is about accepting multiplicity and the prismatic nature of truth and justice.

A book like The Third Rainbow Girl is a rare find. Its nuance and self-awareness propel the narrative forward into territory far beyond the black and white. In that sense, it is a rainbow in itself.

_____

The Third Rainbow Girl:The Long Life of a Double Murder in Appalachia byEmma Copley Eisenberg, Hachette, 336 pp., $27

Reading information:Eisenberg will read from Third Rainbow Girl at 7 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 10, at Elliott Bay Book Company,1521 10th Ave., Seattle;206-624-6600;elliottbaybook.com

Sarah Neilson Sarah Neilson is a freelance writer and book critic based in Seattle. Her work appears in Buzzfeed, LA Review of Books, LitHub, The Millions, and Electric Literature, among other outlets. She can be found on Twitter @sarahmariewrote, Instagram @readrunsea, and on her website, sarahneilsonwriter.com.

See the rest here:
The Third Rainbow Girl explores the complicated relationship between truth and justice - Seattle Times

BRANSON, Mo.-- More than 110 human trafficking cases were reported in Missouri in 2019.

Survivors of human trafficking say it's important to speak out about the abuse.

"It felt like I was dead inside like I didn't feel like a human being," said a survivor of human trafficking.

This woman, who has asked to remain anonymous, says she is a survivor of human trafficking. She was six years old when the abuse started. She says her own grandfather sold her and her sister to his brothers and friends for ten years.

"If we didn't come home with the agreed amount, we would be beaten for it," said the survivor.

She wants people to know there are signs to look out for when it comes to spotting victims.

"When you are going through something like that, you are really secluded you don't really talk to anybody because you're scared. there is a lot of physical abuse involved, it's not just sexual," said the survivor.

Tim Easton educates the community about human trafficking through his awareness and prevention course. He says this type of crime does happen more often in the Ozarks than one might think.

"We don't see a lot of it, because it's not obvious, a lot of it is done on-line," said Easton.

Human Trafficking is considered a form of modern slavery in which a person is sold for sex, work, or both. Easton says perpetrators don't discriminate when it comes to picking their victims.

"They are promised money, fancy clothes, nice stuff and it doesn't turn out like that," said Easton.

Easton says it's important to be self-aware, vigilant and to learn self-defense.

"Yell, scream, and call for help," said Easton.

And if you are a victim of this abuse, the survivor says the best way to get help is to find the courage to speak out.

For more information, click here.

Read more:
Safety experts educate on human trafficking in the Ozarks - KY3

While it is guided by our internal values, our purpose should be outwardly directed and focused to what we can contribute to the world. A purpose bounds our lives, and boundaries bring freedom. Without boundaries we would never know where to begin and end.

We would have no idea how to direct our attention and actions, nor on what we should focus. When we live according to our purpose, we are taking all of your lifes energy and dedicating it to achieving a particular end. That is a powerful way to live.

People with a purpose are more resilient and are actually in better health than those without a purpose in life. Our lives need structure, and purpose gives it that structure.

Living by our values brings peace of mind. A purpose informs us of who we are, informs others of what we are about, and helps us ensure we are on the right path, doing the right work. Purpose allows us a new and deeper level of self-awareness and social awareness.

Self-awareness comes when we take the time to mindfully reflect on and exam our actions and honestly appraise whether they are in-line with our purpose, and living purposefully brings with it a social-awareness of how we fit in with and relate to the larger world. Are we trying to live sober but are surrounded by patiers?

Do we want to live a life devoted to justice, but work in a job that does not treat people, animals, and/or the environment in a just way?

No need exists for us to be something other than what we are when we live purposefully.

One invaluable component of living purposefully is mindfulness. Mindfulness can be defined as the purposeful, non-judgemental awareness of what we are experiencing in the present moment.

By living mindfully, we bring awareness to our current state and actions. This awareness allows us to know when we are not living according to our purpose and helps us return to our mission and true selves.

Some studies even suggest that meditators areless depressedand have a greater sense of purpose; that meditation actually helps them find, strengthen, and improve their lifes purpose. A mindful life is a purposeful life.

Respond Do Not React

Reaction is based on habit and is our first emotion about a situation. When we respond we are taking the time to consider the situation completely and give it a response that is appropriate.

When someone approaches us with a job offer for more money or an exciting opportunity, our initial reaction may be Yes! but before we answer we need to pause and consider the situation fully.

Will saying yes to this offer allow us to live more aligned with our purpose? Will this opportunity bring us closer to realizing our lifes vision? If the answer is not yes, then we should respond with a No.

Building a Purposeful Life

The formula for living a purposeful life is pretty simple:

Develop a purpose. Dictated by your values and principles, how do you want to make the world a better place?

Build a vision for your future based on your purpose. Based on your purpose, what is your end state? This should give you hope for the future.

Set and achieve goals that move you toward your future.

What work should you be doing now to move toward your desired future state? Your purpose is what gives you the motivation to get out of bed to work on the goals that move you toward your vision.

Stop to mindfully reflect on where you are going, what you are doing. Are you still heading in the direction of your purpose? Does your purpose still hold meaning for you?

The vision is the what and the purpose is the why. If your purpose and vision are not aligned, then you need to re-think one of the other. But simple is not the same as easy.

Many of us struggle with developing our purpose. First, we need to understand that our purpose and especially how we fulfill that purpose can change throughout our lives.

As we move through the stages of lives single man, husband, father, and grandfather how we find and live our purpose changes. What worked for us at 25 may no longer work at 45.

Second, we must never think our purpose is not good enough or special enough to guide our lives. Making sure that people have working cars or stores to shop in is needed as much as making sure that children and adults never go hungry.

Below are some ways to develop and build your purpose. These are difficult questions to answer, but they are important questions.

What are my values and principles? What do I give the greatest importance to?

What do those values say about me? What themes or ideas can I develop around those values?

How do I represent those values in my daily life? How could I express those values?

What am I really good at? What do I enjoy doing? How can I bind those into a larger purpose for my life?

What is missing in the world? What do I think needs to be done? What do I want to contribute to the world?

What do I want my legacy to be? If my purpose was written on my tombstone, what would it read?

What accomplishments am I most proud of in my life? What activities make me feel the most satisfied? Gives me energy

What activities get me into a state of flow? What do these activities have in common? What do they mean to and say about me?

If everything in my life were to work out perfectly, then what would I be doing in ten years?

Where am I now in relation to my future self? What would it take to get to that state?

Once you have a purpose a grand, overarching reason to be on this earth what can you do that helps you live your purpose and move you toward your vision? Think of these as missions that help you achieve your overall objective. If your purpose it to alleviate suffering in the world, then you can start volunteering at a hospital.

Test out these missions and take time to mindfully reflect on how they worked for you and if you want to continue with them or try another approach.

Living purposefully can also help us live mindfully. When we are fully engaged with meaningful work, we become present and stop wanting to be somewhere else, doing something else, as someone else.

Originally posted here:
How to Be More Mindful - Thrive Global