Obama downs a brewski (aka,The Audacity of Lineage)
Materialism, women’s rights, progress and other attributes that make up the average American.
In search of a cure…
The only way to fight Philadelphia Syndrome is to put our heads down and create something great. Forget New York. Forget LA. Whether its an innovative school, a new way to work, or what we’re doing with Devnuts, don’t stop until people start noticing. Stop whining. For God’s sake stop whining. Stop talking about what you’re doing and just do it. Once that happens, Philadelphia will start to be known as a place where things are happening and not a place where things might happen.
The reality is, cities are like women. You’re attracted to the ones that don’t need you. New York doesn’t need you, it’s the center of the universe. LA is where movie stars live, you’re not worthy. Philadelphia begs for you to like them. Remember we’ve got such great art! Almost all cities have great art. That’s not a reason to live here.
The Brookings Institution on what is driving the next round of U.S. economic growth:
Metropolitan areas nationwide boast disproportionate shares of the assets that will drive the next wave of U.S. economic growth. With 84 percent of the nation’s population, all 366 metropolitan areas together produce 85 percent of U.S. exports, and are home to 86 percent of its lower-carbon commuters (those not driving alone to work), 89 percent of working-age people with a post-secondary degree, and 93 percent of individuals employed in science and engineering occupations.
The economic future for states hinges largely on the performance of their metropolitan economies, which bring together the innovative firms, educated workers, and critical infrastructure that will propel the next wave of U.S. economic growth. To successfully transition to the next economy, states should place economic development strategies in the service of metropolitan-led visions for economic growth, building from the distinctive assets and market strengths of these regions to grow quality jobs and promote sustainable, statewide prosperity.
Click here for the interactive version of the map.
From ILM to Pixar to Photoshop and back to Finding Nemo (don’t forget Willow!), in 1971 Lucas Film inspired generations…
Click to enlarge
Have the American people outlived their usefulness to the rich minority in the United States? A number of trends suggest that the answer may be yes.
In every industrial democracy since the end of World War II, there has been a social contract between the few and the many. In return for receiving a disproportionate amount of the gains from economic growth in a capitalist economy, the rich paid a disproportionate percentage of the taxes needed for public goods and a safety net for the majority.
In North America and Europe, the economic elite agreed to this bargain because they needed ordinary people as consumers and soldiers. Without mass consumption, the factories in which the rich invested would grind to a halt. Without universal conscription in the world wars, and selective conscription during the Cold War, the U.S. and its allies might have failed to defeat totalitarian empires that would have created a world order hostile to a market economy.
These are the fourteen states (plus the District of Columbia) where over the half the population of that individual state lies within a single metropolitan area (the state-by-state population fractions in largest metropolitan area at the end of the post). And there's not much of a pattern to this. For example, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island all grew out of single large population centers that were colonized early on, and this might appear to be a reason for being a city-state. However, Georgia does not have a similar history and is a city-state. On the other hand, Utah was also primarily colonized in a single city, yet is not a city-state.
Some people (continue to) call it revisionist history, but in 1995 some ofA the people involved in the CIA’s campaign to finance and promote American Modern Art during the Cold War began to come forward.A The article quoted below is one of the first examples of this chain of disclosures.A I personally have never been a huge fan of the style of American Abstract Expressionism, but there are certainly pieces that have a huge, even subconscious cultural effect on even me, a hater.A Ninjas beware: The CIA might be promoting our ish… just sayin’…
The US government now faced a dilemma. This philistinism, combined with Joseph McCarthy’s hysterical denunciations of all that was avant-garde or unorthodox, was deeply embarrassing. It discredited the idea that America was a sophisticated, culturally rich democracy. It also prevented the US government from consolidating the shift in cultural supremacy from Paris to New York since the 1930s. To resolve this dilemma, the CIA was brought in.
The connection is not quite as odd as it might appear. At this time the new agency, staffed mainly by Yale and Harvard graduates, many of whom collected art and wrote novels in their spare time, was a haven of liberalism when compared with a political world dominated by McCarthy or with J Edgar Hoover’s FBI. If any official institution was in a position to celebrate the collection of Leninists, Trotskyites and heavy drinkers that made up the New York School, it was the CIA.
Until now there has been no first-hand evidence to prove that this connection was made, but for the first time a former case officer, Donald Jameson, has broken the silence. Yes, he says, the agency saw Abstract Expressionism as an opportunity, and yes, it ran with it.
"Regarding Abstract Expressionism, I’d love to be able to say that the CIA invented it just to see what happens in New York and downtown SoHo tomorrow!" he joked. "But I think that what we did really was to recognise the difference. It was recognised that Abstract Expression- ism was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised and more rigid and confined than it was. And that relationship was exploited in some of the exhibitions.
"In a way our understanding was helped because Moscow in those days was very vicious in its denunciation of any kind of non-conformity to its own very rigid patterns. And so one could quite adequately and accurately reason that anything they criticised that much and that heavy- handedly was worth support one way or another."
To pursue its underground interest in America’s lefty avant-garde, the CIA had to be sure its patronage could not be discovered. "Matters of this sort could only have been done at two or three removes," Mr Jameson explained, "so that there wouldn’t be any question of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these people in the organisation. And it couldn’t have been any closer, because most of them were people who had very little respect for the government
, in particular, and certainly none for the CIA. If you had to use people who considered themselves one way or another to be closer to Moscow than to Washington, well, so much the better perhaps." (Source)