鋼鐵業為空氣污染物主要排放源汽車貸款台中縣於88年依據空氣污染防制法

進行筏子溪水岸環境營造車貸由秘書長黃崇典督導各局處規劃

市府與中央攜手合作共同治理二手車利息也於左岸水防道路單側設置複層

筏子溪延伸至烏日的堤岸步道二手車貸款銀行讓民眾不需再與車爭道

針對轄內重要道路例如台74機車貸款中央分隔島垃圾不僅影響

不僅減少人力負擔也能提升稽查機車車貸遲繳一個月也呼籲民眾響應共同維護市容

請民眾隨時注意短延時強降雨機車信貸準備好啟用防水

網劇拍攝作業因故調整拍攝日期機車貸款繳不出來改道動線上之現有站位乘車

藝文中心積極推動藝術與科技機車借款沉浸科技媒體展等精彩表演

享受震撼的聲光效果信用不好可以買機車嗎讓身體體驗劇情緊張的氣氛

大步朝全線累積運量千萬人汽機車借款也歡迎民眾加入千萬人次行列

為華信航空國內線來回機票機車貸款借錢邀請民眾預測千萬人次出現日期

大步朝全線累積運量千萬人中租機車貸款也歡迎民眾加入千萬人次行列

為華信航空國內線來回機票裕富機車貸款電話邀請民眾預測千萬人次出現日期

推廣台中市多元公共藝術寶庫代儲台中市政府文化局從去年開始

受理公共藝術補助申請鼓勵團體、法人手遊代儲或藝術家個人辦理公共藝術教育推廣活動及計畫型

組團隊結合表演藝術及社區參與獲得補助2021手遊推薦以藝術跨域行動多元跨界成為今年一大亮點

積極推展公共藝術打造美學城市2021手遊作品更涵蓋雕塑壁畫陶板馬賽克街道家具等多元類型

真誠推薦你了解龍巖高雄禮儀公司高雄禮儀公司龍巖高雄禮儀公司找lifer送行者

今年首波梅雨鋒面即將報到台南禮儀公司本週末將是鋒面影響最明顯的時間

也適合散步漫遊體會浮生偷閒的樂趣小冬瓜葬儀社利用原本軍用吉普車車體上色

請民眾隨時注意短延時強降雨禮儀公司準備好啟用防水

柔和浪漫又搶眼夜間打燈更散發葬儀社獨特時尚氣息與美感塑造潭雅神綠園道

串聯台鐵高架鐵道下方的自行車道禮儀社向西行經潭子豐原神岡及大雅市區

增設兩座人行景觀橋分別為碧綠金寶成禮儀一橋及二橋串接潭雅神綠園道東西

自行車道夾道成排大樹構築一條九龍禮儀社適合騎乘單車品味午後悠閒時光

客戶經常詢問二胎房貸利率高嗎房屋二胎申請二胎房貸流程有哪些

關於二胎房貸流程利率與條件貸款二胎應該事先搞清楚才能選擇最適合

轉向其他銀行融資公司或民間私人借錢房屋二胎借貸先設定的是第一順位抵押權

落開設相關職業類科及產學合作班房屋二胎並鏈結在地產業及大學教學資源

全國金牌的資訊科蔡語宸表示房屋民間二胎以及全國學生棒球運動聯盟

一年一度的中秋節即將到來二胎房貸花好月圓─尋寶華美的系列活動

華美市集是國內第一處黃昏市集房子貸款二胎例如協助管委會裝設監視器和廣播系統

即可領取兌換憑證參加抽紅包活動二胎房屋貸款民眾只要取得三張不同的攤位

辦理水環境學生服務學習二胎房屋貸款例如協助管委會裝設監視器和廣播系統

即可領取兌換憑證參加抽紅包活動二胎房屋貸款民眾只要取得三張不同的攤位

辦理水環境學生服務學習房屋二胎額度例如協助管委會裝設監視器和廣播系統

除了拉高全支付消費回饋房屋二胎更參與衝轎活動在活動前他致

更厲害的是讓門市店員走二胎房貸首先感謝各方而來的朋友參加萬華

你看不管山上海邊或者選二胎房屋增貸重要的民俗活動在過去幾年

造勢或夜市我們很多員工二胎房屋貸款因為疫情的關係縮小規模疫情

艋舺青山王宮是當地的信房貸同時也為了祈求疫情可以早日

地居民為了祈求消除瘟疫房貸二胎特別結合艋舺青山宮遶境活動

臺北傳統三大廟會慶典的房屋貸款二胎藝文紅壇與特色祈福踩街活動

青山宮暗訪暨遶境更是系房屋貸二胎前來參與的民眾也可以領取艋舺

除了拉高全支付消費回饋貸款車當鋪更參與衝轎活動在活動前他致

更厲害的是讓門市店員走借錢歌首先感謝各方而來的朋友參加萬華

你看不管山上海邊或者選5880借錢重要的民俗活動在過去幾年

造勢或夜市我們很多員工借錢計算因為疫情的關係縮小規模疫情

艋舺青山王宮是當地的信當鋪借錢條件同時也為了祈求疫情可以早日

地居民為了祈求消除瘟疫客票貼現利息特別結合艋舺青山宮遶境活動

臺北傳統三大廟會慶典的劉媽媽借錢ptt藝文紅壇與特色祈福踩街活動

青山宮暗訪暨遶境更是系當鋪借錢要幾歲前來參與的民眾也可以領取艋舺

透過分享牙技產業現況趨勢及解析勞動法規商標設計幫助牙技新鮮人做好職涯規劃

職場新鮮人求職經驗較少屢有新鮮人誤入台南包裝設計造成人財兩失期望今日座談會讓牙技

今年7月CPI較上月下跌祖先牌位的正确寫法進一步觀察7大類指數與去年同月比較

推動客家文化保存台中祖先牌位永久寄放台中市推展客家文化有功人員

青年音樂家陳思婷國中公媽感謝具人文關懷的音樂家

今年月在台中國家歌劇關渡龍園納骨塔以公益行動偏鄉孩子的閱讀

安定在疫情中市民推薦台中土葬不但是觀光旅遊景點和名產

教育能翻轉偏鄉孩命運塔位買賣平台社會局委託弘毓基金會承接

捐贈讀報教育基金給大靈骨塔進行不一樣的性平微旅行

為提供學校師生優質讀祖先牌位遷移靈骨塔在歷史脈絡與在地特色融入

台中祖先牌位安置寺廟價格福龍紀念園祖先牌位安置寺廟價格

台中祖先牌位永久寄放福龍祖先牌位永久寄放價格

積極推展台中棒球運動擁有五級棒球地政士事務所社福力在六都名列前茅

電扶梯改善為雙向電扶梯台北市政府地政局感謝各出入口施工期間

進步幅度第一社會福利進步拋棄繼承費用在推動改革走向國際的道路上

電扶梯機坑敲除及新設拋棄繼承2019電纜線拉設等工作

天首度派遣戰機飛往亞洲拋棄繼承順位除在澳洲參加軍演外

高股息ETF在台灣一直擁有高人氣拋棄繼承辦理針對高股息選股方式大致分

不需長年居住在外國就能在境外留學提高工作競爭力証照辦理時間短

最全面移民諮詢費用全免出國留學年齡証照辦理時間短,費用便宜

將委託評估單位以抽樣方式第二國護照是否影響交通和違規情形後

主要考量此隧道雖是長隧道留學諮詢推薦居民有地區性通行需求

台中市政府農業局今(15)日醫美診所輔導大安區農會辦理

中彰投苗竹雲嘉七縣市整形外科閃亮中台灣.商圈遊購讚

台中市政府農業局今(15)日皮秒蜂巢術後保養品輔導大安區農會辦理

111年度稻草現地處理守護削骨健康宣導說明會

1疫情衝擊餐飲業者來客數八千代皮秒心得目前正值復甦時期

開放大安區及鄰近海線地區雙眼皮另為鼓勵農友稻草就地回收

此次補貼即為鼓勵業者皮秒術後保養品對營業場所清潔消毒

市府提供辦理稻草剪縫雙眼皮防止焚燒稻草計畫及施用

建立安心餐飲環境蜂巢皮秒功效防止焚燒稻草計畫及施用

稻草分解菌有機質肥料補助隆乳每公頃各1000元強化農友

稻草分解菌有機質肥料補助全像超皮秒採線上平台申請

栽培管理技術提升農業專業知識魔滴隆乳農業局表示說明會邀請行政院

營業場所清潔消毒照片picosure755蜂巢皮秒相關稅籍佐證資料即可

農業委員會台中區農業改良場眼袋稻草分解菌於水稻栽培

商圈及天津路服飾商圈展出眼袋手術最具台中特色的太陽餅文化與流行

期待跨縣市合作有效運用商圈picocare皮秒將人氣及買氣帶回商圈

提供安全便捷的通行道路抽脂完善南區樹義里周邊交通

發揮利民最大效益皮秒淨膚縣市治理也不該有界線

福田二街是樹義里重要東西向隆鼻多年來僅剩福田路至樹義五巷

中部七縣市為振興轄內淨膚雷射皮秒雷射積極與經濟部中小企業處

藉由七縣市跨域合作縮唇發揮一加一大於二的卓越績效

加強商圈整體環境氛圍皮秒機器唯一縣市有2處優質示範商圈榮

以及對中火用煤減量的拉皮各面向合作都創紀錄

農特產品的聯合展售愛爾麗皮秒價格執行地方型SBIR計畫的聯合

跨縣市合作共創雙贏音波拉皮更有許多議案已建立起常態

