I hope to do a post soon on current wage and price stagflation, when I am back in, 'the swing of things'. One reason why prices are not rising is because the brick-and-mortar retail sector is facing competition from online sellers, who have less overhead. There has been a slow, ongoing retail apocalypse for the past ten years. I do have an LJ friend who has seen this happen at Penny's - or Target? - up close. But it never occurred to me that the success of online sales has the quiet but ominous effect of, among other things, destroying jobs for women.
Retail is a major sector for female jobs - and so when retail falls, so do a lot of women. To my knowledge, this phenomenon, which certainly affects today's politics, has never yet been identified, except for this article which I read today, and which sparked my awareness - of a far wider, global problem:
‘Their jobs are disappearing’: how the demise of the high street is killing women’s jobs - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jul/24/their-jobs-are-disappearing-how-the-demise-of-the-high-street-is-killing-womens-jobs
Yes, there are some jobs in tech/internet/online-sales occupied by females: Jobs like data-entry, grunt picker jobs for Amazon, and some computer/programme engineering jobs. However, my sense is that there is not a big enough per-portion to compensate the loss of female jobs in b-&-m retail.
Add to the flaws of internet & online-selling, (such as income division, globalisation, invasion of privacy, computer parts pollution, elitism, AI/robot dangers, cheap goods, loss of local taxes, loss of local stores, and the rise of China), the probability of disruption of women's economic and social progress. Actually, SOME women's... Because there will always be happy women in the upper 1%, believe me.
Anyway, when you look at the homelessness, human feces, housing prices, etc., in San Francisco, in a state which has ironically become a #1 home for poor people, at the same time the big tech companies are rolling in the million$, you might agree that a similar devastation of particular groups, like women and minorities, would also be occurring. It doesn't matter how shiny the promise of new wealth appears, this is always the way of catch-fire capitalism.
And I don't blame capitalism 100% - because capitalism is partly an extension of some natural laws, such as competition for survival, or the culling of the herd. Indeed, rather than raising all boats, capitalism always sacrifices some and throws them off the train. That, "some," can be a collection of minorities so large that it is in fact the majority. The 99%
This post is not about arguing the benefits of high-tech, online-selling, etc., of which there are of course more than a few.
Researchers and advocates need to get on this important, nascent issue right away. Dear sleazy politicians: There are votes to be made here... $$$ Ya ha...
Clinton was appearing at OZY Festival, a weekend event of music, food, political discussion and liberal ‘comedy’ in New York’s Central Park. As well as rocking a Homer Simpson-style Hawaiian muumuu, the former Secretary of State wore a dull beige button on a necklace.
Eagle-eyed Twitter sleuths immediately came up with a theory: Clinton was wearing a ‘Life Alert’ panic button, used by pensioners to call the emergency services when they fall and can’t get up.
Libs: "Why do people joke Hillary is prone to falling down???"— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) July 23, 2018
( Collapse )
I was wondering why no one ever positted the possibility that Trump's, "double negative," faux pas might not have been a true moment of SENILITY. Why not? Reagan had Alzheimers. He was olde enough. Now, the three presidential candidates are all very old poops. So, maybe no one really wants to raise the issue of age and dementia and all that, lest the finger of blame points back at themselves, hmmm?
Add to this, Hillary Clinton has always been an Illinois-type, naive/dorky, creature-comfort-seeking narcissist, of sorts, to some degree, a little... Like when she accidentally said, "steak," during a debate. Yummmm... Or when she claimed to be named after Sir Edward Hillary. I knew of a pic of her partying it up in Argentina, drunk as a skunk - but that picture was taken down a year before the election. Anyway, I have had no doubt that she has been having serious health problems. Behind the lies. So, what is wrong with dealing with health problems, anyway. A lot of successful people were fueled by their own familiarity with their own mortality. Never say never.
The latest is that the president of Ecuador is visitting the UK, and will then be handing over Julian Assange to UK authorities, for trial only of fleeing arrest - for a phony charge from Sweden. Well, my sense is that Trump is behind this, after his visit w/ May. Despite Trump's rhetoric against him, Trump's ultra base really wants Assange acquitted and set free. At this point, hopefully, Trump may no longer be afraid of the Clinton-backing GOPpers, etc., and he may have argued for Assange's release. Just a hunch.
