January 12, 2017

No Image

Today in Movie Culture: 'A Wrinkle in Time' Behind the Scenes, Stormtroopers Invade 'SNL' and More

Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:

Production Video of the Day:

Is this our first sort of glimpse at A Wrinkle in Time footage? See more of Ava DuVernay’s production videos collected at Heroic Hollywood.

We’re making a film about how Light fights The Darkness. @WrinkleinTime 10/10 pic.twitter.com/FvChssn3kw

— Ava DuVernay (@ava) January 11, 2017

TV Promo of the Day:

Get ready for Felicity Jones hosting Saturday Night Live this week with a Rogue One: A Star Wars Story-inspired promo:

[embedded content]

Toys of the Day:

This new Kong: Skull Island action figure could use some airplane and helicopter accessories to swat, but otherwise it’s pretty cool. See more from the movie’s toy line at Bloody Disgusting.

Movie Science of the Day:

Kyle Hill lists seven powers Magneto would have if he were real that we’ve never seen in the X-Men movies:

[embedded content]

Movie Meal of the Day:

Want to try the best fish tacos Paul Rudd’s character in I Love You, Man has ever had in his life? Binging with Babish shows us how to make them:

[embedded content]

Vintage Image of the Day:

John Lasseter, who turns 60 today, directs Tim Allen as the voice of Buzz Lightyear for 1995’s Toy Story:

Cosplay of the Day:

Speaking of Disney animated movies, here’s some great Moana cosplay. See more pics, including a hand-crafted Heihei at Fashionably Geek.

Actor in the Spotlight:

For Fandor Keyframe, Philip Brubaker showcases Robert De Niro characters who are tough guys who try to be funny but aren’t:

[embedded content]

Genre Studies Lesson of the Day:

Kyle of Frame by Frame digs into the history of the slasher movie to show why Bob Clark’s Black Christmas is even more influential than John Carpenter’s Halloween:

[embedded content]

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 15th anniversary of the Sundance premiere of Gus Van Sant’s Gerry. Watch the original trailer for the classic indie below.

[embedded content]

and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Federal Agency Says Consumers Feel Threatened By Debt Collectors

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released a survey today that it says shows widespread tactics used by debt collectors to threaten consumers. The watchdog agency, which is considering strengthening regulations of the industry and its conduct, says more than a quarter of the consumers it surveyed felt threatened by the debt collectors.

“It is the most common issue that people complain about,” bureau director Richard Cordray told NPR. “Debt collection is a market with real, persistent and disturbing problems.”

The moves come at a time when the future of the independent agency is itself in question. The incoming Donald Trump administration and other Republicans have vowed to undercut the agency. And last fall, a federal appeals court ruled the agency’s structure is unconstitutional, but said it could remedy the problem by allowing the president to fire its director at will, or by allowing it to maintain its independence, but running it as a commission.

There are nearly 70 million Americans who have been contacted by debt collectors, who are often hired by banks and other creditors to pursue repayment. The CFPB’s survey found that because the creditors often sell their debts to one of 6,000 debt collection companies, the consumer data is often false; consumers are contacted about the wrong amount of debt, or about the debt of a family member. So far, the bureau has amassed 129,000 debt-collection complaints in its database.

Article continues after sponsorship

More than half (53 percent) of consumers reported being contacted with incorrect information or the wrong amount of debt. A large minority (36 percent) of respondents in the bureau’s survey said they were contacted at inconvenient times, and 40 percent said they were often repeatedly contacted by the same collector, in spite of requests to cease contact — actions which the CFPB says are in possible violation of laws preventing the harassment and abuse of consumers.

The bureau is considering rules governing debt collectors’ conduct, including how they contact consumers, and how they verify their records.

Cordray says the laws were created decades ago, and need to be updated to reflect the modern marketplace. He says old, uncollected debts are traded online for tiny fractions of the amount owed. “For all we know, criminals are buying this and misusing that information for identity theft and other purposes,” he says.

The distinction between the original creditor and the debt-collection industry is an important one, says the American Bankers Association. The trade group says the CFPB’s survey shows the consumer experience depends on who is doing the collecting — the creditor, or a third-party debt collector.

