Binyamin Appelbaum points out that Trump has done bupkes so far on his infrastructure pledge:
It’s basically the opposite of a major government infrastructure program.
Government spending on transportation and other public works is in decline as federal funding stagnates and state and local governments tighten their belts.
Such spending equaled 1.4 percent of the nation’s economic output in the second quarter of 2017, the lowest level on record, according to Census Bureau data.
The deterioration of the nation’s infrastructure has raised widespread concerns about safety, quality of life and the impact on economic growth. Politicians in both parties have declared the issue a priority. So far, there is no sign of a solution.
Infrastructure spending as a percentage of G.D.P. has fallen to the lowest level in decades.
In 34 states, spending on government construction projects was lower last year than in 2007, adjusting for inflation. The trend has continued this year. Public construction spending in June was 9.5 percent lower than during the same month last year.
Paul Manafort, who served as President Trump’s campaign manager and is otherwise famous for shady dealings in Ukraine, was paid a visit by the FBI in recent weeks. The Washington Post reports that the “predawn raid” was in connection with the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 general election.
Eduardo Porter cuts through the nativist psychobabble about low-skill immigration:
Let’s just say it plainly: The United States needs more low-skilled immigrants.
You might consider, for starters, the enormous demand for low-skilled workers, which could well go unmet as the baby boom generation ages out of the labor force, eroding the labor supply. Eight of the 15 occupations expected to experience the fastest growth between 2014 and 2024 — personal care and home health aides, food preparation workers, janitors and the like — require no schooling at all.
“Ten years from now, there are going to be lots of older people with relatively few low-skilled workers to change their bedpans,” said David Card, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “That is going to be a huge problem.”
But the argument for low-skilled immigration is not just about filling an employment hole. The millions of immigrants of little skill who swept into the work force in the 25 years up to the onset of the Great Recession — the men washing dishes in the back of the restaurant, the women emptying the trash bins in office buildings — have largely improved the lives of Americans.
The politics of immigration are driven, to this day, by the proposition that immigrant laborers take the jobs and depress the wages of Americans competing with them in the work force. It is a mechanical statement of the law of supply and demand: More workers spilling in over the border will inevitably reduce the price of work.
This proposition underpins President Trump’s threat to get rid of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country. It is used to justify his plan to cut legal immigration into the country by half and create a point system to ensure that only immigrants with high skills are allowed entrance in the future.
But it is largely wrong. It misses many things: that less-skilled immigrants are also consumers of American-made goods and services; that their cheap labor raises economic output and also reduces prices. It misses the fact that their children tend to have substantially more skills. In fact, the children of immigrants contribute more to state fiscal coffers than do other native-born Americans, according to a report by the National Academies.
What is critical to understand, in light of the current political debate, is that contrary to conventional wisdom, less-skilled immigration does not just knock less-educated Americans out of their jobs. It often leads to the creation of new jobs — at better wages — for natives, too. Notably, it can help many Americans to move up the income ladder. And by stimulating investment and reallocating work, it increases productivity.
Go read the whole piece, which is stuffed with research that counters the handwaves and lies that seem to make up the anti-immigration arguments.
Signature arrangements: An overview of the central garden at Mirei Shigemori’s old home in Kyoto | STEPHEN MANSFIELD
What we can learn from Damore v. Google
Recent events have brought long-simmering cultural irresolution about the role of women in our society to a fever pitch, and into the public square of opinion. But the core issues – and the divisions implicit in the controversies swirling around – have not led to a kumbaya moment: on the contrary.
I will only add a few questions to the discussion, since any useful resolution will require time and more thinking than what one person can do.
American culture is on the whole deeply conservative, but we also have a counter history of progressivism. We live in a polarized country where a large minority, on one side, continue to hold opinions that would have seemed mainstream in 1910, like the secondary role of women in a male-centric society, the inferiority of Blacks and other ‘races’ relative to those with Northern European ancestry, and the distrust or illegitimization of those who advocate for any changes in these and other cultural keystones. On the other side, we have a metropolitan progressive minority who believe that this formerly mainstream zeitgeist is obsolete and immoral, and therefore doubly illegitimate. And we have a third minority, swinging back and forth from progressive movements (Kennedy, Obama) to conservatism (Reagan, Trump).
