publishedmedium:vanity fair

  • “It’s Not Going to Be Easy”: The Boeing Tragedy Is Just the Beginning of the Self-Driving Techpocalypse | Vanity Fair

    Software-based accidents are still incredibly rare, Clive Thompson, the author of the new book Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World, told me in an interview. And yet, when we consider a future in which our lives are dictated by lines of code, there is vast potential for unforeseen trouble. “If we’re going to have big #robot devices zooming around us all day long, we’re going to need rigorous review of the code. That’s clear. We’re moving to a world where F.A.A.-like regulation will reach into lots of newfangled machines,” Thompson told me. “It’s not going to be easy, and there’ll always be risk. Software’s complex, so it’s hard to tell how it’ll behave in everyday life. The F.A.A. already regulates aircraft software pretty tightly, yet we got the Max 8 catastrophe.”


  • “When You Get That Wealthy, You Start to Buy Your Own #Bullshit”: The Miseducation of Sheryl Sandberg | Vanity Fair

    ... it starts all the way back in 1977, when Sandberg was just eight years old and the U.S. economy was still recovering from the longest and deepest recession since the end of World War II. That’s the year that #Harvard #Business School professor Abraham Zaleznik wrote an article entitled, “Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?” in America’s most influential business journal, Harvard Business Review. For years, Zaleznik argued, the country had been over-managed and under-led. The article helped spawn the annual multi-billion-dollar exercise in nonsense known as the #Leadership Industry, with Harvard as ground zero. The article gave Harvard Business School a new raison d’être in light of the fact that the product it had been selling for decades—managers—was suddenly no longer in vogue. Henceforth, it would be molding leaders.


    The truth is, Harvard Business School, like much of the #M.B.A. universe in which Sandberg was reared, has always cared less about moral leadership than career advancement and financial performance.

    The roots of the problem can be found in the Harvard Business School’s vaunted “Case Method,” a discussion-based pedagogy that asks students to put themselves in the role of corporate #Übermensch. At the start of each class, one unlucky soul is put in the hot seat, presented with a “what would you do” scenario, and then subjected to the ruthless interrogation of their peers. Graded on a curve, the intramural #competition can be intense—M.B.A.s are super-competitive, after all.

    Let’s be clear about this: in business, as in life, there isn’t always one correct answer. So the teaching of a decision-making philosophy that is deliberate and systematic, but still open-minded, is hardly controversial on its face. But to help students overcome the fear of sounding stupid and being remorselessly critiqued, they are reminded, in case after case—and with emphasis—that there are no right answers. And that has had the unfortunate effect of opening up a chasm of moral equivalence in too many of their graduates.

    #carriérisme #sans_scrupules

  • The Solar Eclipse Is Destroying Everything Except Bonnie Tyler | Vanity Fair

    American productivity is shockingly down, but sales of “Total Eclipse of the Heart” are shockingly high.


    But if companies are the true losers of the solar eclipse, then who, pray tell, is the winner? Well, technically, the moon, followed closely by the sun. That said, there’s also a true human heir apparent. Turn around, bright eyes—it’s clearly Bonnie Tyler, whose prescient 1983 single, “Total Eclipse of the Heart,” has experienced a 503 percent increase in digital sales thanks to its status as an accidental eclipse tie-in, according to Billboard. On Sunday alone, the song shifted 4,000 downloads. In the last week, the song sold 12,000 downloads, compared to just 2,000 the previous pre-solar-eclipse-craze week.

    Tyler is also taking full advantage of this moment, recently announcing that she will perform the song during the eclipse while on the ocean, traveling on a cruise ship that is perfectly poised to see the eclipse in all its glory. She’ll then presumably burst into an all-knowing burst of light, because that’s the sort of thing that happens after such a powerful alignment. Forever’s gonna start tonight, indeed.

  • Peter Thiel Wants to Inject Himself With Young People’s Blood | Vanity Fair

    Given Thiel’s obsession with warding off death, it comes as no surprise that the Silicon Valley billionaire is interested in at least one radical way of doing it: injecting himself with a young person’s blood.

