March 15, 2017

No Image

Entertainment March 15, 2017

Today in Movie Culture: Behind the Visual Effects of 'Ghost in the Shell,' a New Pixar Fan Theory and More

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

Visual Effects Demonstration of the Day:

Adam Savage visits Weta Workshop to see how they made the robot skeleton for Ghosts in the Shell:

[embedded content]

Remade Trailer of the Day:

The Belko Experiment has an obligatory Lego trailer ahead of its release, and the best part is that Michael Rooker is played by a Yondu minifig (via /Film):

[embedded content]

Movie Trivia of the Day:

Get ready for the new live-action Beauty and the Beast with ScreenCrush’s video of facts about the animated original:

[embedded content]

Cosplay of the Day:

Speaking of Beauty and the Beast, you can now go swimming as Belle with new Disney Princess bikinis. You don’t have to use them for summery cosplay, but that appears to be the intent of the marketing (via Buzzfeed):

Fan Theory of the Day:

Speaking of Disney animated movies, trade facts for a theory with MatPat of The Film Theorist’s explanation of why the characters in Cars aren’t cars:

[embedded content]

Supercut of the Day:

Editor Matt McGee compiles a cliche line of dialogue in this supercut of people saying “let’s go home”:

[embedded content]

Vintage Image of the Day:

David Cronenberg, who turns 74 today, directing a scene for The Fly, which we heard this week is definitely being remade:

David Cronenberg showing Jeff Goldblum how to walk like a fly: pic.twitter.com/9Ja69FRMP7

— Rare Horror (@RareHorror) March 1, 2017

Filmmaker in Focus:

For Fandor Keyframe in time for this week’s release of T2: Trainspotting, Bill Rwehera explores some of Danny Boyle’s trademarks:

[embedded content]

Actor in the Spotlight:

Ben Stiller’s favorite word might be “little,” because this video proves he says it a lot (via Geek Tyrant):

[embedded content]

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 45th anniversary of the release of Slaughterhouse-Five. Watch the original trailer for the Kurt Vonnegut adaptation below.

[embedded content]

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Business March 15, 2017

Trump To Unveil 'Hard Power' Budget That Boosts Military Spending

President Trump is releasing his budget blueprint on Thursday, calling for a boost in military spending and deep cuts in the Environmental Protection Agency and other programs.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Trump administration’s new budget blueprint aims to quantify the president’s nationalistic agenda in dollars and cents. The plan, due out Thursday morning, calls for significant increases in military and border-security spending, along with corresponding cuts in many other parts of the government.

“This is the America First budget,” said Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, in a briefing with reporters. “In fact, we wrote it using the president’s own words. We went through his speeches. We went through articles that have been written about his policies … and we turned those policies into numbers.”

Like any White House budget, Trump’s blueprint is more of a political document than an accurate predictor of government spending. Congress controls the purse strings and lawmakers may have very different priorities. As a statement of presidential intention, though, the blueprint is crystal clear.

“There’s no question this is a hard-power budget,” Mulvaney said. “It is not a soft-power budget. This is a hard-power budget. And that was done intentionally. The president very clearly wants to send a message to our allies and our potential adversaries that this is a strong-power administration.”

Trump wants lawmakers to boost military spending in the coming year by 10 percent, or $54 billion. Rather than raise taxes or increase the deficit, the president is calling for equivalent cuts in other areas. Foreign aid would be especially hard hit, with the State Department’s budget cut by about 28 percent.

“The president ran [his campaign] saying he would spend less money overseas and more money back home,” Mulvaney said. “When you go to implement that policy, you go to things like foreign aid, and those get reduced.”

Critics argue the administration’s single-minded focus on hard power is short-sighted, and could ultimately be detrimental to national security. They point to past comments from Defense Secretary James Mattis, a retired Marine general, who once told lawmakers, “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition, ultimately.”

The White House blueprint does not address major safety net programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which the president has promised to protect. But Trump is calling for sharp cuts in discretionary spending, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, is a longtime critic of what he sees as the agency’s activist agenda. He and the president have both promised to scale back environmental regulation, including efforts to curb carbon pollution and promote alternative energy. Last week, Pruitt reiterated his doubts that carbon emissions are a primary contributor to climate change. That puts him at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Climate research at NASA could also take a hit under Trump’s budget. The plan would reduce overall spending at NASA by around 1 percent, Mulvaney said, but would increase spending on space exploration, which Trump supports.

In a speech to a joint session of Congress last month, Trump promised to bring renewed hope and opportunity to what he called “our neglected inner cities.” The Department of Housing and Urban Development will not be the vehicle for that effort, though.

“We’ve spent a lot of money on housing and urban development over the last decades without a lot to show for it,” Mulvaney said. He added that Trump prefers to invest in cities’ infrastructure and school choice.

The president’s plan calls for a 6 percent increase in spending by the Department of Homeland Security, including $2.6 billion to begin work on a planned border wall. The White House is also asking Congress to devote $1.5 billion to the wall in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

The administration also wants to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps to finance public radio and television stations. CPB received $445 million in the current fiscal year.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Health March 15, 2017

Pelosi Says Democrats Have A Responsibility To Look For Common Ground On Health Law

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says the proposed Republican health bill would lead to an enormous transfer of wealth from poorer Americans to richer ones.

Marian Carrasquero/NPR

hide caption

toggle caption

Marian Carrasquero/NPR

When Democrats held a majority of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi was the House speaker, she helped pass the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Now, after more than six years in the minority party, she is watching House Republicans move to repeal and replace parts of the law.

She says that although Democrats don’t have the votes to stop the GOP legislation alone, they can still show their opposition to it.

