Something is rotten in the state of Zombieland. In the opening monologue of Zombieland: Double Tap, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) wonders why anyone would show up for a sequel a full decade later. The self-awareness is funny, but, like the film itself, its the comedy equivalent of a long-deceased friend rising from the dead; you want there to still be some inkling of the person you knew, but 10 years of decomposition didnt do them any favors.

The sequel, directed by Venoms Ruben Fleischer, sees the original quartet from 2009 Columbus, Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) enjoying the zombie apocalypse version of domestic bliss. The peace doesnt last long. Little Rock wants to meet people her own age, and Wichita gets spooked by Columbus marriage proposal. The two of them bolt, only for Little Rock to leave Wichita in the dust when a guy her age (Avan Jogia) appears with news of a commune of people their age who have forsaken the use of guns.

With a particularly strong new breed of zombie on the rise, it falls to Columbus, Tallahassee, and Wichita to get Little Rock back, though the group dynamic is put under a little strain by the addition of Madison (Zoey Deutch), whom Columbus shacks up with after believing Wichita to be gone. Double Tap should be a fun ride all of the cast are charming enough that just watching them hang out would at least be a little entertaining but if you feel a creeping, uncomfortable sensation crawling up your spine as they turn zombie after zombie into bloody pulp, its not just because of the thought of impending doom. The movie, zippy as it is, houses the kind of misogyny that went out of style around the time the first movie came out.

Deutchs total commitment to the part of air-headed blonde almost saves the role, but the degree to which the script (written by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick, and Dave Callaham) seems to resent both her and Wichita drags the whole enterprise down. Every female character including Rosario Dawson as Nevada, who runs an Elvis-themed motel exists to be a love interest, fulfilling either the emotionally unavailable cool girl or sexually available hot girl trope. Whats worse is that the Madonna-whore dichotomy is used as a weapon; Madison and Wichita are pitted against each other, with Wichita made out to be a killjoy for being uncertain about commitment and Madison a meaningless fling for being sexually liberated.

Neither can win, and both are thrown under the bus though no one is more trampled and mistreated than Madison, who is the butt of almost every joke. In the year of our lord 2019, I kept expecting there to be a turn: for Madison to reveal some unexpected talent, or for her and Wichita to get over their shared relations with an ultimately kind of eh guy, but no go. Zombieland: Double Tap is firmly stuck in 2009, antiquated gender politics and all. And thats not to mention a belabored scene in which a driveway is used as a metaphor for Nevadas nether regions.

Those dynamics feel rotten given how entertaining the rest of the film can be. Deutch seems to be having fun despite everything, and Harrelson turns his hambone comic chops up to 11 as he kicks and screams his way through the wasteland, even briefly dressing up as Elvis. Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch have some obvious fun, too, as doppelgngers for Tallahassee and Columbus who show up halfway through the movie to cause a little chaos.

A demented final (or mid-credits) scene that capitalizes on the biggest celebrity cameo in the first movie is the cherry on top of the very sour cake. Set during a press junket, it casts film critics as the enemy, effectively defying anyone who dares to criticize its shallow sense of humor. The scene also makes it clear that Double Tap doesnt have anything to give that wasnt in the original movie, which Im now afraid to revisit lest it turn out to be as bad as the sequel it spawned.

Zombieland: Double Tap hits theaters this weekend.

Excerpt from:
Zombieland: Double Tap review: The real monster is 2009-era misogyny - Polygon

Woodward Childrens Center, on Merrick Road in Freeport, is among the first schools in New York state to be certified as a trauma-informed school. Woodward officials announced the certification at a Sept. 26 assembly.

Woodward, a private, nonprofit school, is a prototype, said Erin Reed of Michigan-based Starr Commonwealth, the organization that trained and certified the staff. In the U.S., according to Starrs website, there are about 3,000 other institutions, many of which are not schools, that have the certification.

Principal Danielle Colucci said that Woodwards new certification means that the entire staff administrators and teachers is trained to recognize and respond to students who have been affected by trauma or traumatic stress. The goal of trauma-informed practice, Colucci said, is to provide students with physical, psychological and emotional safety and support, while helping them rebuild a sense of control and empowerment.

Our students nowadays have so much they have to deal with, she said. And as a school, we asked, What can we do? This action will better equip students so that they can be successful learners and successful at life.

Students were also involved in the effort, taking part in an essay-writing contest in which they shared how Woodward has helped them on their personal journeys. Almost all of the students participated in the contest, and 11 were named winners.

At the assembly, those 11 students shared their stories and read excerpts of their essays. One of them, Noemie Gonzalez-Sosa, spoke candidly of her anger issues. Ive learned to love others and allowed others to love me, she said. I learned how to be patient with others.