    #sang #capitalisme #vampires

  • Dow Chemical Donates $1 Million to Trump, Asks Administration to Ignore Pesticide Study | Vanity Fair

    In addition to Pruitt’s long history of, per the AP, aligning “himself in legal disputes with the interests of executives and corporations,” Dow has another reason to be hopeful the government will conveniently ignore any lingering concerns about killing off entire species: Andrew Liveris is a close adviser to Donald Trump who was literally standing next to the president in February when he signed an executive order “mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations.”

    Dow also donated $1 million to underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities, the AP reports, but God help the person who dares to wonder aloud if the check was some sort of an attempt to curry favor with the administration. As Rachelle Schikorra, Dow’s director of public affairs, told the AP, any such suggestion is “completely off the mark.”

    #perturbateurs_endocriniens #corruption

    • #david_foster_wallace dans le tour bus de #McCain, il y a des siècles...

      SUCK IT UP

      Another paradox: It is all but impossible to talk about the really important stuff in politics without using terms that have become such awful clichés they make your eyes glaze over and are difficult to even hear. One such term is “leader,” which all the big candidates use all the time—as in “providing leadership,” “a proven leader,” “a new leader for a new century,” etc.—and have reduced to such a platitude that it’s hard to try to think about what “leader” really means and whether indeed what today’s Young Voters want is a leader. The weird thing is that the word “leader” itself is cliché and boring, but when you come across somebody who actually is a real leader, that person isn’t boring at all; in fact he’s the opposite of boring.

      Obviously, a real leader isn’t just somebody who has ideas you agree with, nor is it just somebody you happen to believe is a good guy. A real leader is somebody who, because of his own particular power and charisma and example, is able to inspire people, with “inspire” being used here in a serious and noncliché way. A real leader can somehow get us to do certain things that deep down we think are good and want to be able to do but usually can’t get ourselves to do on our own. It’s a mysterious quality, hard to define, but we always know it when we see it, even as kids. You can probably remember seeing it in certain really great coaches, or teachers, or some extremely cool older kid you “looked up to” (interesting phrase) and wanted to be like. Some of us remember seeing the quality as kids in a minister or rabbi, or a scoutmaster, or a parent, or a friend’s parent, or a boss in some summer job. And yes, all these are “authority figures,” but it’s a special kind of authority. If you’ve ever spent time in the military, you know how incredibly easy it is to tell which of your superiors are real leaders and which aren’t, and how little rank has to do with it. A leader’s true authority is a power you voluntarily give him, and you grant him this authority not in a resigned or resentful way but happily; it feels right. Deep down, you almost always like how a real leader makes you feel, how you find yourself working harder and pushing yourself and thinking in ways you wouldn’t be able to if there weren’t this person you respected and believed in and wanted to please.

      In other words, a real leader is somebody who can help us overcome the limitations of our own individual laziness and selfishness and weakness and fear and get us to do better, harder things than we can get ourselves to do on our own. Lincoln was, by all available evidence, a real leader, and Churchill, and Gandhi, and King. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, and probably de Gaulle, and certainly Marshall, and maybe Eisenhower. (Although of course Hitler was a real leader too, a very potent one, so you have to watch out; all it is is a weird kind of personal power.)

      Probably the last real leader we had as US president was JFK, 40 years ago. It’s not that Kennedy was a better human being than the seven presidents we’ve had since: we know he lied about his WWII record, and had spooky Mob ties, and screwed around more in the White House than poor old Clinton could ever dream of. But JFK had that special leader-type magic, and when he said things like “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,” nobody rolled their eyes or saw it as just a clever line. Instead, a lot of them felt inspired. And the decade that followed, however fucked up it was in other ways, saw millions of Young Voters devote themselves to social and political causes that had nothing to do with getting a plum job or owning expensive stuff or finding the best parties; and the 60s were, by most accounts, a generally cleaner and happier time than now.