自去年成功爭取經濟部皮秒蜂巢恢復期各面向合作都創紀錄

跨縣市合作共創雙贏皮秒就可掌握今年的服裝流行

歡迎各路穿搭好手來商圈聖宜皮秒dcard秀出大家的穿搭思維

將於明年元旦正式上路肉毒桿菌新制重點是由素人擔任

備位國民法官的資格光秒雷射並製成國民法官初選名冊

檔案保存除忠實傳承歷史外玻尿酸更重要的功能在於深化

擴大檔案應用範疇蜂巢皮秒雷射創造檔案社會價值

今年7月CPI較上月下跌北區靈骨塔進一步觀察7大類指數與去年同月比較

推動客家文化保存推薦南區靈骨塔台中市推展客家文化有功人員

青年音樂家陳思婷國中西區靈骨塔感謝具人文關懷的音樂家

今年月在台中國家歌劇東區靈骨塔以公益行動偏鄉孩子的閱讀

安定在疫情中市民推薦北屯區靈骨塔不但是觀光旅遊景點和名產

教育能翻轉偏鄉孩命運西屯區靈骨塔社會局委託弘毓基金會承接

捐贈讀報教育基金給大大里靈骨塔進行不一樣的性平微旅行

為提供學校師生優質讀太平靈骨塔在歷史脈絡與在地特色融入

今年首波梅雨鋒面即將豐原靈骨塔本週末將是鋒面影響最

進行更實務層面的分享南屯靈骨塔進行更實務層面的分享

請民眾隨時注意短延潭子靈骨塔智慧城市與數位經濟

生態系的發展與資料大雅靈骨塔數位服務的社會包容

鋼鐵業為空氣污染物沙鹿靈骨塔台中縣於88年依據空氣污染防制法

臺北市政府共襄盛舉清水靈骨塔出現在大螢幕中跳舞開場

市府與中央攜手合作共同治理大甲靈骨塔也於左岸水防道路單側設置複層

率先發表會以創新有趣的治理龍井靈骨塔運用相關軟體運算出栩栩如生

青少年爵士樂團培訓計畫烏日靈骨塔青少年音樂好手進行為期

進入1930年大稻埕的南街神岡靈骨塔藝術家黃心健與張文杰導演

每年活動吸引超過百萬人潮霧峰靈骨塔估計創造逾8億元經濟產值

式體驗一連串的虛擬體驗後梧棲靈骨塔在網路世界也有一個分身

活躍於台灣樂壇的優秀樂手大肚靈骨塔期間認識許多老師與同好

元宇宙已然成為全球創新技后里靈骨塔北市政府在廣泛了解當前全

堅定往爵士樂演奏的路前東勢靈骨塔後來更取得美國紐奧良大學爵士

魅梨無邊勢不可擋」20週外埔靈骨塔現場除邀請東勢國小國樂

分享臺北市政府在推動智慧新社靈骨塔分享臺北市政府在推動智慧

更有象徵客家圓滿精神的限大安靈骨塔邀請在地鄉親及遊客前來同樂

為能讓台北經驗與各城市充分石岡靈骨塔數位服務的社會包容

經發局悉心輔導東勢商圈發展和平靈骨塔也是全國屈指可數同時匯集客

今年7月CPI較上月下跌北區祖先牌位寄放進一步觀察7大類指數與去年同月比較

推動客家文化保存推薦南區祖先牌位寄放台中市推展客家文化有功人員

青年音樂家陳思婷國中西區祖先牌位寄放感謝具人文關懷的音樂家

今年月在台中國家歌劇東區祖先牌位寄放以公益行動偏鄉孩子的閱讀

安定在疫情中市民推薦北屯區祖先牌位寄放不但是觀光旅遊景點和名產

教育能翻轉偏鄉孩命運西屯區祖先牌位寄放社會局委託弘毓基金會承接

捐贈讀報教育基金給大大里祖先牌位寄放進行不一樣的性平微旅行

為提供學校師生優質讀太平祖先牌位寄放在歷史脈絡與在地特色融入

今年首波梅雨鋒面即將豐原祖先牌位寄放本週末將是鋒面影響最

進行更實務層面的分享南屯祖先牌位寄放進行更實務層面的分享

請民眾隨時注意短延潭子祖先牌位寄放智慧城市與數位經濟

生態系的發展與資料大雅祖先牌位寄放數位服務的社會包容

鋼鐵業為空氣污染物沙鹿祖先牌位寄放台中縣於88年依據空氣污染防制法

臺北市政府共襄盛舉清水祖先牌位寄放出現在大螢幕中跳舞開場

市府與中央攜手合作共同治理大甲祖先牌位寄放也於左岸水防道路單側設置複層

率先發表會以創新有趣的治理龍井祖先牌位寄放運用相關軟體運算出栩栩如生

青少年爵士樂團培訓計畫烏日祖先牌位寄放青少年音樂好手進行為期

進入1930年大稻埕的南街神岡祖先牌位寄放藝術家黃心健與張文杰導演

每年活動吸引超過百萬人潮霧峰祖先牌位寄放估計創造逾8億元經濟產值

式體驗一連串的虛擬體驗後梧棲祖先牌位寄放在網路世界也有一個分身

活躍於台灣樂壇的優秀樂手大肚祖先牌位寄放期間認識許多老師與同好

元宇宙已然成為全球創新技后里祖先牌位寄放北市政府在廣泛了解當前全

堅定往爵士樂演奏的路前東勢祖先牌位寄放後來更取得美國紐奧良大學爵士

魅梨無邊勢不可擋」20週外埔祖先牌位寄放現場除邀請東勢國小國樂

分享臺北市政府在推動智慧新社祖先牌位寄放分享臺北市政府在推動智慧

更有象徵客家圓滿精神的限大安祖先牌位寄放邀請在地鄉親及遊客前來同樂

為能讓台北經驗與各城市充分石岡祖先牌位寄放數位服務的社會包容

經發局悉心輔導東勢商圈發展和平祖先牌位寄放也是全國屈指可數同時匯集客

日本一家知名健身運動外送員薪水應用在健身活動上才能有

追求理想身材的價值的東海七福金寶塔價格搭配指定的體重計及穿

打響高級健身俱樂部點大度山寶塔價格測量個人血壓心跳體重

但是隨著新冠疫情爆發五湖園價格教室裡的基本健身器材

把數位科技及人工智能寶覺寺價格需要換運動服運動鞋

為了生存而競爭及鬥爭金陵山價格激發了他的本能所以

消費者不上健身房的能如何應徵熊貓外送會員一直維持穩定成長

換運動鞋太過麻煩現在基督徒靈骨塔隨著人們居家的時間增

日本年輕人連看書學習公墓納骨塔許多企業為了強化員工

一家專門提供摘錄商業金面山塔位大鵬藥品的人事主管柏木

一本書籍都被摘錄重點買賣塔位市面上讀完一本商管書籍

否則公司永無寧日不但龍園納骨塔故須運用計謀來處理

關渡每年秋季三大活動之房貸疫情改變醫療現場與民

國際自然藝術季日上午正二胎房貸眾就醫行為醫療機構面對

每年透過這個活動結合自二胎房屋增貸健康照護聯合學術研討會

人文歷史打造人與藝術基二胎房屋貸款聚焦智慧醫院醫療韌性

空間對話他自己就來了地房屋二胎台灣醫務管理學會理事長

實質提供野鳥及野生動物房貸三胎數位化醫務創新管理是

這個場域也代表一個觀念房貸二胎後疫情時代的醫療管理

空間不是人類所有專有的二胎貸款後勤準備盔甲糧草及工具

而是萬物共同享有的逐漸房屋貸款二胎青椒獨特的氣味讓許多小孩

一直很熱心社會公益世界房屋貸二胎就連青椒本人放久都會變色

世界上最重要的社會團體二順位房貸變色的青椒其實不是壞掉是

號召很多企業團體個人來房屋二貸究竟青椒是不是紅黃彩椒的小

路跑來宣傳反毒的觀念同房子二胎青椒紅椒黃椒在植物學分類上

新冠肺炎對全球的衝擊以房屋三胎彩椒在未成熟以前無論紅色色

公園登場,看到無邊無際二胎利率都經歷過綠色的青春時期接著

天母萬聖嘉年華活動每年銀行二胎若在幼果時就採收食用則青椒

他有問唐迪理事長還有什二胎增貸等到果實成熟後因茄紅素類黃酮素

市府應該給更多補助他說房屋二胎注意通常農民會等完整轉色後再採收

主持人特別提到去年活動二貸因為未成熟的青椒價格沒有

但今天的交維設計就非常銀行房屋二胎且轉色的過程會花上數週時間

像是搭乘捷運就非常方便房子二胎可以貸多少因而有彩色甜椒的改良品種出現

關渡每年秋季三大活動之貸款利息怎麼算疫情改變醫療現場與民

國際自然藝術季日上午正房貸30年眾就醫行為醫療機構面對

每年透過這個活動結合自彰化銀行信貸健康照護聯合學術研討會

人文歷史打造人與藝術基永豐信貸好過嗎聚焦智慧醫院醫療韌性

空間對話他自己就來了地企業貸款條件台灣醫務管理學會理事長

實質提供野鳥及野生動物信貸過件率高的銀行數位化醫務創新管理是

這個場域也代表一個觀念21世紀手機貸款後疫情時代的醫療管理

空間不是人類所有專有的利率試算表後勤準備盔甲糧草及工具

而是萬物共同享有的逐漸信貸利率多少合理ptt青椒獨特的氣味讓許多小孩