“In my office I have a painting of Abraham Lincoln, who said, ‘Public sentiment is everything,’ ” Pelosi told NPR’s Robert Siegel. “Regardless of the number of Democrats in the House, the number of people who are affected, 24 million [people] who would lose their care, I’m depending on public opinion. … The fact is the more we point out the shortcomings of the legislation, the fewer votes [Republicans] will have.”

The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.

Interview Highlights

On the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act

Let’s go back to where we were before the Affordable Care Act, because that was a time where [some people] wouldn’t even be able to have any insurance. So what was the purpose of the Affordable Care Act? [It was] threefold. One, to lower cost. Two, to improve benefits. And three, to expand access for millions more people. And it’s done all three. …

Look, there hasn’t been a bill ever passed of this magnitude, whether it was Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, voting rights, civil rights bill, that was not revisited. Some of the improvements we [could] have [had] in the Affordable Care Act were there, but the Republicans prevented them from happening. So you can be a self-fulfilling prophecy and say, “I’m gonna make sure this doesn’t work now. Now see, it didn’t work.”

On whether the Democrats could work with President Trump or House Speaker Paul Ryan on health care legislation

We have a responsibility to the American people to find as much common ground as we can. There has to be sincerity, though. … I don’t think he has the faintest idea — the president — about the health care thing.

[But Rep. Paul] Ryan … is [a] philosophical, right-wing, anti-government [person], and so an act of mercy for him is to reduce the government’s role. So we’re talking about two different things. They’re debating whether it’s “Trumpcare” or “Ryancare,” but neither of them wants it identified with themselves because it’s such a failure in the public mind.

On Trump’s knowledge of health care

The more the president might learn about [health care], then he might see where there’s a path [to working with Democrats], because to tell you the truth, the Affordable Care Act is a private sector initiative. It contains many Republican ideas.

Understand this about Republicans, and then you’ll understand part of what our challenge is here: They always are gearing whatever they do to benefit the high end. This is the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of our country, in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars going into the pockets of the top 1 percent of the people in our country, at the expense of the good health of our middle class and those who aspire to the middle class.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Sports March 15, 2017

U.S. Women's Hockey Team Boycotting World Championships To Protest Low Pay

Team USA hockey goalie Alex Rigsby defends the goal during a practice session in Plymouth Township, Mich., in December 2016.

Carlos Osorio/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Carlos Osorio/AP

The U.S. Women’s National Hockey Team — the reigning world champions — won’t be defending their title this year. They’re boycotting the championships as a protest against USA Hockey, citing stalled negotiations for “fair wages and equitable support” from the organization.

The U.S. national team is a dominant player in women’s ice hockey — they’ve medaled in all five Olympic Games that featured women’s hockey and won the world championships seven times since 2000. (Over the same time frame, the men won two Olympic and two World Championship silvers.)

The players are asking for higher wages — pointing out that in the past, USA Hockey paid them $1,000 a month for six months every Olympic cycle, and “virtually nothing” for the other 3 1/2 years. That works out to $1,500 a year.

Forward Meghan Duggan says it’s not fair for USA Hockey to pay them for only six months every four years when they train full time. “It’s 365 days a year to be an Olympic athlete,” she says. “It’s our life, our everything.”

The players do receive year-round support directly from the U.S. Olympic Committee — without which, Duggan says, “there would be no financial survival at all.”

Approximately half of the national team players hold “second or third jobs,” according to a press release from the lawyers representing the team.

Players on the men’s national team can also play on the NHL — where the minimum salary is more than half a million dollars. The NWHL, meanwhile, recently slashed its salaries, which were $10,000-$26,000 before the pay reduction.

In short, there’s “no apples to apples comparison” between the financial positions of the male and female Olympic teams, says John Langel, a lawyer representing the women’s team.

But their protest extends beyond paychecks. The women say there are pervasive, possibly illegal inequities in how USA Hockey treats male and female players — in terms of equipment, meals, hotel accommodations, staffing, marketing and PR, among other things.

The team’s lawyers highlight youth programs, in particular:

“At the younger levels, USA Hockey spends approximately $3.5 million annually to support a schedule of more than 60 games a season for boys participating in its National Team Development Program. There are no comparable development opportunities for girls, and the Women’s National Team plays only nine games in non-Olympic years. Over the course of its yearlong negotiations, the players have made repeated requests of USA Hockey for increased playing opportunities and financial support consistent with the boys’ teams.”

In a press release, USA Hockey said it was “disappointed” by the players’ decision to boycott the championships.

“USA Hockey has a long-standing commitment to the support, advancement and growth of girls and women’s hockey and any claims to the contrary are unfounded,” the organization said.

It also suggested that it has “proactively” increased its financial support for the women’s team and is preparing a package that “could result in each player receiving nearly $85,000 in cash over the Olympic training and performance period.”

Duggans and Langel say that’s misleading. Most of those funds wouldn’t come from USA Hockey. The figure represents mainly the money the players would get anyway from the USOC and is variable, depending on whether they win a medal and what kind.

It also only addresses payments during an Olympic year, not in the other three years that the women have to train and compete, the team says.

Besides, the stipend increase “does nothing to address the marketing and training support [which] is not on par with what it provides to the men’s and boys’ teams,” the women’s team said in a statement.

In the USA Hockey statement, president Jim Smith says, “USA Hockey’s role is not to employ athletes and we will not do so.”

Duggan said that was “difficult” to hear.

“They tell us when to be places, how long to be there. … We base where we live, what we do, when our alarms go off, when we sleep, what we eat, based on their orders, and their anticipation that we will show up and perform for them when asked.

“It is our life, every day, every minute — it’s for USA Hockey and this program.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)