      It is worth considering why. It’s worth thinking hard about why, when John McCain says he wants to be president in order to inspire a generation of young Americans to devote themselves to causes greater than their own self-interest (which means he’s saying he wants to be a real leader), a great many of those young Americans will yawn or roll their eyes or make some ironic joke instead of feeling inspired the way they did with Kennedy. True, JFK’s audience was in some ways more innocent than we are: Vietnam hadn’t happened yet, or Watergate, or the S&L scandals, etc. But there’s also something else. The science of sales and marketing was still in its drooling infancy in 1961 when Kennedy was saying “Ask not …” The young people he inspired had not been skillfully marketed to all their lives. They knew nothing of spin. They were not totally, terribly familiar with salesmen.

      Now you have to pay close attention to something that’s going to seem obvious at first. There is a difference between a great leader and a great salesman. There are also similarities, of course. A great salesman is usually charismatic and likable, and he can often get us to do things (buy things, agree to things) that we might not go for on our own, and to feel good about it. Plus a lot of salesmen are basically decent people with plenty about them to admire. But even a truly great salesman isn’t a leader. This is because a salesman’s ultimate, overriding motivation is self-interest—if you buy what he’s selling, the salesman profits. So even though the salesman may have a very powerful, charismatic, admirable personality, and might even persuade you that buying is in yourinterests (and it really might be)—still, a little part of you always knows that what the salesman’s ultimately after is something for himself. And this awareness is painful … although admittedly it’s a tiny pain, more like a twinge, and often unconscious. But if you’re subjected to great salesmen and sales pitches and marketing concepts for long enough—like from your earliest Saturday-morning cartoons, let’s say—it is only a matter of time before you start believing deep down that everything is sales and marketing, and that whenever somebody seems like they care about you or about some noble idea or cause, that person is a salesman and really ultimately doesn’t give a shit about you or some cause but really just wants something for himself.

      Some people believe that President Ronald W. Reagan (1981-89) was our last real leader. But not many of them are Young Voters. Even in the 80s, most younger Americans, who could smell a marketer a mile away, knew that what Reagan really was was a great salesman. What he was selling was the idea of himself as a leader. And if you’re under, say, 35, this is what pretty much every US president you’ve grown up with has been: a very talented salesman, surrounded by smart, expensive political strategists and media consultants and spinmasters who manage his “campaign” (as in also “advertising campaign”) and help him sell us on the idea that it’s in our interests to vote for him. But the real interests that drove these guys were their own. They wanted, above all, To Be President, wanted the mind-bending power and prominence, the historical immortality—you could smell it on them. (Young Voters tend to have an especially good sense of smell for this sort of thing.) And this is why these guys weren’t real leaders: because it was obvious that their deepest, most elemental motives were selfish, there was no chance of them ever inspiring us to transcend our own selfishness. Instead, they usually helped reinforce our market-conditioned belief that everybody’s ultimately out for himself and that life is about selling and profit and that words and phrases like “service” and “justice” and “community” and “patriotism” and “duty” and “Give government back to the people” and “I feel your pain” and “Compassionate Conservatism” are just the politics industry’s proven sales pitches, exactly the same way “Anti-Tartar” and “Fresher Breath” are the toothpaste industry’s pitches. We may vote for them, the same way we may go buy toothpaste. But we’re not inspired. They’re not the real thing.

      It’s not just a matter of lying or not lying, either. Everyone knows that the best marketing uses the truth—i.e., sometimes a brand of toothpaste really is better. That’s not the point. The point, leader-wise, is the difference between merely believing somebody and believing in him.

      Granted, this is a bit simplistic. All politicians sell, always have. FDR and JFK and MLK and Gandhi were great salesmen. But that’s not all they were. People could smell it. That weird little extra something. It had to do with “character” (which, yes, is also a cliché—suck it up).