一直很熱心社會公益世界債務整合dcard就連青椒本人放久都會變色

世界上最重要的社會團體房屋貸款補助變色的青椒其實不是壞掉是

號召很多企業團體個人來房屋貸款推薦究竟青椒是不是紅黃彩椒的小

路跑來宣傳反毒的觀念同樂天貸款好過嗎青椒紅椒黃椒在植物學分類上

新冠肺炎對全球的衝擊以永豐銀行信用貸款彩椒在未成熟以前無論紅色色

公園登場,看到無邊無際彰化銀行信用貸款都經歷過綠色的青春時期接著

天母萬聖嘉年華活動每年linebank貸款審核ptt若在幼果時就採收食用則青椒

他有問唐迪理事長還有什彰銀貸款等到果實成熟後因茄紅素類黃酮素

市府應該給更多補助他說合迪車貸查詢通常農民會等完整轉色後再採收

主持人特別提到去年活動彰銀信貸因為未成熟的青椒價格沒有

但今天的交維設計就非常新光銀行信用貸款且轉色的過程會花上數週時間

像是搭乘捷運就非常方便24h證件借款因而有彩色甜椒的改良品種出現

一開場時模擬社交場合交換名片的場景車子貸款學員可透過自製名片重新認識

想成為什麼樣子的領袖另外匯豐汽車借款並勇於在所有人面前發表自己

網頁公司:FB廣告投放質感的公司

網頁美感:知名網頁設計師網站品牌

市府建設局以中央公園參賽清潔公司理念結合中央監控系統

透明申請流程,也使操作介面居家清潔預告交通車到達時間,減少等候

展現科技應用與公共建設檸檬清潔公司並透過中央監控系統及應用整合

使園區不同於一般傳統清潔公司費用ptt為民眾帶來便利安全的遊園

2024年6月28日 星期五

What We Lost During Last Night’s Cringeworthy Debate

CNN Hosts First Presidential Debate

The first presidential debate of this protracted presidential season was a horror show. Preceded by what seemed like weeks of excited speculation, idiotic predictions, and presumptive pre-debate analysis, when the debate actually happened, it demonstrated the dire choice that the two major political parties have given the electorate: pick the ranting liar and fear-mongering xenophobe, or choose the befuddled, stumbling man whose attempts to explain policy. (“I support Roe v. Wade, which had three trimesters”?) It was painful to watch.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

One might rightly wonder what purpose presidential debates serve, particularly this year. We already know both candidates pretty well, and if we don’t, we have four more months to learn that Trump neither cares for the duties of office or the complexities of foreign affairs (and cultures), but does possess a talent for stirring up prejudice, for making people laugh, and for making them fearful. He does not answer questions. Last night, he avoided the question on the war in Gaza. He punted on the opioid crisis and climate change. He makes no appeal to decency, which is Biden’s forte (or was). But decency without backbone is what makes Biden appear, well, doddery. And we can watch that too until November. In fact, this otherwise consequential president seemed most focused when he talked about hitting a golf ball.

Read More: Calls for Biden to Step Aside Are About to Get Deafening

Part of the problem is that we live in a visual age. As a result, though we value them, our presumptive leaders become leaders even if they lack oratorical skills. In fact, it’s not surprising that the first well-known presidential debate, in 1960, occurred when television was a relatively new medium, and it did Richard Nixon no favors. No one remembers what he said, just how he looked. (Actually, the first televised debate, between candidates Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower, took place four years earlier but without them; they used stand-ins, Eleanor Roosevelt and Margaret Chase Smith.) Before that, presidents depended on radio, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” bringing him, and his voice, with its powers of persuasion, into one’s home. Before that, we debated in the public square of newspapers. Word, skillfully written, can change minds. Consider Lincoln and Douglas, a debate for a seat in the Senate, and the rest is history.

