Category Archives: Nihilism

In the afterlife of normal life, I started watching After Life, a popular Netflix series whose fans are clamoring for a third season.

The shows promotional blurb says its about a newspaper reporter who, after his wifes death, adopts a gruff new persona. But to the audience, his persona is reassuringly familiar: the bearded guy muttering put-downs through a rictus of clenched teeth that is, in every venue foreign and domestic, Ricky Gervais.

In 2001, Gervais invented a cruel new brand of comedy, the British version of The Office, beneath which beat a heart of gold. It was the modern sitcom we didnt know we needed, but we did, and for nine seasons its spinoff was probably the best show in America. Set among dowdy, middle-class people doing dreary jobs, it hit every emotional note, was endlessly hilarious, and created catchphrases and memes that will live forever; people cried when it ended. Next, Gervais created the series Extras (about the nobodies of movies and TV), among a multitude of other projects filmed a comedy special called Humanity, and insulted everyone in attendance at the 2020 Golden Globes. Back when we had no bigger problems, that was news.

Physically ordinary and dressed to blend in, Gervais functions as a public Everyman hacking through lifes tedium and bullshit. In After Life, he plays Tony Johnson, a newspaper reporter in an English village. For 25 years, Tony and his wife Lisa (played in flashback by Kerry Godliman) had a playful, loving marriage. The series begins after her death from cancer, when Tonyplunged into a surly depressionsees no point in going on. His job and everyone around him irritates him. Only the need to feed the dog thwarts his suicide attempt.

Each episode is 30 minutes of light comedy about the value (or lack thereof) of human existence. Tony is in the same mental space as Bill Murrays character in Groundhog Day: looking ahead to an infinity of pointless days and ready to fling his life away with abandon. So Tony recklessly confronts muggers and experiments with hard drugs. If After Life took place in the Covid-19 era, hed be the guy licking the doorknobs.

Hes also incredibly rude to others, as he no longer cares about the consequences of brutal honesty. Like Murrays weatherman during his bermensch phase, Tony is done playing nice. So he insults just about every person who crosses his path: his mild-mannered boss, his newsroom coworkers, the mailman, a caregiver at his fathers nursing home, a diner waitress. Most are patient with Tony, as they recognize hes in despair. And he still has flashes of decency, like when he befriends a local prostitute, or, as she repeatedly corrects him, sex worker.

Though After Life may sound grim, its funny and even relaxing. While the show plays footsie with dark nihilism, especially when one character dies in a disturbing way, it also engages with themes of compassion, decency, and resilience. As in Groundhog Day, the lead character has no more use for fakery, going along to get along, or the countless social fictions most of us live by. Hes beyond all that, in some bright, sterile operating theater of the soul. Who is he really, when nothing matters anymore?

Despite his gruff persona and the terrible loss hes suffered, its just possible Tonys late wife is right when she tells him in a video message that, deep down, hes a lovely man.

More:

'After Life' Ponders Whether Life is Worth Living - Book and Film Globe

In Its OK to Find Humor in Some of This, Alex Williams writes:

Unreasonably dark joke, read a coronavirus meme circulating on social media in recent weeks. Shouldnt we wait until after the pandemic to fill out the census?

The joke is dark, yes. But is it any darker than countless other coronavirus memes out there?

Even more pointed is a spoof movie poster for Weekend at Bernies, the 1989 film comedy about two buddies toting around a dead man on their partying adventures, called Weekend at Boris. It cast as the corpse Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, who at that point was still in intensive care for Covid-19, as the corpse.

Since the pandemic took hold, the internet has been awash with coronavirus-centric joke memes, Twitter wisecracks and self-produced comedy sketches shot with smartphones in shelter-in-place kitchens and living rooms. And thats not counting whats happening in private conversations during quarantine.

Laughing while others die may seem inappropriate, even tasteless, like concentration camp prisoners finding humor during the Holocaust. But in fact many did, according to a 2017 documentary, The Last Laugh.

Throughout history, humor has played a role in the darkest times, as a psychological salve and shared release. Large swaths of the population are living in isolation, instructed to eye with suspicion any stranger who wanders within six feet. And coronavirus jokes have become a form of contagion themselves, providing a remaining thread to the outside world for the isolated and perhaps to sanity itself.

Mr. Williams discusses a private Facebook group moderated by Lori Day, an educational psychologist and consultant in Newburyport, Mass., devoted to pandemic-themed videos and memes:

Its the kind of edgy humor people dont feel comfortable putting on their own Facebook wall, for the risk of having their parents say, How could you? Ms. Day, 56, said.

Tasteless or not, virus jokes provide her a fleeting distraction, and a needed smile, as the pandemic has put her life and consulting business on hold. Its very similar to the feeling I get looking at baby animals online, which is another thing I dose myself liberally with these days, Ms. Day said.

The same goes for other members of the group. Some members are ill with Covid-19. Theyre thanking me from their beds, she said. Theyre thanking me from their hospital rooms.