Noemie added that attending Woodward provided her with an environment in which teachers saw the good in her. I was able to grow mentally, she said with a smile.

The other 10 students shared stores that were similar to Noemies. Their common thread? Woodward was the place where they found hope. It was their safe haven. Now that it is a trauma-informed care school, teachers will be able to address stress and trauma issues in the classroom more quickly.

The schools Shield of Resilience is a game changer on the path of resilience, said Donna Marinelli, a special-education teacher.

The shields four key principles are engagement, self-awareness, empathy and citizenship. Marinelli explained that the shield also provides students with key features for personal growth and resilience, which will become a school-wide initiative. The guidelines on the shield, in addition to each students personal goals, will promote long-lasting and measurable goals to personal and academic success.

On Long Island there are two trauma-informed organizations Ades Integrated Health Strategies and the Crime Victims Center, according to the New York State Trauma-Informed Network directory.

Woodward teachers are now Certified Trauma Practitioner-Educators, and the social workers are recognized as Certified Trauma Practitioner-Clinicians.

Woodward will now be the model for trauma-informed care in New York state schools, Reed said. What they are doing here is not the norm.

See the original post here:
Confronting the traumatic: Woodward School receives special certification - liherald

The concept of emotional intelligence, also called emotional quotient (EQ), took the business world by storm when it was popularized in the 1990s, and its showed no signs of leaving the limelight anytime soon with employee experience now on the lips of every HR manager looking for an edge in an increasingly tight talent market.

And that should come as no surprise. When we think about the most inspirational, successful leaders weve worked with, they clearly have EQ. They have a natural ability to read teammates' emotions, understand what motivates and hinders them, and use all of that to drive results.

Unfortunately, though, EQ and IQ do not always go hand in hand. Many individuals develop intelligence related to the nuts and bolts of their jobs and rise the ranks to management, but their EQ gets left undeveloped.

Thats concerning, considering that managing people is a leaders biggest responsibility. The connections between leaders EQ and a companys employee retention rate, productivity and ability to achieve goals are astounding. On the flip side, leaders with poor EQ have a resoundingly negative impact on culture, burnout and turnover.

This is why I believe that while incredibly challenging, nurturing EQ and emotional intelligence should be a priority for every leader, and especially HR leaders.

First, understand what EQ looks like.

The first step in driving emotional intelligence at your organization is for you and your managers to understand the attributes of EQ. Psychologist and author Daniel Goleman offers one of the most comprehensive frameworks for definition, breaking down EQ into four areas of personal ability, each with its own set of competencies:

Self-awareness includes the recognition of ones own emotions, strengths and limits as well as their impact on others.

Self-management is made up of emotional balance, impulse regulation, adaptability, positive outlook and achievement orientation.

Social awareness is the ability to empathize and read a groups emotional state.

Relationship management is influence, inspirational leadership, conflict management, teamwork and the ability to coach and mentor.

EQ is the sum of all these parts. It is a lot to unpack, teach and work on, but not all of it needs to be tackled at once. People have strengths and weaknesses within EQ, so the next step is to identify which competencies to prioritize.

The best tool isnt training its 360-degree feedback.

There are countless personality tests and EQ self-assessments out there, and HR should use these tools to help leaders gain a baseline understanding of their own EQ. However, I believe the best tool for developing emotional intelligence is 360-degree feedback.

Feedback from subordinates, peers and managers should be collected on each manager or leader a minimum of once per year during an annual review. Ideally, it would happen more frequently, with both a written element and a follow-up interview to dig deeper. This 360-degree feedback helps get to the heart of whats really great or lacking in a leader and is a powerful way to help leaders identify their gaps.

The strength of this method is in the show, dont tell approach. Firsthand accounts from real people and valued teammates are much more likely to hit home than, say, responses to an automated quiz. Theyre often transparent, unvarnished and balanced assessments of someones leadership abilities. And while they sometimes can be jarring, they often provide the tough love that some managers may need to truly understand the gravity of poor EQ and the importance of improving it.

With EQ, practice and accountability make perfect.

Once youve helped make a leader aware of where their EQ gaps are and develop a willingness to correct them, you can work with them on becoming more empathetic and emotionally aware.

First, help managers and leaders identify what types of scenarios are prime for them to practice and hone EQ. Perhaps it's the review of a direct reports work they didnt find up to snuff or a team meeting to push for results before the close of a quarter.

Helping leaders identify these opportunities where they should be taking a step back to come up with a game plan before engaging with subordinates will inevitably drive growth. HR can help leaders role-play these scenarios either ahead of time or after the fact, recounting EQ competencies that were or were not used or pair them with a mentor to do so.