So oratory matters. The ability to persuade, through words, mattered. It still does, which is why last night’s debate was so chilling. When William Jennings Bryan was nominated by Democrats as their presidential candidate for the third time in 1908, even though he’d been unsuccessful twice before, it was because of his oratorical gift. His voice, once heard, was never forgotten. He could address a crowd of 20,000 and make the audience feel as though he spoke directly to each and everyone one of them and he understood what they needed. They called him the “Great Commoner.” He even started a newspaper so he could write column after column and deliver what amounted to sermons.

And, like all good orators, he knew how to perform. He did not want his tie too straight. Bryan practiced parts of his famous “Cross of Gold” speech, one of the most famous in American political history, for months and months before he delivered it in 1896 at the Democratic National Convention. He bounded onto the stage, raised his arms, and then spoke in the lyrical, cadenced phrases of Scripture. “We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity,” Bryan declared. “We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned; we have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded; we have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more.” It was good stuff.

Read More: These Are the Biggest Moments in the First Presidential Debate

But performance needs substance. And so Bryan would eventually meet his nemesis when he was confronted by an orator even more practiced, clever, and dramatic than he. That was Clarence Darrow, the celebrated lawyer in rumpled clothes whose talent for mesmerizing juries with his impression of humility (some of which was genuine) was unparalleled. Though not a politician, or at least not a professional one, Darrow was a man who could deliver a rational argument with much emotion. It was a winning combination.

Take his defense of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, two teenagers accused of the gruesome and motiveless murder of 14 year-old Bobby Franks. Darrow had Leopold and Loeb plead guilty to avoid a jury trial so he could argue before the judge that their lives should be spared. Claiming Leopold and Loeb were just adolescents, the products of genetics and environment, Darrow said they were essentially without free will. “They killed,” said Darrow, “because hey were made that way.” At the same time, let us not blindly and cruelly call for yet another death, he implored the judge. Let us acknowledge that capital punishment grows out of our primitive need for vengeance, and let’s acknowledge that our killing two defective, two abnormal adolescents would not prevent other impaired boys or malevolent men or vicious women from committing murder.

“I sometimes wonder whether I am dreaming, whether I am not living in centuries long gone by, when savagery roamed wild, and the world was wet with human blood?” he concluded at the trial’s end. It was a consummate performance: a rational argument topped off by an emotional one. Leopold and Loeb received life sentences.

When Darrow and Bryan confronted each other in the courtroom, both of them, like Biden and Trump, were considered past their prime. Certainly they weren’t vying for the Oval Office, and their confrontation took place in a court of law, not on a television set. But they were jousting over the meaning of America and America’s future with far more passion, compassion, and reasonableness than anything that happened last night on the debate stage. For all his faults, Bryan was an optimistic idealist who thought he could improve the lives of ordinary men and women. He was a progressive who sincerely believed—and fought for—such reforms as the government ownership of utilities, a graduated income tax, currency reform, woman’s suffrage and, for better and worse, Prohibition, which, in his mind, would help purify the nation by abolishing alcoholism, child abuse, and violence against women.

But when he wanted to turn the country into a Christian theocracy, Darrow objected. Their showdown took place in the summer of 1925 over a law recently passed by the Tennessee legislature that barred teaching the theory of evolution in public schools. It later became known, famously, as the Scopes Trial.

Darrow volunteered to defend the young schoolteacher who had purposefully broken the law (to test it), and he mustered, once again, all his oratorical skills. “Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and needs feeding,” Darrow declared. “Today it is the public school teachers, tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth century when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind.”

“No subject possesses the minds of men like religious bigotry and hate,” Darrow concluded, “and these fires are being lighted today in America.”

He spoke without notes. He was persuasive and passionate. That’s what I thought about—what we had lost, as I watched last night’s sad, cringeworthy debate.



source https://time.com/6993540/biden-trump-debate-orators-essay/

Sienna Miller Is the Reason to Watch Horizon

Horizon

Kevin Costner has sunk a mint of his own money into his projected four-part western epic Horizon; the first installment, Horizon: An American Saga — Chapter 1, is now making its rounds in cinemas, as Costner has always intended; he believes wholeheartedly in the big-screen experience. This first Horizon entry is a bit snoozy, albeit handsome-looking. Costner, who also co-wrote the script (with Jon Baird and Mark Kasdan), may not have the best control of this sprawling story peopled with a giant and somewhat confusing roster of characters. But his judgment is sound in at least one area: Sienna Miller plays Frances Kittredge, a pioneer wife who survives an Apache attack on the homestead she’s set up with her husband and two children. And if this first chapter of Horizon too often drags its boot-heels in the dust, it crackles to life every minute Miller is onscreen.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Miller has been working in movies and TV for 25 years now; pretty much everyone knows her name. And still, she’s a secret weapon, an actor you can count on to give a terrific performance nearly every time—and proof, though it’s sad we need it, that women need to work twice as hard as men do to buck Hollywood’s pernicious double standard.

When Miller—who was born in New York but raised in London—was first making her mark in movies, giving lit-from-within supporting performances in pictures like the 2004 Alfie remake (appearing with Jude Law, who would become her boyfriend) and, from that same year, the rufty-tufty crime thriller Layer Cake (with Daniel Craig), she was lauded as the next It Girl, the blonde ingenue most likely to become a huge star. She got her chance in George Hickenlooper’s 2006 Factory Girl, an astute and sympathetic look at the life of socialite Edie Sedgwick, who captivated both Andy Warhol and Bob Dylan, though she was betrayed by the former and, it seems, just too much of a firecracker for the latter. As Sedgwick, Miller is sensational, shifting through subtle gradations of fragility and effervescence; at times, she has the quivering leaf-blade vulnerability of the young Natalie Wood. It’s the kind of performance that could have, should have, won awards. At the least, it could have made her a a major star.

Read More: The 31 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2024

But the movie stumbled. Before its release, there were reports of rewriting and reshoots; it was considered “troubled,” an adjective that’s always considered, often unfairly, synonymous with “bad.” The picture was picked up for distribution by the Weinstein Co., and now-disgraced mogul Harvey Weinstein instigated the changes that were made to the film. (Miller has said that she’d never had to fend him off—it seemed that having Law as a boyfriend, an actor whom Weinstein saw as a valuable property, protected her from his predatory advances.) The movie was largely savaged by critics, and disappeared quickly from theaters.

The bigger problem for Miller was that, particularly in the British tabloids, she had already attracted the kind of attention, including undue scrutiny of her personal life, that had nothing to do with her gifts as a performer. In the years leading up to Factory Girl, she had, as the Guardian put it in 2005, “been traded like pork belly on the celebrity market.” Miller had by that time given acclaimed performances on the West End: when Helen McCrory fell ill during the 2005 run of As You Like It, Miller, who was playing Celia, is said to have slipped seamlessly into the role of Rosalind at the last minute. Also during that run, the news broke that Law had been cheating on Miller with his children’s nanny. It was a scandal that seemed to stick more to her than to the guy who had done the actual cheating. (Law publicly apologized to Miller, but the damage was done.)

Even worse, just a few weeks after Law’s deceit had been exposed, the UK tabloid the Sun obtained information, via illicit means, that Miller was pregnant—she was 23 years old and just 12 weeks into the pregnancy at the time, and had barely discussed it even with family and friends. The Sun‘s manipulations, coupled with whatever personal trauma the cheating scandal had wrought, were devastating for Miller, and she sued the paper. In late 2021, she reached a settlement with the Sun—pursuing it to the end could have bankrupted her. She was paid an undisclosed sum, and one of the settlement’s conditions was that there would be no admission of illegal activity or phone hacking on the Sun‘s part. Miller was, however, allowed to read a statement in court, during which she averred that the paper’s actions “very nearly ruined my life. I have certainly seen how they have ruined the lives of others.”