Humor can divide as well as unite generations, made plain on the social media each favors. Baby boomers and Gen-Xers seem to be gravitating toward were-all-in-this-together observational humor in the memes they post to Facebook (Anyone else starting to get a tan from the light in your refrigerator?), or gags that focus on specific villains (foot-dragging political leaders, say) and implicit solutions (throw the bums out!). Calm down, everyone, reads one such meme. A six-time bankrupted reality TV star is handling the situation.

As The Cut recently noted, the outpouring of coronavirus content among Generation Z types on TikTok runs the gamut: disgust, resignation, frustration, despair and hope. One could also add: barely concealed nihilism, perhaps a response to the discovery that members of that generation are coming of age in a world that suddenly seems even more messed up than already thought.

In one TikTok video, by a 20-year-old in California named Andreas, his mother finds him still in bed at 4 p.m. as he sings, Oh hi, thanks for checking in, Im still a piece of garbage.

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

Is it OK to joke during dark times? When is it inappropriate, and when is it not? Should any topics be off limits in humor and comedy?

Do you ever laugh at coronavirus-related jokes or memes? Did you find any of the examples in the article funny? Were any inappropriate or offensive to you? Are you drawn to dark humor? If yes, why?

What role do laughter and humor play in your life? Mr. Williams writes that coronavirus jokes provide a remaining thread to the outside world for the isolated and perhaps to sanity itself. Do you agree? Is humor a coping mechanism for you?

What can we learn about the role of humor during the Black Plague, the Holocaust and Sept. 11? What does laughter tell us about what it is to be human?

What makes you laugh these days? Tell us your go-to sources for comedy. What are your favorite comedic movies, television shows and websites? Do you have a favorite comedian?

Link:

Is It OK to Laugh During Dark Times? - The New York Times

the illusion of certainty

This essay was first published in our semi-weekly newsletter, Climate in the Time of Coronavirus, which you can subscribe to here.

A few weeks ago, I got sick. My whole body ached so persistently that the only place I could really be comfortable was in a bath, which isnt really sustainable over long periods of time unless youre one of those merpeople. My lymph nodes protruded so far out of my neck that the skin around my jaw felt tight and painful. I was so tired I ended up sleeping between 12 and 18 hours a day.

While I was writhing around between my couch and my bed, the only other human Id seen up close in a month told me that hed been diagnosed with COVID-19. So the coronavirus had in all likelihood found me!

#GivingTuesdayNow action alert: All gifts matched for 24 hours!

Help Grist raise $5,000 in 24 hours by clicking the image above

I thought I had protected myself reasonably well mask on, limited trips to the grocery store, a few walks on quiet streets, and seeing exactly one(!) other person. That felt safe enough; we both lived alone, worked from home, didnt see anyone else barring basic errands. I thought I was being smart and cautious, taking what felt like a small, garden-variety risk to sustain just enough human interaction to keep me reasonably sane. But it turns out theres no place you can be truly safe from coronavirus.

As Grists advice columnist, a substantial percentage of the questions I receive are from readers seeking certainty about the threat of climate change. What will happen? When will it happen? Where will it happen? And what can I do to ensure that it will not happen to me? It is a completely reasonable human response to a huge, difficult-to-comprehend threat. You want to know how to protect yourself; what the risk to you is.

I dont attempt to answer any of those queries. There is no way to do so; these readers are seeking an impossible assurance. Climate change and coronavirus are inescapable for the same reason: They will each transform society, wholly and against our will, and humans can do our very best to prepare and adapt. But even with the very best preparation and adaptation, the utmost cautiousness, you have no idea what or when or where you will experience its impacts.

I think every generation believes they are living through unprecedented change, and I dont think mine is particularly special. This change, the pandemic, is certainly really sudden and strange. The warming climate isnt sudden at all, and yet its no less threatening. I will continue to do my best to prepare for and adapt to and mitigate, where I can, the impacts of climate change. I thought I had done what I reasonably could to mitigate at least for myself the risks of contracting coronavirus, and that went out the window so spectacularly I have to laugh.

All things considered, I was fortunate. After three days of feeling wretched, I feel completely fine now. My friends experience was much worse. Our illnesses started on the same day, but his symptoms were more severe and lasted much longer. I waited fretfully for his symptoms to subside, prickly with the guilt that I had had it so much easier.

Im aware we were both lucky to recover at all.

I might never be 100 percent certain that I ever actually had It, as I was denied a test (my doctor said Im young, healthy, and my treatment would have been the same regardless) and antibody tests remain elusive. But why does it matter to me now? The promise of immunity, of course, of some form of protection; that its over, I faced the threat, it was fine, and now I no longer have to worry. The badge of having survived COVID unscathed is perhaps the most coveted security blanket of the moment.

And yet, I am under no illusion that I have any real power over whats coming, with regard to climate change. and I dont really think that was ever the goal. Who has ever been able to control the future, anyway? But please do not misunderstand that to be an expression of nihilism or defeat. I have not given up, to the contrary; I am ready for a future that I know I cannot imagine.

As a nonprofit news outlet, we set an ambitious goal to raise $5,000 in the next 24 hours. Donate today, and all gifts get matched.