      All of this is why watching John McCain hold press conferences and -Avails and Town Hall Meetings (we’re all at the North Charleston THM right now, 0820h on Wednesday, 9 Feb., in the horrible lobby of something called the Carolina Ice Palace) and be all conspicuously honest and open and informal and idealistic and no-bullshit and say “I run for president not to Be Somebody, but to Do Something” and “We’re on a national crusade to give government back to the people” in front of these cheering crowds just seems so much more goddamn complicated than watching old b/w clips of John Kennedy’s speeches. It feels impossible, in February 2000, to tell whether John McCain is a real leader or merely a very talented political salesman, an entrepreneur who’s seen a new market-niche and devised a way to fill it.

      Because here’s yet another paradox. Spring 2000—midmorning in America’s hangover from the whole Lewinsky-and-impeachment thing—represents a moment of almost unprecedented cynicism and disgust with national politics, a moment when blunt, I-don’t-give-a-shit-if-you-elect-me honesty becomes an incredibly attractive and salable and electable quality. A moment when an anticandidate can be a real candidate. But of course if he becomes a real candidate, is he still an anticandidate? Can you sell someone’s refusal to be for sale?

      There are many elements of the McCain2000 campaign—naming the bus “Straight Talk,” the timely publication of Faith of My Fathers, the much-hyped “openness” and “spontaneity” of the Express’s media salon, the message-disciplined way McCain thumps “Always. Tell you. The truth”—that indicate that some very shrewd, clever marketers are trying to market this candidate’s rejection of shrewd, clever marketing. Is this bad? Or just confusing? Suppose, let’s say, you’ve got a candidate who says polls are bullshit and totally refuses to tailor his campaign style to polls, and suppose then that new polls start showing that people really like this candidate’s polls-are-bullshit stance and are thinking about voting for him because of it, and suppose the candidate reads these polls (who wouldn’t?) and then starts saying even more loudly and often that polls are bullshit and that he won’t use them to decide what to say, maybe turning “Polls are bullshit” into a campaign line and repeating it in every speech and even painting Polls Are Bullshit on the side of his bus… . Is he a hypocrite? Is it hypocritical that one of McCain’s ads’ lines in South Carolina is “Telling the truth even when it hurts him politically,” which of course since it’s an ad means that McCain is trying to get political benefit out of his indifference to political benefit? What’s the difference between hypocrisy and paradox?

      Unsimplistic enough for you now? The fact of the matter is that if you’re a true-blue, market-savvy Young Voter, the only thing you’re certain to feel about John McCain’s campaign is a very modern and American type of ambivalence, a sort of interior war between your deep need to believe and your deep belief that the need to believe is bullshit, that there’s nothing left anywhere but sales and salesmen. At the times your cynicism’s winning, you’ll find that it’s possible to see even McCain’s most attractive qualities as just marketing angles. His famous habit of bringing up his own closet’s skeletons, for example—bad grades, messy divorce, indictment as one of the Keating Five—this could be real honesty and openness, or it could be McCain’s shrewd way of preempting criticism by criticizing himself before anyone else can do it. The modesty with which he talks about his heroism as a POW—“It doesn’t take much talent to get shot down”; “I wasn’t a hero, but I was fortunate enough to serve my time in the company of heroes”—this could be real humility, or it could be a clever way to make himself seem both heroic and humble.