But even the most progressive – except the infinitesimal few far-left anarchists – believe in the right of businesses to police discourse in the workforce, and to censor those who advocate political, cultural, or religious principles deemed illegitimate, dangerous, or taboo. For example, no one advocating cannibalism, incest, or human sacrifice as a sacrament would get very much support if their employer decided to fire them.
But after that hard line, everything turns gray.
The controversy surrounding James Damore’s 'manifesto’ brings this boiling cauldron of cultural conflict out into the open. And of course, all this is taking place in the context of an ongoing parade of sexual harassment cases in Silicon Valley’s VC ranks, the mess at Uber, the cascade of similar stories at Fox News and other media companies, and in the shadow of Hillary Clinton’s loss in the 2016 elections to 'Grab'em-by-the-Pussy’ Trump.
If it ever was going to be possible to observe what is going on with the Apollonian reserve of an anthropologist from Tau Ceti, this ain’t that time. Instead, this has to be more up close and in-the-moment, and so these questions will be uncomfortable:
The 1st Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition, and in particular, it prohibits Congress from passing laws that would restrict the press or individuals to speak freely. This does not extend to other organizations, such as businesses, media, or religious groups, who are – at least to the extent they break no other laws – are free to censor and expel employees or organization members whose speech is unacceptable to the organization or business. So, a Catholic charity can fire employees for supporting abortion rights. However, we seem to cross a line if a company decides to fire an employee for volunteering for a political candidate his employer opposes (and in some states this is illegal). Where is the line when we cross from what may seem to be 'reasonable’ enforcement of organizational policies and political orientation, to suppression of dissent that seems capricious, arbitrary, or anti-democratic?
More specifically, the current judicial interpretation of the US Constitution hews pretty close to some principles regarding civil rights, namely, all people must be treated equally under the law. Note that Google, where Damore was employed, is under review by the US government for pay disparity of women employed there. Leaving aside the legal entanglement between Google and the US, how much latitude can employees of Google – or other corporations – expect in dissenting with company policies regarding cultural 'hot spots’ like sexual and racial equality? Is it legitimate for an employer to state that – outside sanctioned meetings for the purpose of exploring and clarifying company HR policies regarding discourse – certain viewpoints about company policies are illegitimate, and expressing them will lead to censure, and perhaps termination?1. This is clearly the stance that Google has adopted in the Damore matter, that he is advocating harmful gender stereotypes regarding supposed biological differences between men and women that will lead to a toxic workplace if left unchecked, since they seem to support institutionalized unequal treatment.
One of the generally understood outcomes of any attempts by organizations to police speech through censure and termination is that this has a 'chilling’ effect on speech. Employees who are unsure of what can be said without blowback are then left is a situation where they opt to not speak about other related issues, either, and as a result their ability to freely associate with other workers to discuss working conditions and workplace safety or other issues will be diminished, since they are afraid of being terminated or censured. There is then a clear obligation for employers to spell out clearly and unequivocally its policies, and procedures through which employees can discuss these policies – and potentially argue against them – in a safe context, even if advocating positions counter to these policies in other contexts is not permitted. Is it legitimate then to terminate an employee for expressing ideas counter to company policy, if in fact the policies have not been concretely stated, and the opportunity for safe discourse has not been instituted?
In the case at Google I can only surmise. However, Damore’s manifesto is incendiary in part because it is clearly intended to as a challenge to policy conducted way outside of any notion of a 'safe context for dissent’, like a company-managed workshop on equality, gender issues, workplace culture, or the like. The gender stereotypes argument is the payload of his manifesto, but it was the distribution outside of sanctioned context that led to his dismissal.
In the end, Damore v. Google may be just another footnote in the long story of discrimination in tech. But who is discriminating against who depends on where you stand: are you on the progressive side, viewing Damore v Google as a step toward ending discrimination against women in the workforce, or do you see this as yet another intrusion of progressive ideology attempting to redefine cultural norms and upending the status quo? And the answer is yes, to both questions, which proves once again that we live in a time of dilemmas, not answers, where we have to find a balance between irreconcilable differences, and give up on absolutes.
Leaving aside 'protected speech’ as defined by the US National Labor Relations Board. ↩
We know that your customers will put up with imperfect, but one thing that they'd like in return is for you to care.
Marketers keep making big promises, and organizations struggle to keep those promises. Sooner or later, it leads to a situation where the broken promise arrives on the customer's lap.