Did you know were one of the few news outlets dedicated exclusively to people-focused environmental coverage? We believe our content should remain free and accessible to all our readers.

If you dig our work and agree news should never sit behind a paywall only available to a select few, donate today to help sustain our climate coverage.

COUNT ME IN

See the original post:

I thought I was being safe. Then I found out I had been exposed to coronavirus. - Grist

How the PPP came to this impasse involves a whole host of colliding factors: the Republican Party's nihilism; congressmembers' bad instincts when it comes to designing fiscal policy; their ignorance about monetary policy; and the raw health threat the coronavirus poses to any large gathering of people including Congress itself.

The first issue is the PPP's $350 billion allocation, which was meant to cover two-and-a-half months of payroll. But add up all the small businesses in America defined as those with fewer than 500 employees and their combined payroll expenses over that time period come to around $700 billion. The program works on a first-come, first-serve basis, so businesses with established relationships with the banks got to it first. Poorer businesses, those with fewer connections and clout, and those in mostly black neighborhoods and other marginalized communities got left out in the cold. The PPP also included provisions that let bigger companies with more than 500 employees get loans under certain circumstances, like if they ran restaurant chains. The fact that the program's rollout was a logistical nightmare didn't help matters either.

All told, only 1.64 million applications for loans were processed through the program less than six percent of the 29.6 million U.S. businesses with under 500 workers. Meanwhile, something like four out of five small businesses only have enough cash on hand to weather two months, at most. You can rest assured that those businesses with the least amount of buffer are also the most marginalized, and thus probably last in line for the PPP's now-empty pot.

In other words, a few minutes of research on Google should've made it blindingly obvious to Congress that $350 billion was a woefully inadequate sum. Nothing prevented lawmakers from setting it higher. In fact, there's no reason they needed to specify a dollar cap on the program at all.

The way the PPP works is that private banks originate the loans, under terms set by the government. Then, if the small business abides by certain rules particularly keeping its workers on and using at least 75 percent of the loan to meet their payroll the loan is forgiven. Of course, that loses the bank money, so the point of the $350 billion Congress appropriated was to plug the hole in the banks' balance sheets. Policymakers could've just written the law so that banks could give out as many PPP loans as the small business community asked for, and Congress would commit to spending as much as needed to make that happen. They could do that right now! But instead, for no reason other than raw ideological opposition to big spending, Democrats and Republicans are batting around the idea of adding another specific dollar amount probably $250 billion to the program.

But the situation is even more ridiculous than that. Alongside Congress's fiscal efforts, the Federal Reserve also rolled out a huge series of monetary policy programs to combat the coronavirus recession. One of those programs is an offer to accept PPP loans as collateral in exchange for cheap credit. Basically, the Fed told the banks originating the PPP loans that it will take those loans off their books for them, in exchange for that bank taking another loan out from the Fed. Since the entire financial system is desperate for super cheap credit from the central bank right now, that's going to look like a pretty sweet deal.

This does mean that the loss from forgiving the PPP loans will now fall on the Fed's books, rather than the originating bank's. But the Fed is not like private banks; it doesn't have to keep its balance sheet positive lest it go under. The central bank is an arm of the U.S. government, and shares the U.S. government's ability to create infinite U.S. dollars. It can absorb all the losses it wants. (The Fed likes to keep its balance sheet positive for appearances' sake, but it doesn't need to.)

Technically speaking, this backing from the Fed means the sky's already the limit on how much lending the PPP program can do. It would probably behoove Congress to make the situation official: amend the PPP program to specify there is no dollar cap, and the Fed is expected to take all the PPP loans from the private banks. But as Nathan Tankus, the research director at the Modern Money Network who has done yeoman's work explaining all the actions the Fed has taken in the coronavirus crisis points out, this announcement by the Fed effectively renders congressional spending for the Payroll Protection Program moot.

Unfortunately, congressmembers' imaginations are not nearly so expansive. As I said, they're debating another infusion of $250 billion into the program. And it's not even clear they'll be able to do that. Perversely, both sides agree on the need to fund the PPP more. But the Democrats also want to include more help for hospitals, state governments, and local governments all of whom are facing their own fiscal crisis as well as some adjustments to the PPP's rules to make sure minority-owned businesses and other firms with less access get more priority. Republicans, in turn, are balking at those asks and demanding the $250 billion infusion be passed as a standalone measure.

I wrote a while back that all of these ideas are good and necessary, and thus should lay a foundation for an easy deal. But I apparently underestimated the GOP's intransigence. The White House and Senate Democrats are reportedly trying to hammer out an accord, but as of this writing things were still up in the air.

The final X-factor here is the coronavirus itself. Congress is officially on recess until May 4, and lawmakers are reluctant to physically gather again for health reasons. Whether this is forgivable caution or a dereliction of public duty, I will leave to readers to decide. They can still technically pass laws in a "pro forma" process, but that requires all bills be agreed to unanimously. Given the disagreements over how to design the next injection of money for the PPP, that's a pretty big hurdle. Some lawmakers are scrambling to put together a system for holding official votes remotely, but Congress has never done that before, and both Democratic and Republican leadership in the House and the Senate is resistant.