      You can run the same kind of either/or analysis on almost everything about this candidate. Even the incredible daily stamina he shows on the Trail—this could be a function of McCain’s natural energy and enjoyment of people, or it could be gross ambition, a hunger for election so great that it drives him past sane human limits. The operative word here is “sane”: the Shrub stays at luxury hotels like the Charleston Inn and travels with his own personal pillow and likes to sleep till nine, whereas McCain crashes at hellish chain places and drinks pop out of cans and moves like only methedrine can make a normal person move. Last night the Straight Talk caravan didn’t get back to the Embassy Suites until 2340, and McCain was reportedly up with Murphy and Weaver planning ways to respond to Bush2’s response to the Negative ad McCain’s running in response to Bush2’s new Negative ad for three hours after that, and you know getting up and showering and shaving and putting on a nice suit has to take some time if you’re a guy who can’t raise his arms past his shoulders, plus he had to eat breakfast, and the ST Express hauled out this morning at 0738h, and now here McCain is at 0822 almost running back and forth on the raised stage in a Carolina Ice Palace lobby so off-the-charts hideous that the press all pass up the free crullers. (The lobby’s lined with red and blue rubber—yes, rubber—and 20 feet up a green iron spiral staircase is an open mezzanine with fencing of mustard-colored pipe from which hang long purple banners for the Lowcountry Youth Hockey Association, and you can hear the rink’s organ someplace inside and a symphony of twitters and boings from an enormous video arcade just down the bright-orange hall, and on either side of the THM stage are giant monitors composed of nine identical screens arrayed 3 ¥ 3, and the monitor on the left has nine identical McCain faces talking while the one on the right has just one big McCain face cut into nine separate squares, and every square foot of the nauseous lobby is occupied by wildly supportive South Carolinians, and it’s at least 95 degrees, and the whole thing is so sensuously assaultive that all the media except Jim C. and the techs turn around and listen facing away, most drinking more than one cup of coffee at once.) And even on four hours’ sleep at the very outside now McCain on the stage is undergoing the same metamorphosis that happens whenever the crowd is responsive and laughs at his jokes and puts down coffee and kids to applaud when he says he’ll beat Al Gore like a drum. In person, McCain is not a sleek gorgeous telegenic presence like Rep. Mark Sanford or the Shrub. McCain is short and slight and stiff in a bit of a twisted way. He tends to look a little sunken in his suit. His voice is a thin tenor and not hypnotic or stirring per se. But onstage, taking questions and pacing like something caged, his body seems to dilate and his voice takes on a resonance, and unlike the Shrub he is bodyguardless and the stage wide open and the questions unscreened and he answers them well, and the best Town Meetings’ crowds’ eyes brighten, and unlike Gore’s dead bird’s eyes or the Shrub’s smug glare McCain’s own eyes are wide and candid and full of a very attractive inspiring light that’s either devotion to causes beyond him or a demagogue’s love of the crowd’s love or an insatiable hunger to become the most powerful white male on earth. Or all three.

      The point, to put it as simply as possible, is that there’s a tension between what John McCain’s appeal is and the way that appeal must be structured and packaged in order to get him elected. To get you to buy. And the media—which is, after all, the box in which John McCain is brought to you, and is for the most part your only access to him, and is itself composed of individual people, voters, some of them Young Voters—the media see this tension, feel it, especially the buses’ McCain2000 corps. Don’t think they don’t. And don’t forget they’re human, or that the way they’re going to resolve this tension and decide how to see McCain (and thus how to let you see McCain) will depend way less on political ideology than on each reporter’s own little interior battles between cynicism and idealism and marketing and leadership. The far-Right National Review, for example, calls McCain “a crook and a showboat,” while the old-Left New York Review of Books feels that “McCain isn’t the anti-Clinton … McCain is more like the unClinton, in the way 7Up was the unCola: different flavor, same sugar content,” and the politically indifferent Vanity Fair quotes Washington insiders of unknown affiliation saying “People should never underestimate [McCain’s] shrewdness. His positions, in many instances, are very calculated in terms of media appeal.”

      Well no shit. Here in SC, the single most depressing and cynical episode of the whole week involves shrewd, calculated appeal. (At least in certain moods it looks like it does [maybe].) Please recall 10 February’s Chris Duren Incident in Spartanburg and McCain’s enormous distress and his promise to phone and apologize personally to the disillusioned kid. So the next afternoon, at a pre-F&F Press-Avail back in North Charleston, the new, unilaterally non-Negative McCain informs the press corps that he’s going up to his hotel room right now to call Chris Duren. The phone call is to be “a private one between this young man and me,” McCain says. Then Todd the Press Liaison steps in looking very stern and announces that only network techs will be allowed in the room, and that while they can film the whole call, only the first ten seconds of audio will be permitted. “Ten seconds, then we kill the sound,” Todd says, looking hard at Frank C. and the other audio guys. “This is a private call, not a media event.” Let’s think about this. If it’s a “private call,” why let TV cameras film McCain making it? And why only ten seconds of sound? Why not either full sound or no sound at all?