“The report acknowledges that consumers reported more favorable experiences with creditors,” said Jeff Sigmund, a spokesman for the ABA.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Rep. Steve King Pushes Ahead On Obamacare Repeal Before Replacement

On the first day of this Congress, Rep. Steve King of Iowa introduced a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. Now some Republicans say they want to wait until there’s a replacement plan. NPR’s Audie Cornish asks Rep. King why he wants to push ahead on repeal first.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

Donald Trump said this yesterday about repealing and replacing Obamacare. As soon as his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services is confirmed, he said his administration will submit a plan to replace the law. He said it will be repeal and replace. It’ll be done, in Trump’s words, essentially simultaneously.

Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa isn’t waiting. King is a staunch conservative, and as soon as Congress convened, he proposed a repeal bill. I asked him why.

STEVE KING: It’s my opinion that if we repealed Obamacare and did nothing, we’re still far better off. Almost everybody I know would be happier if Obamacare had never been passed and we hadn’t made any changes in health care.

But what we’ve missed is the last seven years or so of an opportunity to make the prudent changes so that our system, our health insurance and our health care delivery system could have been improved during that period of time.

SIEGEL: Donald Trump’s adviser Kellyanne Conway recently told an interviewer, we don’t want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance. Would that be for you the test of a new law or the test of what happens after Obamacare is repealed – no one who’s gotten health insurance through Obamacare losing it under its repeal and replacement?

KING: I think that’s a fine and shining ideal, but it wouldn’t be my standard. We have about 20 million people that they say would be pushed off of Obamacare if we just repealed it and did nothing. I look at the numbers on the 20 million. It’s about 10.8 million that were pushed onto Medicaid, and so I don’t really look at Medicaid as a health insurance policy that you own.

I would argue there is no constitutional – you have no right to a health insurance policy. Whatever our hearts tell us, we can provide those things, but there’s not a right to them. The roughly 9.2 million people that are insured under Obamacare that would presumably lose their insurance if it were repealed – they’re living under a subsidized premium, and that subsidized premium is paid for almost a hundred percent by the taxpayers.

So we can do some things like a full deductibility of everybody’s health insurance premium. That picks up some of them in that 9.2 million group. Under Obamacare, they always envisioned that 4 percent of the population would be uninsured even if it were fully implemented. So I wouldn’t want to be bogged down on that, but I would want to do the best thing we can for the maximum number of American people.

SIEGEL: But you mentioned the approximately 10 million who are covered by the expansion of Medicaid, I guess around 90,000 of them in your state of Iowa. Should they just be considered out of luck? That is, would you simply repeal the Medicaid expansion outright?

KING: No, I would block grant Medicaid to the states and let each state make their decisions on that. The best decisions are made as close to the people as possible. That’s why we have a federalist system.

SIEGEL: Should insurance companies be required to offer insurance to people regardless of a prior condition? Should that provision of Obamacare survive, whatever the Congress does?

KING: When I was in state government, I managed the high-risk pool. We used state tax dollars to buy down expensive premiums so we could provide guaranteed issue to those who had preexisting conditions. I think that’s a far better solution. It keeps the federal government out of the insurance business and the regulation of the insurance business.

If we guarantee people that we will – that there will be a policy issued to them regardless of them not taking the responsibility to buy insurance before they were sick, that’s the equivalent of waiting for your house is on fire and then buying property and casualty insurance. And that defeats the insurance concept of it, and it defeats the personal responsibility requirements necessary to have an efficient health care system.

SIEGEL: Do you sense that there’s a majority in the House, that the overwhelming majority of the Republican caucus is with you on what should replace Obamacare? Or are there still arguments to be had and debates to be had about what happens after Obamacare?

KING: Let me go out on a limb here, Robert. I think most of the Republicans agree with me, but there’s probably a majority of them that don’t have the political will because they’re afraid of the criticism that will come. And as I listen to their dialogue, they’re afraid of the criticism.

They’re – when I say let’s repeal Obamacare and be done with that, and let’s march down through these changes one at a time, not one big bill but one at a time – and I don’t want to have a Republican bill that we have to pass to find out what’s in it. I think at this point, they need to have more will. But I think if you take them down to where their heart of hearts is and their logical brain is, the majority of them will agree with me.

SIEGEL: Congressman Steve King of Iowa, thanks for talking with us about your thoughts on repealing and replacing Obamacare.

KING: Thank you, Robert. I appreciate it.