HR should also encourage leaders working on EQ to be transparent with their team and involve them in the process and this may be one of the hardest parts. Leaders with low EQ are often defensive or even embarrassed about it. Helping them find the self-confidence to address it with their teams in a productive way is critical. Direct and to the point is the best approach here, and it can be something as simple as a quick message to the team, saying, I have a lower than average score in this EQ area and am actively working to improve it. I know it will help our team, so please help by holding me accountable.

To change the way someone understands, manages and reacts to their own and others emotions is a large undertaking, but it is achievable. It is one of the most challenging and rewarding jobs for a human resources professional, and one to which all HR leaders should hold themselves accountable.

Visit link:
Three Ways To Drive Emotional Intelligence At Your Organization - Forbes

Like many career decisions, the answer isnt straightforward. As we discuss in this weeks episode of Secrets Of The Most Productive People, some signs are more obvious than others. For starters, a toxic workplace is almost always never worth staying in (there are exceptions, but not many). When a role or company no longer offers you the opportunities to grow, it might be time to look elsewhere. And when your job starts to impact other areas of your life in a negative way, you should, at minimum, assess the possibility of change.

Its not an easy decision to make, and what makes sense for one person may not necessarily be the right course of action for another. As with anything, the key lies in self-awareness and honesty with yourself. Start by asking yourself these three questions:

1. Why do I feel the need to quit? You accepted your job for a reason, so its worth examining why you feel the need to move on. We tend to quit something when something makes us unhappy and uncomfortable, but to ensure that quitting will really make you happier, you need to look closely at your reasons. If its pride and ego, think twice. But if you find that you want to quit because your motivations no longer align with your job, then thats a valid reason to leave.

2. Have I done everything to make this work for me? Sometimes, your frustration with a job may be because of a major change. It might be to your benefit to try and embrace it first. Sometimes it requires you to try different things to get different results. Of course, there is a point when no amount of change is going to give you the results you want. So when that happens, it might be best to move on.

3. What do I have to gain by quitting? Everything has an opportunity cost. And sometimes, quitting something means you gain more resources to do something thats more important to you. If you have a lot more to gain by quitting than you do to lose, then thats a sign that you should at least seriously consider leaving.

This will be the last regular episode for season 3 of Secrets Of The Most Productive People,but well have several special bonus episodes during November and December (including a live episode at the Fast Company Innovation Festival), and well be back with Season 4 in 2020.You can findSecrets of the Most Productive PeopleonApple Podcasts,Google Play,Stitcher,Spotify,RadioPublic, or wherever you get your podcasts.

See the original post here:
Work Life When is it the right time to quit your job? - Fast Company

Was it a pep talk, a military psy-op, a lecture, or a paranoid rant on an epic scale that we witnessed from army chief Gen. Apirat Kongsompong last Friday?

It depends on whom you ask, but Apirat was apparently concerned about young Thais, and he seems to have failed to convince them.

Let me ask students if one day a disappointed person incites you and uses propaganda to mess with your brain to come out onto the streets like in Hong Kong. Will you come out? Apirat said.

The answer from Twitter users, who are mostly the younger generation, was loud and clear. Within hours by Saturday hashtag #redbuffalo was trending to the with over 226,000 tweets. You see, Apirats nickname is Daeng, or red in Thai, and to compare someone to a buffalo is akin to calling the person dumb. Its also dehumanizing.

Read:Apirat Revives Red Scare in Epic Rant Against Opposition

On conservative Nation TV, however, a poll among the viewers showed 97 percent support for Apirats speech which touched on threats of Communism, sabotage against the monarchy, and dangers from political parties supported by the youth like the Future Forward.

If a 97 percent approval rating is not enough, one of Apirats friend-cum-sycophants, Chuwit Kamolvisit, a massage-parlor-king-turned-politician-turned-TV-talking-head, gave him a score of 100.

But even a perfect score could not hide his incoherence and confusion.

In his 90-minute speech, Apirat attacks some Thais for holding onto Communist ideology while also attacking Joshua Wong, the young Hong Kong protest leader who took a stand against the Communist regime in mainland China.

Was Apirat aware that the threat of Communism, including anti-Communist laws, has been obsolete and abolished for decades now?

Was Apirat also aware of the cordial relations between Thailand and the biggest and most powerful Communist states on earth China?

Did he recall that three years ago, it was his boss, Prime Minister Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, who publicly advised his Cabinet to read Chinese Communist leader Xi Jinpings book The Governance of China, and who went as far as saying that the book is suitable for Thailand?

Apirat cant seem to make up his mind if he is truly for, or against, Communism.

Whats clear, however, is Apirat tried to revive Cold War fear of Thai monarchy being at risk. He needs the royalists to fear, to develop ideological insecurities. This is how he hopes to unite and rally his support base possibly in the event of another military coup, which he infamously refused to rule out.