One way or another though, Congress will have to step up, and fast. Small businesses employ roughly half the country, the Payroll Protection Program was the one big bulwark defending them from the coronavirus' economic devastation, and it just went away.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

Continued here:

There's no excuse for coronavirus aid to small businesses running out - The Week

Warning: The following contains spoilers for The Platform, now streaming on Netflix.

In the Netflix film The Platform, director Galder Gaztelu-Urrutias allegory about class warfare and the increasing fragility of our social pyramid, university student Goreng (Ivn Massagu) willingly surrenders himself into a concrete tower-like prison for six months.

Referred to by staff as the Vertical Self-Management Center, the bizarre monolith houses its residents in hundreds of stacked cells which are randomly reassigned each month while the titular platform descends once a day bearing food. The platform stops on each level for a fixed period of time and those on the lower levels must pick over whatever is left from those above. By the time the platform descends past a certain level, those leftovers are nonexistent.

Theres an Orwellian thing going on there, said Susan Harmeling, an associate professor of entrepreneurship and an expert in business ethics at the Marshall School of Business at USC. Instead of calling it hell on earth, which it actually is, they call it the vertical self-management center or the VSMC, which makes it seem a lot more sterile.

Each floor of the VSMC has two cellmates who remain constant (at least as long as theyre alive), and each is permitted one personal item inside; Goreng chooses a copy of Don Quixote, while his cellmate Trimagasi selects a self-sharpening knife.

The Spanish-language Platform quickly became ensconced in Netflixs top 10 most sampled titles in the U.S. upon its release March 20 (a rare feat for a foreign language film; ) and shot to the top of IMDbs most searched titles. One reason to explain the unexpectedly popularity could be the movies exploration of the dark side of capitalism, the effects of which are even more glaring today as a result of the coronavirus pandemic and the burgeoning rise of the socialist movement.

The Times caught up with two economists Harmeling and Nico Voigtlnder, an associate professor at UCLAs Anderson School of Management to discuss how The Platform reflects our global economy, its resonance in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and what each of them would choose as their one item in the pit.

Ivn Massagu stars as Goreng in Netflixs The Platform.

(Netflix)

What kinds of themes and philosophical theories did you recognize at play in The Platform?

Voigtlnder: I immediately thought of the tragedy of the commons, which refers to the problem where, if anyone has access to common land, youre going to have overuse in the end. Its related to the prisoners dilemma where individually every persons incentive is [self-serving in nature], which is of course bad for society. It would be much better to come to an agreement where you say, Were all using the land [or food] somewhat less so that theres a benefit for everyone. But you would always go back to that situation of overuse, unless you have enforcement or some code of conduct among these individuals that is very strong.

Harmeling: Theres a theory called the veil of ignorance from John Rawls, and its about designing a society where we are all behind this veil and dont know whether were going to be rich or poor or what our natural abilities are. Certainly, you wouldnt want to take a chance on not knowing, thats not the kind of society I think anybody would want to live in. Theres also populism versus Marxism versus capitalism, and nihilism versus idealism, and also Maslows hierarchy of needs.

[In the film] everyone loses human empathy because theyre in a fight for their lives for survival and cant afford to be self-actualized and have empathy because they dont even have anything to eat. That vicious nihilism and lack of empathy, the empty populism, really, reflects the zeitgeist right now.

Along with recent films like Knives Out, Parasite, and Joker, class warfare and wealth disparity have been explored in contemporary media to both critical and commercial acclaim. Did you notice a through line between The Platform and those other movies?

Harmeling: One thing that I thought of that is also true of Parasite is this idea of the global elite. In The Platform, [Goreng] exhibits the cluelessness and sort of gullibility and naive idealism of the global elites by bringing a book into the pit instead of a knife or a gun. Like hes going down there to do an intellectual study and to earn a degree. Then he realizes, "... here I am, Im stuck in it.

That naive idealism comes through in Parasite too with the son saying, Rich people are so gullible. That idea of not knowing what you dont know was another theme that I thought came through really clearly. The nihilism of Joker also comes through here too. Sort of the clown leading the clowns, the emptiness of populism.

Why do you think movies and television series about these themes are achieving popularity now? Its not as if wealth or income disparity is a new thing.

Harmeling: I think theres a reckoning coming. The millennial generation has fewer assets than the couple of generations that preceded them. So I think that theres this fascination with somebody like Bernie Sanders by young people, because people are scared and dont see a path to the wealth of their parents, to homeownership, to having enough stability to start a family. Theres climate change, theres so many issues that people of this generation are facing. People are saying, You know what, this isnt fair that these corporations arent paying taxes or that the top 1% to 2% has such a share of the wealth of this country.

Everybodys terrified of the word socialist, and God forbid communist or Marxist, but it seems to me that the pendulum is probably going to start swinging back towards competent government and some regulation and reining in of some of this literal feeding at the trough.

Alexandra Masangkay perches on a spread of leftovers in a scene from Netflixs The Platform.