In that moment, what the customer wants most is someone to care.
Almost as good: an organization that consistently acts like it cares.
It's a mistake to believe that you actually have to care the way the customer cares, and that anything less means you shouldn't even try. In fact, professionals do emotional labor all the time. They present the best version of their professional self they are capable of.
When Bette Midler shows up on stage in Hello Dolly, the audience would like to believe that she's as engaged and excited as she was on opening night. And she might be. Or not. What matters is that we can't tell.
If you care, that's great. If you don't, at least right now, well, it's your job. That's the hard part.
Acting as if, doing it with effort and consistency, is what your customers need from you.
Perhaps it’s time to start the hashtag #climatechanged. It may be too late to avoid climate collapse in large parts of the world.
A Conversation with Theodor W. Adorno, Der Spiegel, 1969.
Weltschmerz is the prevailing emotion of the postnormal era.
- | David Graeber, Debt: the First 5,000 Years
US Global Change Research Project Climate Science Special Report (CSSR).
I’ll bet that Trump will suppress this report.
How much does it cost you in tolls to drive across town? In most cities, the answer is nothing.
How much does it cost you to take a bus or subway across town? In most cities, if it's available at all, quite a bit.
How did that come to be?
Mass transit is safer, cleaner and more efficient. It gives more people more access to work and amenities. A city with great mass transit works better for more people. Even those that don't use it. It's at least a useful public good as the streets are.
It's technically easy to put tolls all over a city, wastes no time, and it's economically efficient to make it incrementally free to hop on a bus and expensive to drive a car.
So why haven't we? Why, in fact, are we going the other direction?
Because left to our own devices, we go for the short-term cost savings at the expense of the long-term investment.
Because we like the status quo.
Because there's familiar profit in the car-industrial complex. The extraction industries, the manufacturers, the dealers, etc. It's an ongoing, widespread income stream. This generates cash to pay lobbyists and others to create a cultural dynamic in favor of the status quo.
It turns out that it's pretty cheap to buy outcomes that benefit a minority. And business loves a bargain.
“Ogiriwoman” is a brand created as an expression of Ifeoma Uzoma, a woman whose unique style of selling Ogiri, a natural African spice, went viral after a customer put up her video on Facebook. The viral video attracted comments and admiration from Nigerians, home and abroad. She quickly became synonymous with Ogiri woman in Google searches. Mumpreneur.ng, a networking and support group for mothers who run businesses was one of the admirers of this woman. She was contacted and invited to Lagos. A team led by Branded.ng was put together to build this woman’s brand and give her a platform to express her unique marketing talent in the field of cooking. Ifeoma Uzoma represents hope for every Nigerian mother working hard with their heart and mind to support their homes.
| Steve Pinker, cited in Tech Luminaries Address Singularity
One quibble: Pinker is not a Tech Luminary. He’s a linguistics guy.
- | Nigel Shaw
Are you busy next January? I've been given the opportunity to lead a small-group photo trip to Havana, Cuba.
I was last in Havana in 2013, teaching for Santa Fe Workshops. But that was someone else's curriculum. This time the program is ours to design, and we are planning a week of exploring, learning and lots of time behind the camera.
If that sounds like your thing, keep reading.
An Immersive Week
This is not the typical photo tour group, which invariably ends up as some version of a photo walk with everyone getting versions of the same pictures. I'm working with Focus On The Story, a D.C.-based organization for photographers. The trip leaders are myself and fellow journalist Joe Newman, whom I've known for over 30 years.
Our trip will be more of a small-team experience, and very photo-centric. It will include instructional time as well as plenty of time to explore on your own—or with a teammate, if you prefer.
We'll always be out shooting at the edges of the day when the light is good, and at other times as dictated by the locations we have lined up. During the harsh light of midday, we'll typically be in instructional mode. We'll also be editing, comparing notes, evaluating what we can do better and preparing to go out and do it again.
Please note that this is not a lighting seminar. I am traveling very light—an X100F and a similar backup body just in case—and probably won't even bring a flash. We'll be more in photojournalist mode than studio mode.
In the evenings we'll continue the conversation, perhaps over a mojito or a glass of Cuba's famous dark rum. Nights in Havana are vibrant, with the sound of music filling the city. Its economic hardships may be well-known, but life and culture always find a way.