I apologise for misleading you, but Lily James really did look like Shailene Woodley, and she was even back in a sailboat, so.
I have decided to keep the post as-is, so at least you can still enjoy my completely unwarrented comparison of Woodley and Seyfried, (who sound like a comedy team). These two actresses are NOT interchangeable even though they both have great blonde, Shailene Woodley hair]...
Interesting to see two of my somewhat fav actresses 'duking it out' on screen, in the second 'Mamma Mia!' film, including Pierce Brosnan and Colin Firth. I love Shailene Woodley because she tackles trying and strong roles, and I also love her because of her politics... Except that she wasn't a feminist during Snowden, but she was alright with being a Feminist when she did Adrift. Of course, my love for Amanda Seyfried goes back to Mean Girls. The former takes on front-line roles, reminding me of what]s her name - Legally Blonde - you know - Alabama - etc. But Seyfried takes on really great secondary roles, and that's fine too. Who was the best actress in this movie? Well...
First of all, it was amazing how this movie and its make-up and tan, and her expressiveness, completely obscured the sometimes annoying squinting devil-eyes of Shailene Woodley - which also reminds me of those of the woman in Legally Blonde. Seriously - Woodley did a fantastic job of portraying a rollicking babe, set in Travelling Pants Greece.
Amanda Seyfried didn't have as much exposure as Woodley, and Amanda always tends to have a similar character to her, um, characters (in her all movies) - unlike the slightly wider diversity of Woodley. However, I say Seyfried won out, especially at the end of the film, during the baptism scenes, which was made all the more inspiring by the amazing and graceful performance of Meryl Streep.
I never was enthralled by Streep, but I acknowledge that she has been a great actress. And I do not like most of Cher's classic rock songs - because of the stupid lyrics and her stupid 'rock' accent. But both were fine here, if not better. There are not a lot of older-women chick-flicks which really are NOT good movies. Tonight, the movie theatre was filled with big fat giggling white hair. But this movie was good enough. It had depth to its ideation, which I found intelligent and amusing. Comparing the past to the present, and pairing it all up at the end - which is, "almost worth the price of admission,"... I agree.
I do get tired of so many future-past-future movies though...
This movie is, nevertheless, a "kitsch patchwork" - somewhat uneven, working its way up to being something memorable. Woodley had a lot of weight on her shoulders, attempting this. Whatever. Fans of the last movie will love it.
Mind you, I was dealing with reduced audio; a jerkwad man always crying for distraction sitting two seats over from me, and a continuing severe central headache. Still, I went from, "What is the point of this - it's just manipulated scenes set to ABBA music...", to, "At least I am glad I heard new Abba songs, and Isaw new aspects of Woodley and Seyfried, and..." If you are in the right atmosphere, you might cry near the end.
This is a movie about and for womanly feelings and power. That's fine. I just wish the asshole man two seats down didn't decide to wage war with me because of his own male insecurities brought out by the movie, right? Yeah. Anyway, it is by no means a great movie. It is uneven and it takes a while to build up to anything of value. But I think it s fine, especially on DVD and under the right circumstances. A very good attempt.
Btw - I never saw the first installment. I am thinking that the performance of Streep really made that one happen. I don't know how much the current times call out for a part two, but I do know that there are a lot of undead baby boomers still walking around wanting to spend money.
This is a pop movie for normalised NORM people - especially aging ones. But fine for the whole family, I guess. Nothing new or indie to see here, move on...
Kinda reminds me of, "Big Fat Greek Wedding," movies...
IMO, FYI, I think ABBA was great. Musically, and as a phenomenon. I cast no aspersions upon POP music. I love pop music. Just not bad classic rock crap. Anyway. ABBA, like so many boomer bands, MIGHT ACTUALLY be getting back together. For a stint.
I once told Ashley that I would NEVER tire of ABBA, Fleetwood Mac, and ELO. ELO is doing a show at Chicago's Rosemont and I kind want to see it... Would I want to see ABBA? Well, yeah - more than the movies probably, lol.
I'll do spellchack later on this post.
PS - Lohan should have been there...