(Netflix)

The film takes on a new resonance in wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Did you draw any parallels between what was happening in the film and what is going on in the world now while you were watching it?

Harmeling: Those who were feasting at the great banquet in The Platform are probably the same people who can buy a ventilator or are already in better health because they have healthcare in the first place. Rich people or people with good jobs have healthcare, so they have a better chance of surviving this pandemic. Its disproportionately affecting communities of color, which is shocking but not surprising.

Its this idea of the haves and the have-nots and the fallacy of trickle-down Reaganomics. There was a literal trickle down going on in The Platform where the people at the top eat the best, and by the time you get to the bottom, theres nothing to eat. And were seeing with this coronavirus crisis that being played out to the nth degree.

Voigtlnder: I actually had a different thought. I was thinking of this platform as how we hand down our planet from generation to generation and how its just getting more and more depleted as time goes by. Ultimately, what we should aim for as humanity is to hand [the Earth] over to our children in a way that its still usable for them. For me, that was the allegory of the movie.

How did you feel about the ending?

Harmeling: There seems to be some debate about what it was supposed to mean. That youve somehow saved the next generation or that the next generation needs to save itself? I wasnt sure what the message was. In a way, it was a good ending, in the fact that it wasnt completely definitive or a closed book. It left you reflecting on various things, and that is maybe frustrating but pretty effective.

Voigtlnder: I think it was effective. My interpretation was that on the way down to do something for the common good, [Goreng] got blood on his hands and lost his purity. Sometimes to do things for the common good you have to break with your own ideals.

Which of the characters in The Platform do you feel had the approach that would lead to the most favorable outcome for all?

Harmeling: In the end, maybe it is [Goreng] who has the best approach. We come to believe he doesnt get out [of the pit], but hes helped to propel... the child who we assume ended up getting out. Even through his navet, to bring a book to whats essentially a Darwinistic knife fight, maybe in the end love and altruism is really what will win out. Id like to think so anyway.

What one item would you choose to bring?

Voigtlnder: I would have to think about what I would bring but the incentives are clear. You just want to have the most powerful weapon in there.

Harmeling: [Laughs] You know, Id probably do the same thing [as Goreng]. Id probably bring a book of poetry or something like that. As much as I am almost embarrassed to admit that, it would allow me to at least at some moments think other thoughts or remember and reflect on beauty and offer perhaps some motivation and inspiration to try to get through it. Even though I say how naive he was, I wouldnt bring a knife or a gun to that fight either.

Read the original:

'The Platform' explained: Two economists on Netflix phenomenon - Los Angeles Times

Dave Pirner is doing just fine. The founding and last original member of Minneapolis alt-rock legends Soul Asylum, Pirner thrived in the late 1980s and well into the 90s on righteous anger and deceptively well-crafted songs. Peaking commercially in the mid-1990s when hits like Runaway Train, Black Gold and Miserywhich is really one of the most underrated singles of the decade, but I digresswere prevalent on radio and the charts, Pirner didnt flame out or fight changing tides into the new millennium. He grew up.

Moving to New Orleans, getting married and having a son gave Pirner a new sense of artistic freedom. Continuing to make music in the 2000s (The Silver Lining in 2006 and Delayed Reaction in 2012, Soul Asylum is set to release the aptly titled Hurry Up and Wait. Its the bands first album since Change of Fortune in 2016, as well as the first since getting a divorce and returning to his hometown stomping grounds of Minnesota.

Sitting in a lounge overlooking an ominously stormy day in the Century City section of Los Angeles, theres a slight unease in the office just days before coronavirus would shut the city down for the foreseeable future. Still, Pirner is in good spirits, cracking open the first craft beer of the interview and chatting about finding a copy of Elvis Costellos Greatest Hits on cassette at a truck stop recently. He looks great, by the way, like he could still post up with the best of them in a game of pickup basketball. Hes as smart and witty as one might imagine, taking everything from his comfy spot in the world of music to the creeping pandemic in stride.

I embraced the no future part of punk rock where there was just kind of nihilism and you didnt worry about what was going to happen the next day, Pirner chuckles about his view of 2020 way back in his bands beginnings. Me and my silly friends from Minneapolis, there was part of us that never thought wed make it to even 30 years old, let alone here.

As talk turns to the Hurry Up and Wait, the first Soul Asylum album recorded at Minneapolis Nicollet Studios in years, the question remains: can you go home again?

That was the question I asked myself every day, Pirner ponders. For so long, I felt like I didnt know where home was. I finally tried to settle down in New Orleans, and that didnt work out. There are certain parts of being back in Minnesota that are surprisingly satisfying, like being able to go see my mom and hanging out with my nephews. Its sort of the polar opposite of New Orleans, which is why I went there in the first place. Im used to six months of winter. You should take advantage of it if you can handle it. Its like living on the moon or something.

Digging into the inspiration of Hurry Up and Wait, Pirner says the process was natural and spontaneous. I cant really explain why, but part of it was being back in Minneapolis, and just being able to hit the studio at a moments notice. I liked being back where I started and feeling comfortable with the band. It was pretty painless.