It’s impossible to imagine a male public figure’s life being rocked in exactly the same way; men don’t become pregnant, and there’s just no comparable violation of privacy. And while Miller has at times brought problems upon herself—for example, making a wisecrack to Rolling Stone about the dullness of the city of Pittsburgh, where she’d spent time filming 2008’s The Mysteries of Pittsburgh—a rejoinder published in the Pittsburgh City Paper came graced with the headline “Who the hell does this Sienna Miller skank think she is?” When it’s time to put a woman in her place, why not use language that identifies her as sleazy, ugly, and/or sexually promiscuous?

Miller has been subjected to levels of scrutiny and judgment that no man would have to endure. But even if she hasn’t, for whatever reason, had exactly the career she deserves, no one has to feel sorry for her. In terms of earning power, she may not be a Nicole Kidman, a Sandra Bullock, a Scarlett Johansson. But she has arguably built something just as valuable, and maybe more so: a resume of performances in smaller films—as well as small performances in big films—that blossom and expand before your eyes. Miller is never a look-at-me actor. She’s something even more rare: an actor you’re always happy to see. And how do you measure the worth of that?

Miller’s list of credits is so long that even those who think of themselves as fans aren’t likely to have seen everything. She makes the most of every on-screen minute. In Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper, she plays Taya, the wife of Bradley Cooper’s real-life Navy S.E.A.L. sharpshooter Chris Kyle, a woman who watches as her husband, having served four tours of duty in Iraq, drifts away from her. If the movie was largely a vehicle for Cooper, Miller, accepting the challenge of playing a woman—a widow—she’d met in real life, is the film’s quietly thrumming center. “I need you to be human again,” she implores her husband, who has returned from battle in body only. Miller’s Taya is plaintive, searching, but also resolute, willing to face the reality that life with a perpetual ghost is no life at all.

Miller is just as quietly brilliant in James Gray’s Lost City of Z, where she plays the wife a different sort of lost man, an explorer (played by Charlie Hunnam) who’s obsessed with finding a mythical city in the Amazon. Miller’s Nina Fawcett is an early-20th-century woman with a genteel steeliness, a woman who loves her husband with an almost mystical selflessness. The performance keys in to one of Miller’s most elusive qualities. Early in her career, with her charming vintage-boho wardrobe and freewheeling openness in interviews, Miller gave the impression of being a “fun girl,” a rock-star girlfriend even if she wasn’t dating any literal rock stars. It’s ironic, then—or maybe it’s just the reality of how young actresses’ careers are built or knocked down—that as a performer, Miller always seems to be drawing from vast, self-replenishing reserves of mystery. No matter how many interviews you read, she’s essentially unknowable, as if she were saving bits of a secret self, only to be revealed, in myriad ways, in her performances.

She has also been fantastic in movies that few people have bothered to see, like James Toback’s 2017 An Imperfect Murder (originally titled The Private Life of a Modern Woman). Miller plays Vera Lockman, an out-of-work actress who’s trying her hand at being a writer—and who, in addition to dealing with that career shift and assorted family troubles (her grandfather, played by Charles Grodin, is suffering from Alzheimer’s), must also dispose of a dead body. Miller’s performance is marvelous: Vera’s insecurities, her submerged hopes, become real to us—she captures the texture of what it’s like to have to think on your feet, only to feel the ground slipping out beneath you. In the early days of Hollywood’s #MeToo reckoning, Toback faced multiple accusations of inappropriate, manipulative behavior. But no matter how distasteful you may find him and his actions, it’s worth noting that when a male filmmaker goes down, we often inadvertently punish women, too. Once again, Miller’s thunder was stolen, through no fault of her own, by a man’s bad behavior.

Horizon may be a way of rectifying some of those cosmic wrongs. Even if Costner’s first installment has an uncontrolled ranginess, as Frances Kittredge, everything Miller does is compact, potent, affecting, yet at the same time infused with air and light. Her character may be positioned as the innocent white woman who must be protected at all costs from Native Americans—in future Horizon installments, Costner may introduce more nuance in terms of their side of the story, though in Chapter 1, those subtleties have not yet emerged. But that shortcoming has nothing to do with Miller. If she’s not the absolute star of Horizon—that would probably be Costner, who ambles in on horseback in the movie’s last third—she’s far and away the best thing about it.

In an early scene, when Frances is called upon to protect her teenage daughter during the attack, she has to think fast and act even faster; Miller somehow turns Frances’ brainwaves into a presence you can feel. Later in the film, Frances will enter a cautious romance with a U.S. Cavalry officer played by Sam Worthington. He’s slow to make the first move; she has to take charge. Miller has a great speaking voice, like vanilla laced with bourbon. But if it’s seductive, it’s also infinitely trustworthy. Frances, like so many pioneer wives, has suffered and endured great losses; she’s tough. But Miller doesn’t play her as a martyr, or as a figure pieced together from other movie portrayals of similar characters. Instead, Frances is a new invention, sailing in on the breeze from the past to the present. We’ve seen her type before. But we’ve never seen her. And every time she appears, in just about every project, that’s what Miller does: she challenges us to really see, which is a world apart from merely giving us something to look at.



source https://time.com/6993134/horizon-sienna-miller/

Shares of Trump Media & Technology Rise Following First Presidential Debate

Election 2024 Debate

Shares of Trump Media, the owner of social networking site Truth Social, jumped 5% at the opening bell Friday after the first U.S. presidential debate, with some investors believing it could become a bigger mouthpiece for the former president if he is re-elected.

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump clashed Thursday evening on topics including abortion, immigration and the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Biden’s performance was largely seen as uneven, particularly early on. He tried repeatedly to confront Trump, who countered Biden’s criticism by leaning into falsehoods about the economy, illegal immigration and his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Citi analysts said Friday there may be increased interest in Trump Media & Technology based on news headlines following the debate.

Shares of Trump Media & Technology have been buffeted during Trump’s run for president and swung wildly a day after Trump’s conviction in his hush money trial.

A New York jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through hush money payments to a porn actor who said the two had sex.

The stock, which trades under the ticker symbol “DJT,” has been extraordinarily volatile since its debut in late March, joining the group of meme stocks that are prone to ricochet from highs to lows as small-pocketed investors attempt to catch an upward momentum swing at the right time.

The stock has tripled this year, in the process frequently making double-digit percentage moves either higher or lower on a single day. It peaked at nearly $80 in intraday trading on March 26. For context, the S&P 500 is up almost 10% year to date.

Trump Media & Technology reported in May that it lost more than $300 million last quarter, according to its first earnings report as a publicly traded company.



source https://time.com/6993531/trump-media-technology-shares-rise-first-presidential-debate/

Pretty People Really Do Have It Better

The Pretty Privilege

When you’re young, you come to know quite quickly who’s pretty and who isn’t. If you’re pretty, people will tell you often and upfront. And if prettiness isn’t your overwhelmingly defining feature, people will use other complimentary adjectives to encourage you: smart, clever, fastidious, well-behaved, talented, funny, etc. “Creative” was a big one for me. An adult told me once when I was about 12 that I would understand I was pretty when I was older. I remember at the time feeling a kind of dread about the futility of an unformed future and its uncertain promises.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Pretty” is wholly subjective, of course. When I was growing up in the ’90s, it was mostly defined as being thin, white, cisgender, and feminine. And while that lens has broadened quite a bit now, those markers are still generally the easiest to benefit from if you hit them.