Whether you agree or laugh at what Apirat said for an hour and a half last week, its clear that the army will not return to the barracks, even though its been six months after the general elections that supposedly restored civilian rule.

The army chief whose late father Gen. Sunthorn Kongsompong led a coup in 1991 doesnt feel or think he has overstep his duty by attacking political parties and feeding the public with his fear mongering doctrine.

In a democracy, and even in a Communist state like China, the army chief doesnt have the authority to talk politics. If last Fridays spectacle took place in those countries, the army commander would have faced disciplinary actions, if not an immediate dismissal.

But Thailand, even after the elections, is still a militarized Thailand. There is no remorse or a sign of self-awareness from Apirat that he conducted himself unprofessionally.

Forget what he said, his arrogance is one of the most serious threats Thai democracy is facing. Apirats rant was in essence the armys show of superiority over civilian affairs, which made the need to send the military back to the barracks and have its influence contained all the more urgent.

And as long as that goal is still not achieved, democracy and civil liberty will continue to be at risk from military men in power like Apirat, even if his mind is so confused and incoherent. That is the real lesson we can learn from the whole debacle.

Read the rest here:
Opinion: The Real Message in Army Chiefs Tirade - Khaosod English

"The more you know about Donald Trump, the less likely you are to vote for him. The more you know about his business enterprises, the less successful he looks. The more you know about his political giving, the less Republican he looks."

-- Lindsey Graham, March 7, 2016

We used to know who Republicans were.

They were squares, fuddy-duddies, in suits and ties and good cloth coats, overdressed on parent-teacher night. They knew about mortgage rates and not only kept their lawns mowed but maintained clean edges along the sidewalk. They were the bankers and the business owners, the ones who understood amortization and worried about the government just printing money to pay its debts. They were the ones who worried about governmental over-reach, who thought taxes to be unpleasant but necessary.

They were the ones who counseled you to never quit a job until you had another job in hand. They warned you about getting into trouble with credit cards. They were advocates of taking things slow and steady and accepting responsibility. They believed in the chain of command, in the wisdom of working hard and waiting your turn.

They weren't always right or much fun, but they weren't monolithic either. There was a time when "liberal Republican" wasn't an oxymoron. There was a time when Republicans stood for "good government," by which they meant government that wasn't corrupt or machine-run. There was a time when they could claim as a hero Benjamin Disraeli, the conservative prime minister who held that the "one duty" of those in power was "to secure the social welfare of the People."

("Courage is fire, and bullying is smoke," is something else Disraeli said.)

When people bring up "liberal Republicans" these days, they often call them Rockefeller Republicans, which alludes to Nelson Rockefeller, governor of New York throughout the '60s and vice president under Gerald Ford.

But while Rockefeller was widely seen as the archetype, in fact Richard Nixon--who considered himself a conservative reformer in the mold of Disraeli (to the point of evoking Disraeli's "One Nation" in his first inaugural speech)--was arguably more liberal than Rockefeller on some domestic issues. And Spiro Agnew wrote that Rockefeller "was harder than Nixon, and a lot more hawkish about the mission of America in the world."

When the term Rockefeller Republican is brought up locally, Arkansans are more inclined to remember Nelson's little brother Winthrop, who was elected governor in 1966 when only 11 percent of Arkansans identified as Republican. You could argue that Nelson was actually elected by an ad hoc coalition of the decent, because the Democratic candidate in 1967 was Justice Jim Johnson, a diehard segregationist and rabble-rouser.

While perfidy knows no party, Democrats tended to run hotter, with more fire, bluster and color than Republicans. Democrats were the ones who looked to drive the country in one direction or another, while the GOP was more deeply invested in the status quo. The Republicans were the establishment, who understood how things worked and could summon great gravity and condescension.

They were not the party of the flashy and the fly-by-night; they were not so egalitarian as to admit pikers, grifters and arrivistes. You got the sense that the best of them didn't need the sort of low-grade celebrity and public attention that attaches to politics, that they were, by their lights, actually serving. Noblesse oblige, they called it.

On the other hand, the Democrats by necessity collected misfits and firestarters. They were the party of dreamers and scrappers, nominally interested in social justice, sometimes pandering, almost always defining themselves in opposition to the continued hegemony of the rich and powerful, even as they became or remained the rich and powerful. Anyone could join the Democratic Party; one was born a Republican.

That's how it felt at least; in any given election one could vote for the Republican or the Democrat in the race without really identifying with either tribe. Some people liked to pride themselves on voting for the individual, on making an electoral decision based on the perceived character and ability of the candidate rather than the colors they flew.