Before he heads over to Hollywood to dig through some vinyl, Pirner contemplates the career arc of his band from the planet of Minnesota all those years ago maneuvering its way into 2020.

Ive just been playing in this band, and all this crazy shit has happened around the band. I think I was reserved about buying into a lot of it like this isnt gonna last, he sighed. Part of it is a relief. I dont know where any of this is going, but to sort of come out on the other side like, Im still able to do this. My experience in New Orleans was amazing. People down there, they play until they drop dead. So to still be hereits nice. A pleasant surprise.

Continued here:

Soul Asylum's Dave Pirner on the Band's New Album - SPIN

As living with the coronavirus becomes the new normal for communities all over the world, artists like Yayoi Kusama and Mo Willems have stepped forward to offer ways to self-soothe or stay entertained while practicing social distancing. Now, David Hockney, one of the most famous and successful living painters in the world, has added his voice to the conversation via a letter he sent to the Daily Mail. Controversially, Hockney is of the opinion that smoking cigarettes could provide people with a defense against the coronavirus, a stance that he backs up by citing data from the outbreak in China that points to fewer smokers being admitted to the hospitalfor COVID-19 treatment.

Smokers have developed an immune system to this virus, Hockney wrote. With all these figures coming out, its beginning to look like that to me. Im serious. Additionally, the artist weighed in on his own mortality. Ive smoked for more than 60 years, but I think Im quite healthy, Hockney added. How much longer do I have? Im going to die of either a smoking-related illness or a non-smoking-related illness, Hockney wrote. While this particular flavor of contemplative nihilism is certainly entertaining coming from one of the most celebrated artists in the world, Hockneys theory that smokers are less likely to get the coronavirus is problematic at best and dangerous at worst.

SEE ALSO: Marina Abramovis Dangerous Work Has Given Her an Interesting Perspective on Coronavirus

The World Health Organization writes that smokers are in fact more likely to be vulnerable to COVID-19, due to the fact that potentially contaminated fingers and cigarettes are coming into frequent contact with a persons open mouth when they smoke. Smokers may also already have lung disease or reduced lung capacity, which would greatly increase risk of serious illness, WHO continues. Additionally, although its clear that more research is warranted, recent studies are beginning to trickle out which indicate that smoking is likely associated with the negative progression and adverse outcomes of COVID-19.

Its possible Hockney swiped his theory from rumors that nicotine has the ability to downregulate the enzyme that binds COVID-19 to humans, which has been getting a decent amount of circulation on Twitter. Its a theory that has little to no scientific basis, particularly in the face of the mounting evidence that smoking increases the risk of COVID-19 symptoms growing more severe. Right now, its important to practice common sense and remember that cigarettes have been proven to be really, really bad for you. Until the world knows enough about coronavirus in order to develop a vaccine, its probably best to assume that smoking wont save you.

More here:

David Hockney Says Smokers Have Developed an Immune System Against Coronavirus - Observer

The New Orleans of early-60s civil-rights battles, with its assortment of right-wing racists, do-gooders, pot-smoking hipsters, and con artists, gave Stone the material for his first novel, A Hall of Mirrors, published in 1967. Stones approach to the sociopolitical situation is utterly oblique, Bell writes. With the characters paying little attention to it, it simply builds itself out of inchoate dark matter, like the late-afternoon New Orleans rainstorms. A Hall of Mirrors traces a geometry that Stone, a master of novelistic architecture, would go on to use many times: He intercuts among three protagonists who drift along on events, almost without agency, sliding downward but struggling toward some meaning that they never reach, gathering great narrative momentum as they converge on a plane of social tension thats headed toward an apocalypse.

Rheinhardt, a juicehead and former clarinet virtuoso who has squandered his talent out of self-destructive spite, arrives in New Orleans by Greyhound in the aftermath of Mardi Gras. He stumbles into a job as an announcer for an ultraconservative radio station, fabricating inflammatory reports that today ought to be called fake news. The station owner, a plutocratic bigot named Bingamon, explains to Rheinhardt: People cant see because they dont have the orientation, isnt that right? And a lot of what were trying to do is to give them that orientation. Bingamons purpose is to incite hatred and start a race war that will crush black peoples political aspirations. Rheinhardt is too lost in private despair to object.

He falls in with Geraldine, a young drifter from West Virginiaone of Stones few successfully realized female characters. For a time, Geraldine and Rheinhardt make a wounded pair in the French Quarter, until he cant bear the intimacy and drives her away. These scenes are full of a strange pathos, as when Rheinhardt notices a cigarette burn on Geraldines stomach and says,

You been ill used. Youre a salamander.

Whys that?

Youre a salamander because you walk through fire and you live on air.

Geraldine closed her eyes.

I wish, she said.

The third protagonist is their upstairs neighbor, Morgan Raineya disturbed seeker after humanness, his own and others, who goes door-to-door conducting surveys in black neighborhoods and becomes the unwitting tool of Bingamons scheme to gut the welfare rolls.