      The answer is modern and American and pretty much right out of Marketing 101. The campaign wants to publicize McCain’s keeping his promise and calling a traumatized kid, but also wants to publicize the fact that McCain is calling him “privately” and not just exploiting Chris Duren for crass political purposes. There’s no other possible reason for the ten-second audio cutoff, which cutoff will require networks that run the film to explain why there’s no sound after the initial Hello, which explanation will then of course make McCain look doubly good, both caring and nonpolitical. Does the shrewd calculation of media appeal here mean that McCain doesn’t really care about Chris Duren, doesn’t really want to buck him up and restore the kid’s faith in the political process? Not necessarily. But what it does mean is that McCain2000 wants to have it both ways, rather like big corporations that give to charity and then try to reap PR benefits by hyping their altruism in their ads. Does stuff like this mean that the gifts and phone call aren’t “good”? The answer depends on how gray-area-tolerant you are about sincerity vs. marketing, or sincerity plus marketing, or leadership plus the packaging and selling of same.

      But if you, like poor old Rolling Stone, have come to a point on the Trail where you’ve started fearing your own cynicism almost as much as you fear your own credulity and the salesmen who feed on it, you may find your thoughts returning again and again to a certain dark and box-sized cell in a certain Hilton half a world and three careers away, to the torture and fear and offer of release and a certain Young Voter named McCain’s refusal to violate a Code. There were no techs’ cameras in that box, no aides or consultants, no paradoxes or gray areas; nothing to sell. There was just one guy and whatever in his character sustained him. This is a huge deal. In your mind, that Hoa Lo box becomes sort of a special dressing room with a star on the door, the private place behind the stage where one imagines “the real John McCain” still lives. And but now the paradox here is that this box that makes McCain “real” is, by definition, locked. Impenetrable. Nobody gets in or out. This is huge, too; you should keep it in mind. It is why, however many behind-the-scenes pencils get put on the case, a “profile” of John McCain is going to be just that: one side, exterior, split and diffracted by so many lenses there’s way more than one man to see. Salesman or leader or neither or both, the final paradox—the really tiny central one, way down deep inside all the other campaign puzzles’ spinning boxes and squares that layer McCain—is that whether he’s truly “for real” now depends less on what is in his heart than on what might be in yours. Try to stay awake.

  • Why Christopher Hitchens Was a Hero to Scientists - Facts So Romantic

    Yesterday marked five years since the passing of Christopher Hitchens, a writer with friends and admirers spanning the political spectrum, every age, gender and sex, and a range of professions and confessions. Those who’ve read and heard him speak know he was an Anglo-American political journalist, a cultural and literary critic, and a public intellectual who wrote, among an array of outlets, a column for the left-wing magazine The Nation, as well as one for Vanity Fair, and authored such provocative books as The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice as well as the bestselling polemic, god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. The New Yorker profiled him. You might say he was universally—though certainly not unanimously—loved. But perhaps the peak of (...)

  • 6月17日のツイート

    Top story: The Guardian view on Jo Cox: an attack on humanity, idealism and dem……, see more posted at 07:02:26

    Top story: Is Donald Trump’s Endgame the Launch of Trump News? | Vanity Fair…, see more posted at 03:35:37

    なんだかなあ、スーさん貫禄。… posted at 00:16:10


    Los Angeles, CA: On the evening of April 26, 2016 in Los Angeles the #TASCHEN Gallery hosted a VIP preview of MICHAEL MULLER: SHARKS; the first public exhibition of the famed photographer’s extraordinary shark encounters. An admiring crowd of fans, friends and collector’s came out to celebrate Muller and his work, including many of his subjects and collaborators like Joaquin Phoenix, Gerard Butler, Johnny Knoxville, Mark Hoppus, Emile Hirsch, David Arquette, Shepard Fairey, Samantha Ronson, Richard Lewis, Robert Patrick, contributor to the book and environmentalist Philippe Cousteau Jr. and more. The party atmosphere was enhanced by the conservation efforts of Muller and TASCHEN, who will be donating a portion of the proceeds from print sales to advocacy organizations WildAid, EarthEco, SharkSpotters, and UNESCO who all campaign for the protection of #sharks.
    The artist
    Los Angeles–based #photographer Michael Muller has circled the globe shooting celebrities, rock stars, outlaw bikers, super heroes, and elite athletes for such publications as Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, The New York Times Magazine, and Harper’s Bazaar. In 2007 he turned his lens underwater and began #photographing_sharks.