It's an over-simplification, I know. But there once was a time when Republicans stood for things other than servicing their richest and most powerful clients and consolidating their power by any means necessary. There was a time when they were the adults.

Now we have the spectacle of a party rallying behind a president desperately clinging to power to keep himself out of jail.

"We're on the verge of having someone take over the conservative movement who is a con artist," Marco Rubio said in 2016.

That same year Ted Cruz said Donald Trump was "utterly amoral," a "serial philanderer" and "narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen." Mick Mulvaney said he was a "terrible human being." Rick Perry called him a "cancer."

They were right. Trump may or may not be deranged, but it's clear he's intellectually and, more importantly, temperamentally unfit to be president. He's a nightmare boss whose only discernible talent is a certain brash ruthlessness from which TV-dazzled mooks can't look away. He accidentally attained high office as much through the incompetence of certain Democrats (another thing the Republicans used to be was "the competent party") as by building a coalition of the aggrieved and fearful, people angry with what they perceive as the erosion of their personal prerogatives.

Trump is a manifestation of white male rage, an incoherent, petulant and blind lashing out at the way America is evolving. He is a national tantrum, the personification of American brattiness, devoid of all grace, wit and self-awareness. He is a vain and petty man who now, finding himself out of his depth and deeply in trouble, has become genuinely dangerous.

He is exactly the sort of phenomenon I imagined the Republicans might be a firewall against.

This is not the first time I've been wrong.

pmartin@arkansasonline.com

http://www.blooddirtangels.com

Editorial on 10/20/2019

Read more:
Where has the GOP gone? - NWAOnline

Earlier this summer, after seeing Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I posed an important question for which we all demand an answer: Is Quentin Tarantino a Justified superfan? The film is littered with actors from that franchise, except for one notable exception: Walton Goggins, who has even worked with Tarantino before in both Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight. WHY WERE WE BEING PUNISHED?

Now, the rest of the year has shaped up to be a veritable smorgasbord of Goggins content, and for that, I am very grateful. And while The Unicorn on CBS is fine and probably will, as Dustin anticipates, be renewed for a second season, Im here to praise something else: The extreme self-awareness The Righteous Gemstones exhibits about Gogginss own mythology as an actor, and how much that cements our interest as viewers.

via GIPHY

Did you read Mikes pieces about The Righteous Gemstones when Danny McBrides show launched back in August to the highest comedy-premiere numbers HBO had seen in three years? The first season of the show wrapped on Sundayand HBO had already announced a second-season renewal weeks agoand much like McBride did on his previous show, Vice Principals, he employs Goggins like the secret weapon he is.

via GIPHY

via GIPHY

To be fair, the characters of Uncle Baby Billy Freeman in The Righteous Gemstones and Lee Russell in Vice Principals are very different. In the latter show, Goggins played Lee as a conniving, manipulative, foppish asshole whose dandyisms were in stark contrast to his increasing embrace of toxic masculinity. Lee was thoroughly reprehensible, but you low-key rooted for him anyway because Goggins imbued him with brief glimpses of sensitivity and humanity. The character would then do something tinged by racism and over-the-top self-assurednesshonestly, a lot like Boyd Crowder in the early seasons of Justifiedbut Goggins never half-asses anything, and his dedication sold the bizarre layers of Lee Russell. McBrides writing style, which often veers between extremes of hyper-aggressive immaturity and brusque fragility, worked perfectly when paired with Gogginss commitment.

via GIPHY

via GIPHY

via GIPHY

via GIPHY

Did you see those dance moves? And those teeth? Good, because both of those aspects of Gogginss persona come up again in The Righteous Gemstones, in which Goggins plays Uncle Baby Billy Freeman, the brother-in-law of Gemstone patriarch Eli (John Goodman), brother of the deceased Aimee-Leigh (Jennifer Nettles), and uncle of the adult Gemstone children Jesse (McBride), Judy (Edi Patterson), and Kelvin (Adam DeVine).

via GIPHY

The Gemstones are all outrageous, blissfully surrounded in ostentatious wealth and varyingly concerned about losing access to power (you could write a whole think piece, in fact, about how Judy and Shiv from Succession are spiritual sisters in stifled ambition and questionable morality, and dammit, I might), but Uncle Baby Billy Freeman isnt on the inside of that circle. Hes far on the outskirts, living in a rundown shack on his familial land of Freemans Gap, and married to a 20something he treats as a servant, Tiffany (Valyn Hall), whom he insists that Jesse, Judy, and Kelvinall older than hercall Aunt Tiffany. Hes a former child star who has never been as popular as he was when Aimee-Leigh was by his side, and hes alternately charming, suave, and devilishly mischievous, while also being petty, juvenile, condescending, and crass. Which is to say: He is a perfect character to be played by Walton Goggins.

via GIPHY

The Gemstones arent good people, but Baby Billynever just Billy; you must call him by his old stage name, even though the man is clearly past AARP agein particular is an embodiment of what happens when you internalize all the worst aspects of Southern traditionalism and megachurch Christianity. Tiffany could be his granddaughter, but well, shes his wife, and we see her act consistently subservient to him at all times. Were introduced to Baby Billy as Tiffany is bathing him, and she serves as his counterpart in increasingly violent hijinks as the season progresses.

via GIPHY

via GIPHY

Oh yeah! And they do a lot of sex stuff!