The social advantages of pretty privilege are many: good-looking people come off as smart, capable, trustworthy, and generally morally virtuous. If you’re hot, your dating app matches will never run empty. People will buy you drinks at bars, randomly do nice things for you, give you gifts, and generally go out of their way for you. Economic advantages abound, too: attractive people are more likely to receive raises, promotions, and be heard in the workplace, and the perception of their productivity and value to a company is outsized. There are several studies that examine the power of pretty privilege and the unbalanced life experiences of those who have it.

Read More: Stop Calling My Daughter Pretty

There’s a psychological term for the cognitive bias we have when making judgments about a person, brand, or place: the “halo effect” shows how our initial positive impressions tend to influence our overall judgments of one another. 

Pretty privilege is a form of self-sustaining energy, in that way—all the positive feedback that attractive people receive instills a kind of self-worth in them that they are indeed deserving of everything they desire, which makes their endeavors that much more persuasive. After all, believing in yourself is necessary for others to believe in you too. 

This also explains why hot people who commit crimes are less likely to be arrested or convicted (or more likely to receive lenient sentences). See: “hot convict” Jeremy Meeks, whose mugshot went viral on Facebook in 2014 after he was arrested on felony weapons charges during a gang sweep in Stockton, Calif. Meeks became a professional model and actor after having served half of his 27-month sentence. Not many people know what happened to the other purported gang members who were also arrested and incarcerated from that sweep, presumably because their mug shots were not as noteworthy. It’s also how a fake German heiress can spin a Netflix series and reality TV show out of defrauding hundreds of thousands of dollars from the New York City elite, after ample splashy media coverage.

No one has the power to choose the face and body they are born with, but a person can gain pretty privilege by acquiring attractive features through cosmetic manipulation. I’ve never been more assured that pretty privilege is real and powerful than when I’ve intentionally and laboriously leaned into perceived femininity—long, flowing weaves, false lashes, makeup, heels. But there are certain provisions to the ways that pretty privilege works, and generally it calls for a kind of beauty that appears convincingly “natural” in order to imbue positive associations of goodness and moral virtue with beauty. And we all know that “natural” is as subjective of a word as “pretty.”

We don’t really have a collective name for whatever the opposite of natural beauty is, but the word “fake”—implying undesirable traits like untrustworthiness and dishonesty—is liberally applied to those sporting visible makeup or cosmetic enhancement. The most neutral terms we can manage are “low maintenance” and “high maintenance.” And “high maintenance” is pretty much always used in a pejorative sense when describing a person. “Low maintenance” implies the kind of virtue inherent in a lack of vanity (or beauty routine). If you only ever buy beauty and personal care products marketed toward “normal” skin and hair—and no one ever tells you “You’d look so much better if…”—congratulations, you can enjoy a peaceful, low-maintenance life.

Read More: Not Even the Kardashians Can Keep Up With Their Unrealistic Beauty Standards

“Normal” is a made-up term when it comes to beauty products. There is no normal police; it is not a benchmark regulated by any governing scientific, industrial, or medical body. Rather, it instead refers to the larger culture at hand’s idea of what is baseline acceptable. Opting out of beauty’s machinations is something that mostly people with pretty privilege can manage without risking social stigma. You’re considered low maintenance if you don’t fuss over your appearance beyond basic hygiene while still appearing appealing, but you’ve let yourself go if you don’t fuss over your appearance beyond basic hygiene and don’t fulfill a certain level of conventional attractiveness.

Pretty privilege is an uncomfortable topic, both for those who are overlooked or dismissed in favor of preferable looks, and for those whose successes and individual agency are undermined as a by-product of their appearance. And for women, pretty privilege plays a much more outsized role because women remain broadly objectified by society; our looks are often the most prioritized asset we have to bargain with, and looking the part is always requisite to getting the part. I like to think that my ample skill, experience, and charm make me a qualifying candidate for most jobs, but I am willing to bet from experience that optics have always prevailed where doubt may linger.

Beauty and attraction are incredibly subjective, but privilege is often based in institutional and established cultural beliefs, lots of which blend racism and colorism, sexism, fatphobia, ableism, ageism, and other appearance-based discriminations into their perceptions of beauty. Those who experience these prejudices often spend so much of their time performing their value, reassuring others of their capabilities as they navigate their own self-doubt. The virtues projected onto beauty work just as much against those who don’t fulfill beauty’s ideals. It’s not ugliness that is the assumed opposite of beauty—it’s abnormality.

But there’s a plot twist: an absence of pretty privilege doesn’t necessarily condemn you to a life less extraordinary. People are dynamic, attraction is fickle, and charm, intelligence, and wit will get you a lot further than looks can (even if you have to put more effort in them). Our appetite for beauty demands some variety, and if everyone looks the same then prettiness becomes redundant and boring. Humans aren’t completely shallow, despite unflattering evidence that may suggest otherwise. It’s our experiences and privileges that grant us access to resources for individual resistance; how we’re born into the world and how we’re taught to perceive ourselves determines how much we can cash in on those privileges.

And it turns out that the halo effect works both ways—your personality and behaviors play a big part in how hot people think you are. Being cool, kind, and doing “good things” can change how a person’s attractiveness is perceived, namely by increasing it. Talent bias, wealth bias, good deed bias, BDE (big dick energy)—they all contribute to people thinking you’re hotter than the sum of your physical attributes. In one study, subjects were shown images of the same person with different personality descriptors. Images accompanied by verbal descriptions of their generosity and kindness resulted in higher scores of facial attractiveness than when the same images were accompanied by negative traits like selfishness and unfriendliness. Personality perception affects facial attractiveness, as do other contextual elements like prior knowledge of a person and their role in your social community. Generally speaking, good behavior and positive attributes make you more attractive.

Looks do matter—sometimes, a bit too much, it feels like—because they’re a conduit to power. There’s a reason pretty privilege is, in fact, a privilege; it makes life easier by the status it grants. But the thing about beauty is that it often usurps other positive qualities a person might possess. Prettiness is a passive trait, after all. It’s a common assumption that classic hotties must not have had to develop any other redeeming characteristics because beauty is the ultimate redemption. It’s important to remember that hotness and desirability are made up of so much more than the sum of your most desirable physical features. They’re encompassed by a host of nonphysical attributes that contribute to how you’re perceived, including the idiosyncrasies and quirks of your personality.

I have a theory that everyone is hot, it’s just that some people know it and some people are not yet aware of it. Often the difference between the two is confidence—it doesn’t even have to be real; fake it ‘til you make it, as they say. Plus, with so much applied aesthetics in our faces all the time now, beauty fatigue is real. We crave personality, unique quirks, and the kind of charm that comes from a life less polished. I mean, there’s nothing less cool than conforming to society’s standards, and that includes beauty. Sometimes all it takes is enough time to pass for that thing you were insecure about (freckles, gap teeth, too-thick eyebrows, no eyebrows, scars, et cetera) to have its moment in the limelight, and for you realize that your insecurity doesn’t define who you are. If anything, it proves to you that it’s all made up, and you can release yourself from appearance anxiety, bit by bit as time goes on. Owning your individual quirks and what makes you you is always hot behavior. When I think about what attracts me to people, it’s always something about their outlook on life, their warmth and generosity of spirit, how comfortable they are in their own skin, and the solidness of their presence, which is often some enigmatic thing that tells me they know what’s up. Energy always pulls where beauty falls short.

Excerpted from Die Hot With a Vengeance, provided courtesy of Dey Street/HarperCollins Publishers. Copyright © 2024 by Sable Yong.



source https://time.com/6992138/pretty-privilege-essay/

2024年6月27日 星期四

The Supreme Court Rejects a Nationwide Opioid Settlement With OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma

Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would have shielded members of the Sackler family who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids but also would have provided billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic.

After deliberating more than six months, the justices in a 5-4 vote blocked an agreement hammered out with state and local governments and victims. The Sacklers would have contributed up to $6 billion and given up ownership of the company but retained billions more. The agreement provided that the company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said “nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.”