Finding Your Balance
We are traveling under a people-to-people license, which means you'll get lots of interaction with locals throughout the week. You'll also have time to absorb the city; to sit and watch the world go by. Whether along the Malecón or on the Paseo Prado, Cuban life is always on display.
To always be in 100% photo mode is to miss one of the most important parts of the travel experience. Taking the time to observe the city both creates memories and informs your approach as a photographer when you pick the camera back up.
The "X" in X-Pedition is a nod to Fuji's X series cameras. Small, light, quiet and unobtrusive, Fuji X series bodies are ideal travel cameras. I took a leap of faith on my first trip to Havana, bringing only a Fuji X100s with its fixed 35mm equivalent lens. In retrospect, it was a great decision. And it has changed the way I approach travel photography ever since.
So if you are also a Fuji shooter, you can expect tips and advice on how to get the most out of your cameras. Or to even borrow a lens if you like.
Do you have to be a Fuji shooter to come along? No, you don't. (And don't worry, we promise not to try to convert you.) But we do strongly suggest that you travel very light with respect to photo gear. It's good travel photo advice in general, but especially in a place like Cuba where the economic disparity is a factor.
The Bigger Picture
Havana is a unique opportunity for photographers. It goes without saying that it is not going to stay unique for very long. The island is already experiencing rapid change.
Our goal with this trip is to help you grow as both travelers and photographers; to gain the skills and confidence to choose future destinations that are off the beaten path.
This trip will sell out. So if you are interested in joining us, don't sit on the fence too long. You can find full details and information on Focus On The Story's X-Pedition Cuba page.
Hope to see you there.
But the GOP is sitting on its hands. Where’s Trump? At a campaign rally.
Trump ran on the need to create jobs, and a big infrastructure push was part of the story he was spinning. But nothing is happening. Oh, wait: the White House announced creating a commission to study the issue and write a fat report in 18 months. But most people think this is just an inconvenience: it’s not. It a major mistake, the continuation of a long era of inadequate investment.
We’re spending less now than Eisenhower did in the ‘50s:
In many ways, we’re going in the wrong direction, especially following the Great Recession.
Net investment in the nation’s productive assets has slowed dramatically since the 2007-09 downturn. The nation’s capital stock has grown at a 1% annual pace since 2009, less than half the historical growth rate. No wonder our productivity rate is in the dumpster.> According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the flow of real net investments in nonresidential structures in 2015 (adjusted for price changes and subtracting obsolescence and wear and tear) was down 53% from 2008 levels — and roughly equal to 1955 levels. (The category of “nonresidential structures,” which includes roads, bridges, railroads, airports, dams, broadband networks, power grids and water systems, as well as buildings such as schools, hospitals and factories, is the closest the government data get to putting a hard number on infrastructure investments.)
So, even though the economy is about six times larger than it was in 1955, we are investing no more in our critical infrastructure today than our grandparents did.> The private sector is investing less in structures now than it did in the booms of the 1960s, 1980s and 1990s, when measured in constant dollars. Even the big push in 2012-14 to invest in energy infrastructure barely registers as a blip on the graph.
The public sector — federal, state and local governments — has done even worse, although the 2009 stimulus bill was supposed to put more money into public infrastructure. After a small pop in 2009 and 2010, net federal investments in structures were negative from 2012 to 2015 (which means federal infrastructure was wearing out faster than it was being repaired or replaced).
State and local governments — which build 90% of the public infrastructure — didn’t take up the slack, with net investments in structures falling every year between 2003 and 2014. In 2015, total net public investment in structures was down 49% in real terms from 2008 levels. Governments are spending less today on structures than they did in 1955, just before the highway-building boom began under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In constant dollars, Eisenhower directed more federal money toward the Interstate Highway System in its first decade than Trump has earmarked for all of his infrastructure plans over the next 10 years — about $300 billion vs. $200 billion.
What is wrong with these idiots? We need more work, more middle class jobs. We need world-class infrastructure to compete, and to grow. We could transition to sustainable energy, have the fastest internet in the world, rebuild all the crumbling and rusting bridges, roads, airports, and train lines. And everyone would benefit. But Trump and his confederacy of dunces are marching off to fight pointless culture wars instead of attending to the nation’s business.
Almost everyone does it. I'm not sure why.
After the fact (or even during it) all the blame, second-guessing and paralysis. We say things to ourselves that we'd never permit anyone else to say. Why?