  • Benjamin Netanyahu’s Shady French Connection

    Avec un compte bancaire à Beyrouth dit l’article du Ha’aretz

    Nouvelles révélations sur Arnaud Mimran, le « golden boy » en eaux troubles

    Contacté par « l’Obs » en novembre, #Meyer_Habib n’avait pas souhaité s’exprimer sur le sujet en raison des enquêtes en cours. Proche de l’actuel premier ministre israélien, le député UDI aurait-il présenté le golden boy à Benjamin Netanyahou ? Les deux hommes se connaissent. "D’après plusieurs témoignages concordants, la famille a aidé le parti Likoud et prêté au début des années 2000 son appartement de l’avenue Victor-Hugo (Paris XVIe) à Netanyahou, surnommé « Bibi » en Israël", écrit Mediapart. Et le site d’enquête de publier une photo prise à l’été 2003 de Mimran en « compagnie d’un ’Bibi’ décontracté, chemise ouverte, en bord de mer à Monaco ».


    Enfin, selon Mediapart, Mimran disposerait aussi de contacts dans la police. Dans l’une de ses auditions, ce dernier se serait même targué de connaître un certain « Seb » qu’il présente comme un policier de la DGSI. « J’ai rencontré Arnaud Mimran en 2013. Il se targuait d’avoir de solides protections policières en France. […] Ce sont des choses qu’il évoquait librement devant moi pour faire état de ses protections », confiait quant à lui lors d’une audition de décembre 2014 cité par Médiapart, Cyril Astruc, présenté par « Vanity Fair » comme « l’escroc du siècle » pour son implication supposée dans l’escroquerie à la taxe carbone.


      (...) One of the partners who was arrested, and will stand trial alongside Mimran, is Marco Mouly, a Tunisian Jew with a long history of misdeeds. He opened many bank accounts in Tunisia and Cyprus that were used in the scam. Though he told investigators during questioning that his share in the fraud amounted to only 1.4 million euros, unexplained assets worth much more than that were found in his possession.

      In 2012, Mouly loaned four million euros to one Thierry Leyne, a French-Israeli financier who was a business partner of former French finance minister and International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. On October 23, 2014, Leyne leaped to his death from his 23rd-floor apartment in Tel Aviv’s Yoo Towers.

      Another Israeli who appears in Mediapart’s investigation as one of Mimran’s influential connections is Netanyahu’s unofficial representative in Paris, Meyer Habib. A jeweler by trade, Habib is a member of the French Parliament and chairman of the Friends of Netanya Academic College. He has great influence over Netanyahu’s schedule of meetings, both personal and official, in France.

      According to the investigating magistrate’s report, Habib’s jewelry firm made a special rose-gold ring for Mimran that was embossed, intimidatingly, with a skull. On September 14, 2010, Mimran sought to give the ring as a gift to one of the key witnesses in the investigation against him: Sammy Souied, an Israeli from Herzliya who was a suspect in a 2005 case involving money laundering at Bank Hapoalim’s Hayarkon branch in Tel Aviv.

      Souied had a less romantic goal: He asked Mimran repeatedly for 30 million euros, his share in the scam according to Souied’s own calculations. Souied flew to Paris for one day to convince Mimran to pay him the money without delay.

      After an early-morning flight from Ben-Gurion International Airport, Souied met with Mimran twice, at two different Parisian cafes, but without success. The two agreed to meet a third time that evening, before Souied’s return flight to Israel. The meeting was set for 8 P.M. in Porte Maillot, not far from the Arc de Triomphe.