These three meet their separate fates in the novels long climax, Bingamons Patriotic Revival, a stadium rally in which a staged riot spins out of control. Stone was a realistHemingway, Fitzgerald, and Dos Passos were among his influencesand a lifelong believer in the moral valence of fiction; he shunned the surrealism and metafiction of his contemporaries John Barth, Donald Barthelme, and Thomas Pynchon. But A Hall of Mirrors, like much of Stones other work, ends in a hallucinatory spasm of altered consciousness and rhetorical excess. Geraldine, stoned and desperate, searches the stadium in vain for Rheinhardt, who is onstage, wasted, preparing to conduct an imaginary symphony orchestra. On cue, he exhorts the crowd of thousands with a perversion of virtuosity that displays Stones power to combine irony and terror:

Rheinhardts performance is a fun-house mockery of the kind of political theater that has lately risen from underground to occupy the main stage of American life. Years later, Stone said of his first novel: I had taken America as my subject, and all my quarrels with America went into it. They were a lovers quarrels, equal parts longing and disillusionment, held in a tension that never broke either way. Morgan Raineys blighted idealism is as central to Stones vision as Rheinhardts fluent nihilism is.

Read more:

A Novelists Ambition to Define America - The Atlantic

Years of Hope, Days of Rage. Its the subtitle of Todd Gitlins history of the 1960s, and a reminder that peace and harmony have never been staples of American life. Self-government is a messy business, a constant collision of interests, ideologies, and primal instincts. Thats particularly true in a nation that was in contravention of its founding principles from its first moment, and that has spent every moment since struggling to make them real. If you look back fondly on a happier, more tranquil time, you are gazing back on a landscape of American mythology.

And yet it feels worse now. Its hard to dispute that, in the words of the oft-mocked Marianne Williamson, theres a dark, psychic force at work in this country today. (This was true even before we were hit by a pandemic, when this story went to press.) By the end of the primary season, the major 2020 presidential candidates that remained were either channeling this energy or attempting to defuse it. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump constitute two stark expressions of populist ragethe incumbent president as a vessel of fear and resentment of a changing world and Sanders as the next wave of reaction against a system in which so few have taken so much for themselves and left so little for everyone else to scrap over. Only one directed this rage at the material source of our vast structural problems, while the other offered scapegoats. But they both seized on our perilous state of affairs. Joe Biden, meanwhile, reached the end of primary season running on a return to the Decent and the Normal, as a healer who could balm the blisters of rage without truly putting out the fire.

The top 20 percent of American households control 77 percent of all household wealth in this country, more than triple what the middle 60 percent of households control. The wealthiest 1 percent controls $25 trillion all by itself, more than that middle 60 percent190 million peoplehas with $18 trillion. But any recognizable definition of middle class is collapsing anyway, shattered along with many rungs on the ladder of social mobility that undergirds our most intoxicating export, the American Dream. We cannot survive as a nation where ZIP code is destiny, and where a man can pledge to spend a fraction of his $60 billion fortune to make himself the president while more than half of our citizens live paycheck to paycheck and half a million sleep on the streets each night. Fifty-three million Americans are classified as low-wage workers who do not make a living wage44 percent of the workforce and the fastest-growing part of it. We cannot go on when parents no longer believe their children will lead a better life than they did, and while millions feel the whole world slipping away from them. American gross domestic product grew over the last several years while average life expectancy fell, fueled in part by deaths of despair. Hope is a terrible thing to lose.

It is not just Twitter thats making us so angry, nor is it just cable news. Nor is it even the injustice weve accepted since our founding, or the discrimination we continue to allow now. Its not just that real wages have failed to keep up with the rising cost of living for decades, or that televisions have gotten so cheap while the costs of health care and college have exploded. Its not merely that we increasingly get our information from different ecosystems and thus live in separate worlds, unable to communicate with one another and find a way forward. More than all that, we have stripped too many of our people of their hope, and rage and despair flowed readily into the void. Sometimes it even gives way to apathy and nihilism, unreason as defense mechanism. Trolling as politics, food-fight discourse. Even the righteous anger never seems to purify us, providing heat but no light. Perhaps there will come a time when things no longer deepen and darken by the day, as new enemies perpetually corporialize in the shadow of our own creeping delusion. As it stands, the fury threatens to subsume us.

This article appears in the April/May issue of Esquire. Subscribe

Go here to see the original:

The American Dream Is Collapsing. Are We Too Angry to Fix It? - Esquire

The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy. (Patrick Semansky / AP Photo)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

On Sunday night, 10 minutes before midnight eastern time, Donald Trump tweeted, WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO! As so often, the exegetical mystery of Trumps comments can be clarified by returning to the most important source of his worldview, Fox News. Earlier in the evening, Fox News Host Steve Hilton ranted against Trumps medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci, who advocated draconian social distancing measures to slow the spread of the coronavirus until the medical system can be strengthened to deal with it.Ad Policy

Hilton argued that these measures would cause more damage than the coronavirus itself. You know that famous phrase, The cure is the worse than the disease? Hilton asked. That is exactly the territory we are hurtling towards.

