In the News 28.06.17 : Today’s Articles of Interest from Around the Internets


In the News 28.06.17 : Today’s Articles of Interest from Around the Internets
In the News 28.06.17 : Today’s Articles of Interest from Around the Internets
In the News 28.06.17 : Today’s Articles of Interest from Around the Internets

Dreams Unwind: Lana Del Rey In Conversation With Stevie Nicks

“It’s just time,” whispers Lana Del Rey on her end of the telephone. “Time has brought me here.”

When Del Rey returned with “Love” this year—the first song from her fifth album, Lust for Life, out July 21—a tonal shift was immediately apparent to anyone familiar with the singer’s notoriously dark discography. Beginning with her first record, Born to Die, Del Rey’s previous four releases have been rife with references to ill-fated romance, tragedy, and betrayal. This song, however, resonated with a new note: hope.

In the accompanying video, Del Rey serenades a generation of kids who are quite literally reaching for the stars, cooing lines like, “The world is yours and you can’t refuse it” and “Don’t worry baby” (the latter being a nod to the 1964 Beach Boys song) as she beams from ear to ear.

Time itself is an ever-present theme in her work, though how she interacts with it has changed on her new album. With Lust for Life, she revisits sounds and visuals from her early work with a mature perspective while bridging the past and the present both personally and politically. “Coachella—Woodstock in My Mind,” a song that draws parallels between two musical gatherings set against times of conflict, is a perfect example of this. It is only fitting, then, that the inquirer on the other end of the phone line is Stevie Nicks, fairy godmother to Del Rey’s genre of enchantingly romantic pop rock, who was on her way to becoming the voice of her own generation when Woodstock took place nearly five decades ago.

As it turns out, time—and a series of seemingly unrelated events throughout the courses of their lives—is also what brought these two kindred spirits together.

Read the rest of this article at: V Magazine


How ‘Wellness’ Became an Epidemic

image (1)

When Gwyneth Paltrow first launched Goop in 2008, it was a great place to find out where to eat the best tapas in Barcelona. It was straight-up celebrity-lifestyle voyeurism, and Paltrow, with her long blonde hair and aura of complete self-satisfaction, was irresistible. There’s the expression “living your best life,” and then there is Paltrow: best life manifest.

But then Goop’s focus started to shift. Paltrow began to describe in detail her exercise regimen with her trainer Tracy Anderson, who believes one should work out two hours a day, six days a week. Then she began providing information on a cleanse she does each January. The mission became less about revealing the trappings of the good life and more about the notion that the really good life is internal. Rich and beautiful people don’t just go to nicer places, their organs work better. They even know how to breathe better, with more oxygen per ounce. They’re not afraid to try fecal transplants, with really top-notch, vegan-only feces. Goop became less about hotels and restaurants and more about chakras and thyroids, with the implication that maybe what’s actually standing between you and your inner Gwyneth is some mysterious virus that your overextended, pharmaceutically corrupt doctor is too narrow-minded to address.

Read the rest of this article at: The Cut


Shop the Tuscany Tote in Midnight
at Belgrave Crescent &

What Happened To Black Lives Matter?

The Highlander Research and Education Center is one of the unsung mileposts of the struggle for civil rights. People like Rosa Parks, John Lewis, and Ralph Abernathy refined their organizing skills at Highlander. It was there, in 1957, that a young Martin Luther King Jr. first heard Pete Seeger sing “We Shall Overcome.” On his way to the airport after the anniversary of what was then known as the Highlander Folk School, King proclaimed, “There’s something about that song that haunts you.” Highlander has since moved farther east, but its mission remains the same.

That’s why shortly after the 2016 election, on November 18, several dozen Black Lives Matter leaders selected it as the place to gather.

Top activists in the movement — like Alicia Garza, cofounder of the Black Lives Matter network of organizations (a namesake group), Charlene Carruthers of the Black Youth Project 100, and others — met to privately discuss how to move forward in Trump’s America. Protests had already dominated the news for days. This would be the time for decisive action, undergirded by a clear strategy. Here, in the hills of Tennessee, the activists would come together for a meeting of groups involved in the Movement for Black Lives, an umbrella group of organizations that want the same things, and devise a plan to address the new president, the shock of his election, the law and order he had promised during the campaign, and the devastating blow it all had delivered to generational movements about race and criminal justice policy in the United States. They would devise a plan — like the heroes of the civil rights movement once had decades before.

Read the rest of this article at: Buzzfeed

image (2)

21. Stand By Me

Rob Reiner (1986)

“In all our lives, there’s a fall from innocence…” Adapted from Stephen King’s story The Body (published in the same 1982 Different Seasons novella collection as Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, which itself became a hit film), Rob Reiner’s masterpiece finds young friends facing up to matters of life and death over the 1959 Labor Day weekend – marking the end of the summer and the significant start of the autumn. Pitched somewhere between carefree youthful adventure and existential adult drama, Stand By Me is a melancholy marvel which reminds us that there’s so much more to King than horror.

Read the rest of this list at: The Guardian

Is The Staggeringly Profitable Business of Scientific Publishing Bad for Science?

image (3)

In 2011, Claudio Aspesi, a senior investment analyst at Bernstein Research in London, made a bet that the dominant firm in one of the most lucrative industries in the world was headed for a crash. Reed-Elsevier, a multinational publishing giant with annual revenues exceeding £6bn, was an investor’s darling. It was one of the few publishers that had successfully managed the transition to the internet, and a recent company report was predicting yet another year of growth. Aspesi, though, had reason to believe that that prediction – along with those of every other major financial analyst – was wrong.

The core of Elsevier’s operation is in scientific journals, the weekly or monthly publications in which scientists share their results. Despite the narrow audience, scientific publishing is a remarkably big business. With total global revenues of more than £19bn, it weighs in somewhere between the recording and the film industries in size, but it is far more profitable. In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year.

But Elsevier’s business model seemed a truly puzzling thing. In order to make money, a traditional publisher – say, a magazine – first has to cover a multitude of costs: it pays writers for the articles; it employs editors to commission, shape and check the articles; and it pays to distribute the finished product to subscribers and retailers. All of this is expensive, and successful magazines typically make profits of around 12-15%.

The way to make money from a scientific article looks very similar, except that scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs. Scientists create work under their own direction – funded largely by governments – and give it to publishers for free; the publisher pays scientific editors who judge whether the work is worth publishing and check its grammar, but the bulk of the editorial burden – checking the scientific validity and evaluating the experiments, a process known as peer review – is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. The publishers then sell the product back to government-funded institutional and university libraries, to be read by scientists – who, in a collective sense, created the product in the first place.

It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill. Outside observers tend to fall into a sort of stunned disbelief when describing this setup. A 2004 parliamentary science and technology committee report on the industry drily observed that “in a traditional market suppliers are paid for the goods they provide”. A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”.

Read the rest of this article at: The Guardian

P.S. previous articles & more by P.F.M. // Top images: @verandamag; @andreiacalisto; @housebeautiful