(SOUNDBITE OF TOPS SONG, “SUPERSTITION FUTURE”)

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

The Chargers Say Goodbye To San Diego, Bolt To LA

The San Diego Chargers prepare to take the field before a Jan. 1 game against the Kansas City Chiefs in Qualcomm Stadium, in what was the final home game for the Chargers in San Diego. Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Sean M. Haffey/Getty Images

After years of hints, shots across the bow and a few gentle suggestions, the Chargers have finally done it: Owner Dean Spanos announced that the NFL team will be leaving San Diego for Los Angeles, starting next season.

“San Diego has been our home for 56 years. It will always be part of our identity, and my family and I have nothing but gratitude and appreciation for the support and passion our fans have shared with us over the years,” Spanos said in a letter Thursday.

“But today,” he continued, “we turn the page and begin an exciting new era as the Los Angeles Chargers.”

A letter from Dean Spanos pic.twitter.com/rTNIvrsN1A

— Los Angeles Chargers (@Chargers) January 12, 2017

The move will bring to a close the Chargers’ 56-year stay in the city. The team spent its inaugural year in 1960 playing in Los Angeles, as a member of the American Football League (which would merge with the NFL roughly a decade later).

The first stop in LA didn’t last long; the team moved to San Diego the following year. In the decades that followed, the Chargers made it to just one Super Bowl, which they lost to the San Francisco 49ers in 1995.

Article continues after sponsorship

In recent years, the relationship between Spanos and the city his team called home soured, as Spanos angled for public funds for a new stadium. The Chargers’ current venue, Qualcomm Stadium, opened in 1967 and now stands as one of the NFL’s oldest buildings. The City of San Diego was less than enthused about the prospect of paying for a new one.

The standoff led Spanos to cast his gaze elsewhere, notably in a proposal with the Oakland Raiders to share a stadium in Carson, Calif., in Los Angeles County. That plan was rejected by NFL owners in a vote early last year.

The ongoing dispute even made a recent appearance on Election Day ballots, when a referendum was put to San Diego voters. They dealt a convincing defeat to a Spanos-supported proposal that would have used hundreds of millions of tax dollars on a new stadium in downtown San Diego.

While not necessarily a nail in the coffin, that vote renewed speculation that the Chargers and San Diego would soon part ways.

The departure was not altogether unexpected. Even the young fans saw it coming — like this girl, during the Chargers’ loss to the Kansas City Chiefs on Jan. 1. Donald Miralle/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Donald Miralle/Getty Images

LA, for its part, had suffered a professional football drought for more than two decades, since the Raiders and the Rams both left town in the mid-1990s. Now, after the Rams returned last year, the city is suddenly flush with football teams — especially if you count perennial college powerhouses USC and UCLA.

The newly minted LA Chargers will join the Rams in a $2.66 billion stadium in Inglewood, reports the San-Diego Union-Tribune. That stadium is scheduled to open in 2019; in the meantime, the Chargers will be playing at the StubHub Center in Carson, which will briefly earn the honor of smallest venue in the NFL. According to the paper, the Chargers will also have to pay the NFL a $550 million relocation fee — or, $650 million if they choose to pay in installments.

San Diego fans, for their part, expressed disappointment and frustration, though not surprise.

“It hurts, but we will move on without them,” County Supervisor Ron Roberts told the Union-Tribune. “San Diego is a great community and we are not dependent on the Chargers.”

Lastly, by way of postscript, it must be noted: Bystanders on social media have not exactly been kind to the team’s new logo, which displays a white L and A on a blue background, a la the LA Dodgers — albeit with a little lightning bolt riff.

The Los Angeles @Chargers?? pic.twitter.com/bJmv4LcPME

— NFL (@NFL) January 12, 2017

We present these tweets without comment, merely as a reminder that the Internet might not be the best place to look for a warm welcome.

*checks mentions*
*squints*
*clears throat*

for the record, us & the @dodgers are just friends https://t.co/jBoJhZlYVD

— Tampa Bay Lightning (@TBLightning) January 12, 2017

They’re McDonald’s. We’re McDowell’s. We don’t have sesame seeds on our buns. #Chargers (h/t @jinde) pic.twitter.com/3YHKysrZK5

— Raj Mathai (@rajmathai) January 12, 2017

“Hey can I copy your homework?”
“Yeah but just change it up a little.” #chargers #dodgers pic.twitter.com/K0vKuun2TM

— Breanna Susa (@DrSeuss_7) January 12, 2017

Let’s block ads! (Why?)