- It leaves us bruised and battered, unlikely to do our best work while we're recovering.
- It hurts our knuckles.
- It distracts us from the work at hand.
Perhaps there's a more humane and productive way to instill positive forward motion. I'm sure there is.
At the very least, this is a dumb hobby.
- | Sarah Manguso, In the Era of Digital Composition, What Should a Writer Keep?
- | Robert Haas, A Little Book on Form
Ruchir Sharma pokes at the tech bubble. When will it burst? He looks for the warning signs based on earlier busts:
We can never know when the end will come. Still, there are three critical signals to watch for.
The first is regulation. The tech giants are seen today as monopolizing internet search and commerce, and they are angling to take over industries such as publishing and automobiles, raising alarms at antitrust agencies in Europe and the United States. Fear that new internet technologies are doing more to waste time and brainpower than to increase productivity has already provoked a backlash in China, where officials recently criticized online gaming as “electronic heroin.” A regulatory crackdown on tech giants as either monopolies or productivity destroyers could pop the allure of tech stocks.
The other signals are more familiar. Going back to the “nifty 50” stocks of the 1960s, nearly every big market mania ended after central banks tightened monetary policy and many people who had borrowed to get in the game found themselves in trouble. The dot-com bubble peaked in 2000, after the Federal Reserve had increased interest rates multiple times. The current boom will likewise be at risk if an increase in inflation compels the Fed to raise interest rates beyond the modest rise the market currently expects.
Finally, watch for tech earnings to start falling short of analyst forecasts. The dot-com boom was driven in part by increasingly optimistic predictions for technology company earnings, and it imploded when earnings started to miss badly. Investors realized then that their expectations about profits from the internet revolution had become unreal.
Of course, no two booms will unfold exactly the same way.
I’d couch this prediction another way, although I think Sharma’s points are good proxies to keep an eye on.
The central premise of a lot of the current tech boom is that we are undergoing a digital revolution, based on foundational technologies – like big data, the internet of things, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, mobile, biotech, and sustainable energy – that have the potential to baseline a new epoch, along the lines of the industrial revolution.
This goes way past gaming and the quality of web television. And it’s significantly more transformative than the rise and fall of the .coms in 1999.
We’re talking about rethinking fundamentals of our civilization, like vehicle ownership, how food is produced and finds its way to our tables, the social contract between workers and business, the dissemination and monetization of information, the ability to rewire our genes, and supplanting the fossil fuel system that juiced the industrial age and shifting to renewables: and these will upend almost everything, as a consequence.
But, yes, we might have a few busts – and booms – before that all works itself out.
The successful cab owner knows this:
Every ride is custom
People choose a cab precisely because they can ride alone, on their own terms
Empty trips are part of the job, and it's okay, because the next ride will pay for it.
On the other hand, the person who chooses to run a cruise line knows:
Every cruise is designed by me, and people sign up precisely because I chose well
People choose a cruise ship to be with other people, to benefit from economies of scale and to be part of something
Empty trips (or worse, half-empty trips) can put the line out of business
It's pretty easy to get into the cab business. Do a few rides for friends, then list online, or join Lyft, then go full-time.
On the other hand, it's much more difficult to get into the cruise business. There's a critical mass, and the minimum number is a lot more than one customer.
Each business can be a good one if you do it at the appropriate scale.
The warning, and the purpose of the metaphor, is to realize that it's not a matter of gradually going from one to the other. Remember that running a taxi is a fine sort of business, but don't expect to turn it into a cruise ship. And vice versa.
- | Kevin Williamson, Donald Trump Can’t Close Deal, Failing Salesman
What does the cost of housing in my city have to do with immigration? A lot.
There is a big controversy in my city –– Beacon NY –– about the pace of gentrification. Many of the concerns raised –– parking, schools, traffic –– have merit, but I would like to debunk an argument being made by many, because it does not pass the Econ 101 test.
Some anti-gentrification advocates are advocating a six-month or one-year moratorium on new development, which may sound attractive. However, it runs counter to basic economics, at least in the case where other factors are unchanged.
Let me explain.
Beacon is a booming location: demand for housing is quite high. (It’s a charming community on the Hudson river and MetroNorth line to NYC, and located at the foot of Mount Beacon, the highest point in the Hudson Highlands. A lovely place.)