The push for social distancing measures, including closing schools and restaurants, is relatively new. Closure of these institutions was only announced in New York on March 15. Yet there are signs that many on the political rightand even centrist business leadersare already sick of the public health emergency. They want the economy to go back to normal and are promoting fringe ideas in an attempt to discredit mainstream epidemiologists.

Its unclear whether Trump can actually roll back any of the existing quarantine measures, which are set by governors and mayors. But Trump can certainly affect the behavior of his supporters. If millions of Trump fans think that quarantines arent worth the aggravation, they are much more likely to violate them. Thats the most likely danger of Trumps tweet and his potential shift in policy. MORE FROM Jeet Heer

Fox News has already helped poison policy on the pandemic. The network was a major promoter of the idea that warnings about a pandemic were a hoax designed to derail Trumps presidency. Trump initially went along with that until he was persuaded by a dissident in the Fox ranks, Tucker Carlson, to take the pandemic seriously.

But its clear that an influential faction at Fox still believes the coronavirus threat is oversold. On Friday, a bevy of Fox personalities, including Laura Ingraham and Brit Hume, were hawking on twitter a Medium post by Republican operative Aaron Ginn arguing that the government was over-reacting to the coronavirus. Ginn is not an epidemiologist, and his post was riddled with analytical errors. It was quickly taken down by Medium, but not before being seen by millions

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial arguing, If this government-ordered shutdown continues for much more than another week or two, the human cost of job losses and bankruptcies will exceed what most Americans imagine. This wont be popular to read in some quarters, but federal and state officials need to start adjusting their anti-virus strategy now to avoid an economic recession that will dwarf the harm from 2008-2009.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

In the United Kingdom, Boris Johnsons government initially followed a hands-off strategy along this line, with the idea that it might be best to let the coronavirus spread quickly in order to minimize social disruption. This idea was abandoned once Johnsons government came to realize the dangers of overwhelming the health care system.

Its not just the far-right that is talking like this. Former Goldman Sachs CEO and Hillary Clinton supporter Lloyd Blankfein tweeted out on Sunday night, Extreme measures to flatten the virus curve is sensiblefor a timeto stretch out the strain on health infrastructure. But crushing the economy, jobs and morale is also a health issue-and beyond. Within a very few weeks let those with a lower risk to the disease return to work.

The problem with these arguments is twofold: They underestimate the dangers of scuttling social distancing programs too soon; they also disregard the tools needed to return to cushion the economic shock. As evident from the examples of both China and Italy, extreme measures are needed to slow the spread of the virus or it will overwhelm the health care system, leaving a potential death toll in the United States in excess of 10 million. If the virus is slowed down, theres a real chance that the health care system can get the medical equipment (ICU beds and ventilators) needed to keep the death count to a minimum. Giving up on social distancing too early will doom countless Americans to a painful and unnecessary death.

The economic costs of the coronavirus are real, but they can be dealt with through robust intervention: a combination of universal basic income, mortgage, and rent forgiveness, bailouts for small business and a Keynesian booster shot at the end of the pandemic.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

The problem is that the political right, along with centrists like Blankfein, dont want such a heavy intervention in the economy. As a result, they indulge in a truly grotesque display of self-interested reasoning and argue that there can be a quick and easy end to quarantines, shutdowns, and social distancing campaigns.

What they are arguing for goes beyond Social Darwinism and is, in fact, a kind of cult capitalism. The existing system is viewed as so sacred that it is worth sacrificing innumerable human lives to keep it going. Even nonrevolutionary changes to the system are anathema.

Economics and medicine have always been intertwined, sometimes in strange ways. Under the surface of economic ideas, there are often metaphors taken from medicine and psychology: We talk about curing a depression, which can refer to both a person and an economy.

There flourished in Vienna from 1850 to 1870 a school of medicine some historians have dubbed therapeutic nihilism. This school held that most medical interventions did more damage than good and advocated that doctors simply oversee the natural process of recovery. There was some logic to this: It was the era of quack remedies.

Therapeutic nihilism had a curious afterlife. As William Johnson notes in The Austrian Mind: An Intellectual and Social History, 1848-1938 (1972), therapeutic nihilism lived on even past the 1870s in the pessimism of many Austrian thinkers, ranging from Freud to Wittgenstein. Therapeutic nihilism was also an influence on the Austrian economics of Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek, the foundational thinkers of the modern libertarian right. In his book The Viennese Students of Civilization (2016), intellectual historian Erwin Dekker makes a compelling case that von Mises and Hayeks opposition to government interventions in the economy was a manifestation of therapeutic nihilism.

Von Mises and Hayek were major opponents of John Maynard Keynes, who believed that economic depressions shouldnt just be allowed to run their course but could be shortened by active government measures.

As in the great disputes between the Austrian school and the Keynesians, we now face a fundamental divide in both medicine and economics. Do we embrace therapeutic nihilism and just shrug our shoulders in the face of a pandemic, hoping that it will quickly extinguish itself? Or do we believe that human ingenuity and social cooperation can work together for solutions, ones that involve real sacrificesbut that can also help limit human misery?

Excerpt from:

Trump Toys With a Let-Them-Die Response to the Pandemic - The Nation