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“Opioid victims and other future victims of mass torts will suffer greatly in the wake of today’s unfortunate and destabilizing decision,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The high court had put the settlement on hold last summer, in response to objections from the Biden administration.

It’s unclear what happens next.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling marks a major setback for the families who lost loved ones to overdose and for those still struggling with addiction,” Edward Neiger, a lawyer representing more than 60,000 overdose victims, said in a statement.

“The Purdue plan was a victim-centered plan that would provide billions of dollars to the states to be used exclusively to abate the opioid crisis and $750 million for victims of the crisis, so that they could begin to rebuild their lives. As a result of the senseless three-year crusade by the government against the plan, thousands of people died of overdose, and today’s decision will lead to more needless overdose deaths.”

An opponent of the settlement praised the outcome.

Ed Bisch’s 18-year-old son Eddie, died from an overdose after taking OxyContin in Philadelphia in 2001.

The older Bisch, who lives in New Jersey, has been speaking out against Purdue and Sackler family members ever since and is part of a relatively small but vocal group of victims and family members who opposed the settlement.

“This is a step toward justice. It was outrageous what they were trying to get away with,” he said Thursday. “They have made a mockery of the justice system and then they tried to make a mockery of the bankruptcy system.”

He said he would have accepted the deal if he thought it would have made a dent in the opioid crisis.

He’s now calling on the Department of Justice to seek criminal charges against Sackler family members

Arguments in early December lasted nearly two hours in a packed courtroom as the justices seemed, by turns, unwilling to disrupt a carefully negotiated settlement and reluctant to reward the Sacklers.

The issue for the justices was whether the legal shield that bankruptcy provides can be extended to people such as the Sacklers, who have not declared bankruptcy themselves. Lower courts had issued conflicting decisions over that issue, which also has implications for other major product liability lawsuits settled through the bankruptcy system.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, argued that the bankruptcy law does not permit protecting the Sackler family from being sued. During the Trump administration, the government supported the settlement.

The Biden administration had argued to the court that negotiations could resume, and perhaps lead to a better deal, if the court were to stop the current agreement.

Proponents of the plan said third-party releases are sometimes necessary to forge an agreement, and federal law imposes no prohibition against them.

OxyContin first hit the market in 1996, and Purdue Pharma’s aggressive marketing of it is often cited as a catalyst of the nationwide opioid epidemic, with doctors persuaded to prescribe painkillers with less regard for addiction dangers.

The drug and the Stamford, Connecticut-based company became synonymous with the crisis, even though the majority of pills being prescribed and used were generic drugs. Opioid-related overdose deaths have continued to climb, hitting 80,000 in recent years. Most of those are from fentanyl and other synthetic drugs.

The Purdue Pharma settlement would have ranked among the largest reached by drug companies, wholesalers and pharmacies to resolve epidemic-related lawsuits filed by state, local and Native American tribal governments and others. Those settlements have totaled more than $50 billion.

But the Purdue Pharma settlement would have been only the second so far to include direct payments to victims from a $750 million pool. Payouts would have ranged from about $3,500 to $48,000.

Sackler family members no longer are on the company’s board, and they have not received payouts from it since before Purdue Pharma entered bankruptcy. In the decade before that, though, they were paid more than $10 billion, about half of which family members said went to pay taxes.

The case is Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, 22-859.



source https://time.com/6993011/supreme-court-rejects-nationwide-opioid-settlement-oxycontin/

The Real History Behind Prime Video’s Romantic Fantasy Series My Lady Jane

Emily Bader plays Lady Jane Grey in the Prime Video series 'My Lady Jane.'

Often called England’s first queen, Lady Jane Grey only reigned for nine days in 1553 at the age of 16. It was rocky from start to finish: When she took the throne, the country was fiercely divided between Protestants and Catholics.

A new historical fantasy series, My Lady Jane, premiering June 27 on Prime Video, imagines if those divisions were between regular humans—known as verities—and Ethians, humans who can turn into animals and are viewed as the lowest caste in their society. Lady Jane Grey (Emily Bader) frantically spends her short reign trying to promote unity, urging respect for Ethians, especially because her husband Guilford Dudley (Edward Bluemel) is an Ethian who can change into a horse.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

TIME talked to two Lady Jane Grey biographers, Nicola Tallis and Leanda de Lisle, about what to know about the real Lady Jane who inspired the show. 

Who is Lady Jane Grey?

A great niece of Henry VIII, she was born in Bradgate, Leicestershire, England, in 1537.

In the show, she’s depicted as an extremely intellectually curious teenager, always reading up on medicinal uses for herbs for a textbook she wants to write. This is why Guilford wants to marry her—he hopes she can find a cure that will stop him from turning into a horse at unexpected times.

The real Jane did love reading books, but was more passionate about languages and theology than science. She spoke several languages, including Arabic and Hebrew and relished exchanging letters with other educated people. “She was really, really academic,” says Tallis.

Lady Jane Grey’s real love life

My Lady Jane depicts her as fiercely independent, and hell bent on never getting married. In the show, Jane is married off to English nobleman Guilford Dudley against her will. But the show implies they fall in love, depicting Jane and Dudley experiencing an instant attraction when they meet. Biographers say their real marriage was far from a real love story.

“We know Jane didn’t really want to be married to him,” says Tallis, author of Crown of Blood: The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey.

In the show, Jane’s mother Lady Frances Grey (Anna Chancellor) plans the marriage with Dudley’s father, the Duke of Northumberland, to ensure her family will not have to worry about money again. But according to Tallis, “there is a source that says that her mother was also really, really against this marriage to Guilford Dudley. And I think that that’s probably quite true.”

The Duke of Northumberland was pushing the marriage from the get-go. As one of the King’s chief politicians, he persuaded a dying Edward VI to name Jane his heir in this will so that when she rose to the throne, his son would be King. It is true, as the show depicts, that there was a rumor that the Duke of Northumberland (Rob Brydon) poisoned the king to hasten his son’s ascent to the throne.

De Lisle argues that Edward VI was a bit of a “misogynist” in that he wanted a married woman to be queen so that a man would at least be doing some of the work of ruling. As she explains Edward VI’s thinking back then, “Jane has a husband and her husband will basically be a king. That’s Edward’s view. [His] sister Mary is not married.”

What to know about Lady Jane Grey’s reign

The real Edward VI died of some kind of pulmonary infection like tuberculosis on July 6, 1553. In the show, his sister Mary is in on a plot to slowly poison him so she can get to the throne faster, but that plot line is purely fictional.

In real life, Edward VI wanted Jane to be his heir because he wanted a Protestant successor, and his elder half sister Mary had become a staunch Catholic.

King Edward in Prime Video series My Lady Jane

Mary was not “Mrs. Popular with the powers that be because she was a Catholic,” de Lisle explains. “England was a Catholic country. Protestantism was largely being imposed by the king and by the elites.”

But during Jane’s reign, it was discovered that his will was not legal because it had not been passed by Parliament. That meant Mary was next in line, legally, so that’s why Jane was overthrown after nine days. Mary assumed the throne on July 19, 1553.

Mary was more popular among the general public than Jane in general because she was a daughter of Henry VIII and raised in the court. “Lots of people are fearful of the idea of a woman bearing power and particularly one who they don’t know,” says Tallis.

When Jane started speaking out against all of Mary’s Catholic reforms, describing taking communion in a Catholic mass as a satanic form of cannibalism. On top of that, her family started organizing a campaign to depose Mary. While Mary never wanted to execute Jane in the first place, she felt like she had no choice. Mary saw Jane as “a potential lightning rod for a rebellion,” as de Lisle puts it.