That unerring patriarchy defines his relationship with Judy, too, whom he tries to mold into a new Aimee-Leighnot because shes as talented as her mother was, but because Uncle Baby Billy knows he can make money off her name. And when Judy tries to stand up for herself? Her slightest attempt at individuality earns her a devastating rejection from Uncle Baby Billyharsher in tone, but no different in content, from how her father Eli also underestimates her.

via GIPHY

All of this is to say that Uncle Baby Billy is quite profoundly an asshole, but the show pulled off two impressive things with the character in the first season. The first is that although Sundays season finale, Better Is the End of a Thing Than Its Beginning, offers a somewhat surprising redemption arc for nearly every GemstoneEli makes amends with a preacher (Dermot Mulroney) the family fucked over; Jesse joins his son Gideon (Skyler Gisondo) doing mission work in Haiti; Judy apologizes to former fianc BJ (Tim Baltz), whom she had abused during their relationship; and Kelvin saves his sort-of boyfriend Keefe (Tony Cavalero)and steps backward from the gung-ho anti-megachurch vibe of the preceding episodes, it does not change who Uncle Baby Billy is. The man is a schemer and a charlatan, and after being struck by lightning, hes still that guy. Hes out here calling himself the Electric Preacher, selling hand-drawn milieus of what he claims he saw in Heaven, and attracting a tent-revival following of people devoted to his word.

All Uncle Baby Billy has ever wanted is a breathless (and mindless) fanbase, and he gets itand Tiffany is right by his side, helping in her husbands con. Not everyone is going to become a better person overnightand a valid compliant about the finale could be that the Gemstones sure do grow consciences quite quicklyso Im glad The Righteous Gemstones thankfully doesnt walk away from the very captivatingly awful person theyve built in Uncle Baby Billy.

And whether or not Goggins is back for the shows second season, I remain fascinated by the other thing The Righteous Gemstones does well: Make the Uncle Baby Billy character itself a composite of so many other characteristics we love about Goggins, both as an actor and as a person.

Exhibit A: Those dance moves we see in Vice Principals come up again as Uncle Baby Billy is a prolific clogger, even in his older age.

via GIPHY

via GIPHY

Exhibit B: A nod to Gogginss extensive work playing overzealous preachers, from Justified to the indie Them That Follow.

from Cash GIFs via Gfycat

And, most importantly, Exhibit C: THOSE DAMN TEETH. What is the Righteous Gemstones subplot about Tiffanys teethvery uneven at first, and then replaced with veneers once the couple steals millions from the Gemstonesif not an acknowledgement of our cultural fascination with Gogginss own chompers?

Gogginss teeth are very well-searched on Google, and if you didnt know about his harrowing tale of losing his front teeth twice, here you go.

Im convinced that McBride and frequent collaborators Hill and David Gordon Green know all this, know about Gogginss cult appeal, know which elements of his public persona and acting style appeal to us so much, and leaned into those elements hard to make Uncle Baby Billy a riveting character repellent because of his egoism and empathetic because of his familiarity. The Righteous Gemstones used Goggins perfectly, and I genuinely hope he sticks around on the show because no one else in the world can deliver a song lyric like Running through the house with a pickle in my mouth (added by Hill to the song that McBride wrote with costar Patterson and composer Joseph Stephens) as perfectly as he does. No one! The man was born to misbehave.

Roxana Hadadi is a Staff Contributor for Pajiba. You can follow her on Twitter.

Header Image Source: HBO/The Righteous Gemstones

Next Article

Read the rest here:
What Happened to Walton Goggins's Uncle Baby Billy on 'The Righteous Gemstones' Finale? - Pajiba

The Apple Card offers immediate gratification when it comes to rewards. (Photo Illustration by ... [+] Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

In addition to being made out of titanium and arriving in laptop-like packaging, the new Apple Card stands out for letting cardholders earn immediate rewards, dubbed Daily Cash.

Unlike many other credit cards, where rewards typically post after one or two billing cycles, the Apple Card lets you see and access your accumulating rewards daily via your iPhone.

While it sounds convenient, that immediate gratification also comes with a downside: It could lead you to spend more, according to behavioral economists.

