In the News 07.07.17 : Today’s Articles of Interest from Around the Internets


In the News 07.07.17 : Today’s Articles of Interest from Around the Internets
In the News 07.07.17 : Today’s Articles of Interest from Around the Internets
In the News 07.07.17 : Today’s Articles of Interest from Around the Internets

How to Sell a Billion-Dollar Myth Like a French Girl

You know it’s a racket, but you click anyway. You already know what it’s going to say: Showing less skin is ultimately sexier than wearing something too short or too low-cut, and a natural beauty look is more appealing than obvious contouring. Blue jeans, an off-the-shoulder top, a little red lipstick, and off you go into the evening. Life is good when you’re a French Girl.

The effortlessly chic French woman is one of the most persistent tropes in our lifestyle landscape. Sixty years after a young, unapologetically sexual Brigitte Bardot danced her way into the pop culture canon in the film …And God Created Woman, publications like Vogue, Into the Gloss, and Who What Wear now publish a steady stream of articles on the supposedly superior and increasingly specific ways that French women dress, do their hair, eat, exercise, and fall in love. “The One Piece Every Chic French Girl Has in Her Winter Wardrobe.” “The Color Combo French It Girls Always Wear.” “How to Do Valentine’s Day Like a French Girl.” “How to Wash Your Hair Like a French Girl.” Even the New York Times has investigated French women’s daily habits (“Aging Gracefully, the French Way”).

Read the rest of this article at: Racked

image (12)

Naomi Klein: How Power Profits From Disaster

Thisisglamorous articles of interest 21.06.17

There have been times in my reporting from disaster zones when I have had the unsettling feeling that I was seeing not just a crisis in the here and now, but getting a glimpse of the future – a preview of where the road we are all on is headed, unless we somehow grab the wheel and swerve. When I listen to Donald Trump speak, with his obvious relish in creating an atmosphere of chaos and destabilisation, I often think: I’ve seen this before, in those strange moments when portals seemed to open up into our collective future.

One of those moments arrived in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, as I watched hordes of private military contractors descend on the flooded city to find ways to profit from the disaster, even as thousands of the city’s residents, abandoned by their government, were treated like dangerous criminals just for trying to survive.

I started to notice the same tactics in disaster zones around the world. I used the term “shock doctrine” to describe the brutal tactic of using the public’s disorientation following a collective shock – wars, coups, terrorist attacks, market crashes or natural disasters – to push through radical pro-corporate measures, often called “shock therapy”. Though Trump breaks the mould in some ways, his shock tactics do follow a script, and one that is familiar from other countries that have had rapid changes imposed under the cover of crisis.

Read the rest of this article at: The Guardian


Shop the Tuscany Tote in Midnight
at Belgrave Crescent &

Going It Alone

It’s the spring of 2016, and I’m ten miles south of Damascus, Virginia, where an annual celebration called Trail Days has just wrapped up. Last night, temperatures plummeted into the thirties. Today, long-distance Appalachian Trail hikers who’d slept in hammocks and mailed their underquilts home too soon were groaning into their morning coffee. A few small fires shot woodsmoke at the sun as thousands of tent stakes were dislodged. Over the next 24 hours, most of the hikers in attendance would pack up and hit the 554-mile stretch of the AT that runs north through Virginia.

I’ve used the Trail Days layover as an opportunity to stash most of my belongings with friends and complete a short section of the AT I’d missed, near the Tennessee-Virginia border. As I’m moving along, a day hiker heading in the opposite direction stops me for a chat. He’s affable and inquisitive. He asks what many have asked before: “Where are you from?” I tell him Miami.

He laughs and says, “No, but really. Where are you from from?” He mentions something about my features, my thin nose, and then trails off. I tell him my family is from Eritrea, a country in the Horn of Africa, next to Ethiopia. He looks relieved.

Read the rest of this article at: Outside


Welcome to the Lost Kitchen, the best Maine Restaurant You May Never be Able to Eat At


FREEDOM, Maine — At midnight on April 1, the phones began to ring: Reservations were now open. By 12:30, the voice mail was full. In 24 hours, the Lost Kitchen — a 40-seat restaurant located inside an old mill here — received more than 10,000 calls from people hoping to come for dinner. It took the staff almost a week to return enough of them to declare the place booked for the 2017 season.

The restaurant has turned tiny Freedom — 16 miles west of Belfast, population 700 and change — into an unlikely dining destination. (“It’s a sleepy little village, really,” says Selectman Ron Price. “It’s a good place to live.”) People come from nearby Winslow and Waterville, but also from every time zone, to eat here.

The Lost Kitchen is the creation of Erin French, 36, a self-taught cook who grew up in the area, working at her family’s diner. “Everyone has been super supportive,” she says. “I was born here and raised here. I grew up making their meatloaf sandwiches.” The restaurant is open Wednesday through Saturday from May until New Year’s Eve. It has one seating a night, and one menu: Everyone eats what is served. And it is aptly named. It has been lost and found, and found again.

French started the Lost Kitchen as a supper club in 2010, operating out of the Belfast apartment she shared with her husband at the time. The following year, she opened a restaurant of the same name downstairs. It got glowing write-ups; French was invited to cook at New York’s prestigious Beard House, headquarters of the James Beard Foundation.

Read the rest of this article at: The Boston Globe

How Climate Scepticism Turned into Something More Dangerous


Last month Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. For his supporters, it provided evidence, at last, that the president is a man of his word. He may not have kept many campaign promises, but he kept this one. For his numerous critics it is just another sign of how little Trump cares about evidence of any kind. His decision to junk the Paris accord confirms Trump as the poster politician for the “post-truth” age.

But this is not just about Trump. The motley array of candidates who ran for the Republican presidential nomination was divided on many things, but not on climate change. None of them was willing to take the issue seriously. In a bitterly contentious election, it was a rare instance of unanimity. The consensus that climate is a non-subject was shared by all the candidates who appeared in the firstmajor Republican debate in August 2015 – Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee and Trump. Republican voters were offered 10 shades of denialism.

As Huckabee quipped in January 2015, any talk of global warming was a distraction from the real dangers the country faced: “A beheading is a far greater threat to an American than a sunburn.” Trump’s remarks on climate may have more been erratic (“I want to use hairspray!” he said at one point, confusing global warming with the hole in the ozone layer) but their consistent theme was that manmade climate change is a “hoax”, perpetrated by the enemies of the US, who may or may not include China.

Climate science has become a red rag to the political right. The scientific consensus is clear: more than 95% of climate researchers agree that human activity is causing global warming, and that without action to combat it we are on a path to dangerous temperature rises from pre-industrial levels. But the mere existence of this consensus gets taken by its political opponents as a priori evidence of a stitch-up. Why else would scientists and left-leaning politicians be agreeing with each other all the time if they weren’t scratching each others’ backs? Knowledge is easily turned into “elite” knowledge, which is tantamount to privileged snobs telling ordinary people what to think. Trump’s stance reflects the mutual intolerance that now exists between those promoting the scientific consensus and those for whom the consensus is just another political racket. Trump didn’t create this division. He is simply exploiting it.

Read the rest of this article at: The Guardian

P.S. previous articles & more by P.F.M. // Top images: @ellielouisecoker; @jasminedowling; @lovelypepa