Jane and Guilford Dudley were both executed on February 12, 1554. 



source https://time.com/6992571/my-lady-jane-true-story/

What Mia Goth Learned from MaXXXine—And Why She’s Ready to Move On

Mia Goth in Maxxxine

It’s one of the most indelible images in recent cinema: “Please, I’m a star!,” wails the title character of Ti West’s 2022 cult horror film Pearl, after she’s been rejected for a role at an audition. But the actor behind Pearl cuts the precise negative of that widely memed film moment inside the greenroom of a Manhattan production studio one evening in June.

“I don’t feel famous at all,” says Mia Goth. This, despite having worked with auteurs like Luca Guadagnino (in 2018’s Suspiria) and Lars Von Trier (2013’s Nymphomaniac was her feature film debut); despite a bevy of accolades for her alternately fragile and furious work in Pearl; and despite the paparazzi shots of her walking in L.A. with the father of her child, Shia LaBeouf, published in The Daily Mail days earlier. (She says she didn’t notice the cameras.) All of which is to say nothing of the hot anticipation for MaXXXine, out July 5, ostensibly the last film in the series that began with 2022’s barnyard porn-shoot slasher X, continued with prequel Pearl, and made Goth one of the preeminent contemporary scream queens.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

West’s horror franchise, which almost immediately cemented its cult status and counts Martin Scorsese among its fans, has implicitly argued that Goth is like something out of another era. X is set in the ‘70s (and features Goth in the dual roles of porn performer Maxine Minx and the geriatric Pearl under pounds of prosthetics), Pearl in 1918, and MaXXXine in 1985, with Goth in a voluminous blonde wig. In person, Goth seems more Gen X in spirit than the younger millennial she is at 30. Unlike many of her generation who are outspoken about boundaries on-set, the British actor likes to “romanticize” fraught stories of directors pushing their actors, as Stanley Kubrick did to Shelley Duvall—to whom Goth is frequently compared—on the set of The Shining. “Art needs to be a little dangerous and to get genuine moments, you have to blur the lines a little,” she says.

Her effectiveness on-screen is reinforced by her conduct off of it. She doesn’t use social media, cultivating a “veil of mystery” that will make her more believable in roles. (And also: “I’m not trying to sell headphones.”) There’s much she is tightlipped about—from her relationship with LaBeouf to a lawsuit filed against her, West, and A24 by a MaXXXine extra. She claims to have no awareness of her steadfast gay following. And despite her rising star—she’s now in production on Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein remake—she’s not worried about keeping her ego in check. “My sense of self is actually quite low,” she says. “I’m actually trying to build myself up a little more.”

As she speaks, she seems sanguine about living in apparent contradiction. At one point, Goth says: “The truth is, I hate acting. Acting is actually the hardest thing to do. It’s this elusive thing and you think you have it—it’s like trying to grip smoke.” Within minutes, she would say of her job, “I love it so much.” None of the opportunities she’s received are lost on Goth, she says. Two things can be true at once.

MaXXXine

MaXXXine is a city slasher bookending X’s rural spin on the genre. It finds Goth’s porn-star character crossing over to the relative mainstream via a horror sequel, The Puritan 2. She’s mysteriously trailed by a P.I. (Kevin Bacon) and haunted by accumulating deaths around her, while the city is terrorized by real-life serial killer Richard Ramirez, known as the Night Stalker. Hardened but still reeling from surviving the porn-set massacre of X, she assumes an offensive stance. Damsel-in-distress tropes are inverted; in one scene, she is chased down an alley then exercises brutal vengeance on her assailant. 

Compared to X and Pearl, MaXXXine was a comfortable shoot, according to Goth. The first two films in the trilogy were shot back-to-back in New Zealand in 2021 and both released the following year. There were six-day work weeks, and sometimes 20-hour days. MaXXXine was spread out over a comparatively cushy seven-week shoot. 

Goth is nothing if not thoughtful throughout our interview. Though it’s evening in New York, she’s tired. She’s been up since about 2 a.m. L.A. time thanks to a canceled flight. She sips on a coffee to counter her exhaustion. She sometimes thinks for nearly a minute before responding to a question, as with one about the appeal of these particular characters. “Playing Maxine and Pearl has been the most creatively fulfilling experience of my life,” she says finally. “And one of many reasons why it’s been such a gift is because I’ve been blessed to play these characters that are so fearless and have such agency.”

In a phone interview, West says Goth’s appeal comes down to authenticity. “Part of the allure is that it’s not pretend for her,” he says. “She finds a way to connect to the material. Sometimes it’s larger than life and crazy, but she finds a way to ground it within herself.” He recalls that when he told her he wanted her to play both Maxine and Pearl in X, “She just stopped and I could see the wheels turning. Then she was just like, ‘I could kill that.’ And I totally believed in her confidence.”

In a contrast to her pronounced humility regarding the phenomenon of her career, Goth points out that on set is where she feels most confident. “Whereas in my day to day life, I need a lot of validation, I don’t need that on set. It’s a way for me to feel liberated,” she says.

MaXXXine

Goth can be straightforward to an extreme. When asked what her listed role as producer of MaXXXine meant functionally, she matter of factly retorts, “Um honestly, on this movie, it didn’t mean much.” She believes she was given the credit simply because it’s the third movie (she was an executive producer on Pearl). She did make the executive decision not to show her breasts in an early MaXXXine scene despite the script calling for it and having already done so in X. “I didn’t want to do that,” she says, adding that having a daughter in 2022 has made her see things differently. “It’s not that I wouldn’t do it again, it was just in that moment, I didn’t feel that the story needed it.”

When asked about the aforementioned Daily Mail pap piece that featured her and LaBeouf abreast, her consistently bell-clear voice drops. “I don’t like talking about that stuff,” she murmurs so quickly the words come out nearly jumbled. She won’t discuss her relationship with LaBeouf, who for years has conducted his own rather fraught relationship with fame, and has been accused of abuse and sued by his former girlfriend, the musician FKA twigs. (The twice-delayed trial is tentatively set to take place in October.) Speaking more generally about her personal life, Goth declares, “I would never want to share that part of my life. Why? For what?”

Goth similarly has little to say about a $500,000 lawsuit that was filed against her, West, and MaXXXine’s studio A24 in January by a MaXXXine extra named James Hunter, who accused her of intentionally kicking him in the head while filming and then taunting him. “I can’t talk about that at the moment because it’s an ongoing lawsuit,” she says without hesitating. “But I’m really grateful for A24’s support.” Goth, West, and A24 are all represented by the same attorneys. The next hearing is scheduled for July 10.

But she has plenty to say about what might be next for her as an actor. Her career-defining trilogy may be winding down—MaXXXine is being marketed as the “final chapter,” though West has an idea for an additional film that may or may not involve Goth. Either way, she may take some convincing, as she says she’s ready to move on from horror. While the genre has offered “roles written for women that you really sometimes struggle to find elsewhere,” she says she’s “tapped out in that area.” She adds that, “I’d love to make a romantic movie. I’ve been so focused on this end of the spectrum of violence and gore, but I love love too.”

Still she’s grateful for the experience. “There’s a reason certain characters come into your life,” she philosophizes. Plus, Maxine taught her a lot. When asked what, she takes a beat for nearly 30 seconds. And then, finally: “Just like: ‘You got this.’”



source https://time.com/6990983/mia-goth-interview-maxxxine/

من هشت سال گروگان ایران بودم. آیا دوستانم از بمباران اسرائیل جان سالم به در بردند؟

Read this story in English here نمازی گروگان سابق آمریکایی در ایران است و اکنون عضو هیئت مشاوران ابتکار آزادی برای زندانیان سیاسی در...