It can be very easy to go overboard [with rewards], says Lisa Kramer, a finance professor specializing in behavioral economics at the University of Toronto. Of the Apple Card rewards and their immediacy, she says: Its so much more salient and easy to respond in a way thats impulsive, but that may not be in your best financial interest.

Ted Mann, chief executive of Slyce, a tech startup focused on visual search and image recognition, certainly noticed the immediacy when he started using the Apple Card shortly after it came out.

I started to see the cash show up in the Wallet every day, you get a buck or two. Thats definitely gotten me to want to use Apple Pay more for just about anything, he says.

Apple Pay is the mobile wallet on your iPhone, and indeed the Apple Card incentivizes the use of that wallet, offering 2% to 3% back on purchases made via Apple Pay. (Theres a physical version of the card, too, but it earns only 1% back.)

While Mann says he isnt necessarily spending more because of the Daily Cash accumulations, he is using Apple Pay more to get those elevated rewards.

Manns other credit cards also earn rewards, he says, but I never see the rewards. My wife redeems them a couple times a year to book a family vacation, but otherwise, Im never aware of them, so the Apple Cash ones seem far more effective, he says.

Seeing rewards accumulate daily on your phone makes them more visible compared with seeing them on a monthly statement, says David Gal, professor of marketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

People like the immediate feeling of reward, he notes.

But Gal cautions that such a feature can potentially lead to more spending than you initially intended. And this can be problematic given that credit card rewards in general are relatively small compared with the spending required to earn them.

For example, in the case of the Apple Cards highest rewards tier, youd have to spend $1,000 just to earn $30 back in rewards. The cards ongoing APR is variable but can range as high as 20% or more. So if youre routinely blowing your budget just to see your rewards tick higher and youre unable to pay your balance in full each month, it can cost you more in interest than youre collecting in rewards.

If youre not currently setting budgets ahead of your shopping trips, its a good habit to develop.

If we operate in a world where we dont set budgetary limits, then its easy to spend more than we intend, Kramer says. But if were explicit in advance about what those spending limits are, it can be helpful, she says.

For those who have trouble sticking with those budgets? Signing up for spending alerts or notifications when you reach a certain limit can also temper spending, she adds.

But prevention can start even earlier. Kramer suggests self-awareness as a first defense. Understanding how your brain is responding to rewards can help you step back and make a different, more informed choice. With the Apple Card, for instance, you could choose to ignore the accumulating Daily Cash and check in just once a month, as you might with a typical rewards card.

Ultimately, if you know the allure of such instant rewards will tempt you to overspend, you may want to turn off your phone when you enter a store or leave it behind entirely and stick with cash or a debit card.

Read the original here:
Why The Apple Card Could Make You Spend More - Forbes

A "high-risk" prisoner slashed another inmate's throat with an improvised knife, a court has heard.

Daniel Illingworth, 28, was serving a sentence at Prison Holme House in Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham, when he attacked fellow prisoner Stephen Holman.

He hid a blade melted into the handle of a toothbrush and launched the assault when the men left their cells for their evening meal at the jail.

Illingworth walked from his cell wearing shorts, which is not allowed in the prison during mealtimes, and refused to go back to change when an officer instructed him to do so.

He walked towards Holman, jumped on his back and appeared to push him, Teesside Crown Court heard.

Prosecutor Rachel Masters said a prison officer saw at least two blows as she shouted at him to stop and activated alarm bells, Teesside Live reports.

Ms Masters said: "As she got closer, she could see in his hand what looked like a white plastic handled implement, something like a toothbrush or cutlery handle.

"Distinctively it had a blade on the end of it."

The officer backed off and asked Illingworth to go back to his cell to drop the weapon, which he did.

Holman suffered three wounds across his throat, to the lower right of his chin and behind his ear, which were treated with glue and strips.

He said he did not know why the attack happened.

The assault, just before 5pm on July 13 last year, was captured on CCTV footage which was played to a judge.

Illingworth, whose address was listed in court as Holme House Prison, initially said he did not know anything about the violence.

He said he had severe mental health problems and claimed Holman injured himself.

He later admitted wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Illingworth was given a 10-year sentence for robbery in 2011 and for wounding with intent, wounding and unauthorised possession of a knife in prison in 2018.

He committed the latest assault just three months after receiving the 2018 sentence.

David Comb, mitigating, said Illingworth had a "complex psychiatric and social background".

He said a report referred to Illingworth's mobility in prison and his "sense of humiliation, compounded by his personality and hypersensitivity as well as paranoid misinterpretation".

A psychiatrist suggested Illingworth posed a high risk of future violence.

Judge Stephen Ashurst told Illingworth: "You took the blade to his face and neck.