So, if the drivers for the demand remain unchanged (for example, there are only so many charming river towns within 60 miles of NYC), and if the town decides to create a halt in new development, what should we expect to happen? It’s Economics 101: Cutting back on supply at a time of high demand will create scarcity, and therefore lead to higher rents and home prices. This will accelerate gentrification, not slow it since existing middle-class homeowners (or banks holding foreclosed properties) will have greater incentives to sell to more well-off gentrifiers, and landlords will be able to raise rents, as well, forcing out additional working-class folk, a trend already well-established in Beacon.
There are other approaches the town might take – like rent stabilization, and increasing the number of set-aside low-income apartments or homes – but that’s not my point, today. I am simply arguing Econ 101: you can’t decrease demand by cutting off supply, and I would hope that our town council members would be aware of that.
In the case of immigration, cutting off the supply of low-cost immigrants will not decrease the demand, but the consequences aren’t necessarily higher wages for US workers who would, for example, opt to pick tomatoes. Instead, other consequences are just as likely, for example, higher-priced tomatoes. Or, in the historical case of US banning Mexican farm workers in the ‘60s, the growers had a strong incentive to replace workers with machines:
Binyamin Appelbaum, Fewer Immigrants Mean More Jobs? Not So, Economists Say
When the federal government banned the use of farmworkers from Mexico in 1964, California’s tomato growers did not enlist Americans to harvest the fragile crop. They replaced the lost workers with tomato-picking machines.
The Trump administration on Wednesday embraced a proposal to sharply reduce legal immigration, which it said would preserve jobs and lead to higher wages — the same argument advanced by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations half a century ago.
But economists say the tomato story and a host of related evidence show that there is no clear connection between less immigration and more jobs for Americans. Rather, the prevailing view among economists is that immigration increases economic growth, improving the lives of the immigrants and the lives of the people who are already here.
“The average American worker is more likely to lose than to gain from immigration restrictions,” said Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis.
So arguing against the immigration policy doesn’t mean I don’t want more jobs for Americans: I do. But the way to do that is to create new jobs –– like a huge and long-overdue infrastructure push –– not fiddling around with small potato issues at the margins that don’t even pass the Econ 101 test.
- | Bertrand Russell
The Rolling Stones have grossed more than a billion dollars in ticket sales and endorsements. Does that mean that they're better than Beethoven, John Adams and Zoe Keating, put together? Were the Bay City Rollers better than Patti Smith?
There are CEOs who make more in a year than 1,000 of their workers. Does that mean that they're 1,000 times more important or productive or worthwhile?
Money is a simple metric, and one that captures a certain sort of information about value and scarcity. But it's wildly inaccurate when it comes to measuring many of the things that actually matter to us. It can mask the emotions and moments and contributions that we work so hard on, the people that we seek to become, the contributions that we seek to make.
Profitable is not the same as important
Popular is the not the same as worthwhile
Expensive is not the same as well-done
And yet, because it's easy to rank and compare and change, we can get seduced into believing that money is the metric that matters the most, that matters all the time. If we only use money to make our decisions about worth, we're going to get it wrong almost every time.
Until we get significantly better at matching money to contribution, we need to embrace the difficult to measure. I'll trade you a great fourth grade teacher for a foreign exchange desk currency trader any day.
Funyi David Tumenta, from Cameroon, is a young inventor who has conceived and developed a nitro engine. According to Wikipedia, a nitro engine "… refers to an engine powered with a fuel that contains some portion […] of nitromethane mixed with methanol" that can turn above 50,000 Rpm (revolution per minute). Nitro engines have applications in the naval industry, automotive industry as well as the aerospace industry. The genius of Funyi is to have come up with a nitro speed booster from … sugar. In other words, according to Funyi, sugar could be used as the fuel of the future.
We may think we are getting a good feel for color as photographers. But you know who kicks still photographers' butts every day? Cinematographers, that's who.
Today, a look at some examples from 2010-era Dr. Who, which we have talked about on this blog before. These guys are near and dear to my heart, because they are unabashedly fearless when it comes to using color to manipulate light—and their viewers. Read more »
The Netherlands without polders.
| Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy
Say’s law has been discredited for a hundred years or so, but Perry isn’t put off by modern economic theory. Most people – except flat earthers like Perry – now hold that demand drives supply. Of course these clowns also believe they can stimulate the economy but cutting taxes of rich people, without any proof and only endless examples to the contrary.