"In the event the injury sustained by Stephen Holman were a good deal less serious than it might otherwise have been.

"But your position, I'm afraid, is made serious by your dreadful record of offending.

"You have very little self-awareness of your problems and the capacity to try and deal with them in the future."

He ruled Illingworth was a dangerous offender posing risk of serious harm to the public "and to serving prisoners in particular".

He said the prisoner did not currently meet the criteria for a life sentence but warned him that he could be given once if he carried on offending.

Illingworth was given a 13-year extended sentence.

This will be an eight-year custodial term, of which he must serve two thirds before the Parole Board decide whether he can be released early, plus five years' extended licence.

Continue reading here:
'High-risk' prisoner stabbed fellow inmate in the throat with makeshift knife - Mirror Online

The Western world has largely been shaped by an admiration of logicversus emotion. Yet as humans, it's impossible to operate with just one or the other. In todays world, where artificial intelligence and digitization rule, many leaders and organizations are expected to adhere to a new social and environmental way of thinking, a more human way of thinking. Qualities like empathy and sensitivity, which used to be viewed by many as weaknesses, are now often seen as strengths. Emotional intelligence (EQ) has become more than a buzz phrase it's now a widely practiced tool embraced by progressive executives to increase their companies bottom lines and improve corporate culture.

I see the benefits of EQ every day in my work with executives and teams. Over the course of my career as a therapist, Ive learned that many of the interpersonal skills we use to strengthen our personal relationships are the same skills needed to fuel success in the workplace.

However, the questions remain: How did we get here, and are we prepared for what's to come?

The Origins Of EQ

Great philosophers like Aristotle studied the effects of emotions, what triggers them and how to deal with them. Aristotle is believed to have once said, Anyone can become angry that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way that is not within everybodys power and is not easy." This statement demonstrates an early understanding of EQ, yet this way of thinking didnt take off until much later. In fact, it wasnt until around the 1980s that companies started to take notice of the effects of a positive work culture on employees. During this time, Reuven Bar-On, a clinical psychologist whose assessment tool I'm certified to use, began studying the answers to two questions: What makes people successful, and what makes people happy? The results of those studies started a journey of conceptualizing, researching and applying EQ.

Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer coined the term "emotional intelligence" in 1990, defining it as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions. Salovey and Mayer worked together to clearly define and measure the effects of EQ, which piqued the interest of larger corporations concerned with hiring and retaining top talent.

Clinical psychologist and author Steven Stein, who co-founded a business that publishes computerized psychological assessments, also contributed to the study and spread of EQ. In 1994, he met Bar-On, who asked him to publish his EQ assessment tool. Today, many coaches (myself included) use this tool in their work with clients.

Later,Daniel Goleman popularized the concept of EQ and helped spread the idea throughout mainstream culture.

The Modern And Future Leader

Today, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a leading company that doesnt have a focus on EQ. Organizations all over the world have turned to EQ to help them hire, promote and develop their employees. They recognize that a positive work environment can help attract top talent, drive employee engagement and affect profitability and performance and the right leaders understand this too.

Leveraging EQ

The modern and future leader integrates the realms of both logic and emotion. They leverage EQ in a way that goes beyond gauging how employees are feeling and toward successfully navigating complex business situations. They can nurture our strengths rather than pick apart our weaknesses. They create and foster meaningful relationships with a multigenerational and diverse workforce. And while theyre no less focused on strategy and competition, the modern leader operates with adaptiveness, compassion and mindfulness.

Here are some tips for how to leverage EQ as a leader.

Practice self-awareness. Take stock of how you feel and react to certain stressors throughout the day. Notice how your emotions contribute to your actions. In order to understand the emotions of others, you first have to be in tune with yourself.

Listen carefully. This is surprisingly difficult for some leaders. It can be tempting to think that listening is merely following rather than leading. However, in order to make and sustain more meaningful connections and tailor communication styles to the right people, learn to become a better listener.

Be open and embrace conflict. A good leader is willing to problem-solve and dive into disagreements rather than run away from conflict. A leader with a high EQ level is much more likely to problem-solve effectively, rationally and with a certain level of poise and composure.

Make culture a priority. Purpose-driven leaders understand what engages and excites employees and work to cultivate an environment that fosters their creativity and engagement.

Living In The Present And Learning From The Past

Today, smart leaders are driven by opportunities and the future rather than by the past or their egos. They might learn valuable lessons from past triumphs, but they dont attempt to preserve the status quo. Instead of worrying about looking good or staying consistent, stay vigilant and on top of future trends, and don't be afraid to embrace the flow of new ideas.

More:
Emotional Intelligence At Work: Becoming The Leader Of The Future - Forbes