      Souied arrived on time. Mimran was three minutes late. He began walking toward Souied, holding the ring, when a motor scooter with two passengers pulled up. The man on the back pulled out a pistol with a silencer and fired six bullets at Souied, who died on the spot. Police found the ring with the skull next to his body, mute testimony to the rules of a criminal organization whose path, whether by chance or not, crossed that of too many other people, including the prime minister of Israel.

      The Prime Minister’s Office said in response that, “the innuendos in this report are false and ridiculous. For many years now, there has been no connection between the Netanyahu family and the Mimran family. The meetings in question, in France, occurred when Mr. Netanyahu was a private citizen. At that time, the Mimran family was well-known and respected in France and there were no legal allegations against it. Netanyahu didn’t ask for anything from, didn’t receive any contributions from and didn’t give anything to the Mimran family. It goes without saying that he didn’t intervene in any legal proceeding in which it was involved."

    • Le sang de la bourse carbone
      15 février 2016 | Par Fabrice Arfi

      Contre toute attente, après quatre mois de détention provisoire et contre l’avis de l’avocat général, la chambre de l’instruction de la cour d’appel de Paris a décidé, un an jour pour jour après les faits, le 15 janvier 2016, de remettre en liberté Arnaud Mimran (contre une caution de 100 000 euros) et son complice présumé Farid Khider.


  • How The Hypersexual Trans Movement Hurts Feminism

    A central theme of modern, or third-wave feminism is that women should not be treated merely as sexual objects. A central theme of the trans movement is the presentation of trans women as hypersexual objects. Feminism is not big enough for both of these themes. Either being a woman is essentially defined as being alluring to men, or it isn’t. Either the playboy bunny defines the essence of womanhood, or it doesn’t. At the moment, the trans movement opposes more than a century of feminism on this point. Third-wave feminists, in their eagerness to be allies, have abandoned this basic tenet. It must be reclaimed.

    How have we arrived at a point in which feminists fundamentally alter their definition of womanhood to accommodate men? Last year, Laverne Cox became the first trans woman on the cover of Time magazine. It was a glamour shot—a slinky blue dress, long blonde hair, and a come-hither look. Not to be outdone, the former Bruce Jenner introduced his new gender to the world this week on the cover of Vanity Fair in a bit of white lingerie, also with that come-hither look. Should feminists really be chanting, “This is what a real woman looks like?” Are we sure?

    What exactly does a trans woman think it means to feel like a woman? When a person identifies as female, what is being defined as female? Is it the breasts? Lips? Ass? Slim waist? Small hands? Batting eyelashes? Flirtatious smile? Long hair? Finger-nail polish? Eyeliner? Lipstick? Submissiveness? Thighs? Heels? Demureness? A want to be taken care of? A want to be adored? Cat-called? Beautified? Idealized? Softness? Quietness? Is there some feeling inherent to the placement of ovaries, other than monthly cramps and bleeding, that can be attributed to a feeling of femaleness?
    Don’t Objectify Women

    These supposed and stereotypical traits, while traditionally identified as feminine, are not innate to females—as the trans movement shows us. Men can feel feminine, too, women can feel masculine. These societally defined traits of sex do not define a sex. Feminists have been fighting for decades, since the suffragettes, to vocalize the non-feminineness of females. We can vote, we can fight, we can wear pants and flats, we can boss a whole room of employees without demurring. To allow the trans movement to objectify women is to accept the oppression of the female sex by the male sex, and to further accept male definitions of what it is to be female.
    To allow the trans movement to objectify women is to accept the oppression of the female sex by the male sex.

    There is nothing inherently female about long hair, dresses, and make-up. All of those things have been characteristic of the male gender at some point in history. Just look at the French, who have seen their men in heels, long hair, long nails, and powder. There is nothing male about pants, muscles, and short hair. Just ask Rosie the Riveter. The social constructs of feminine and masculine are totally up for grabs, and that’s fine, but a masculine woman is still a woman, and there’s nothing wrong with that, or with that woman living however she wants to. The same goes for feminine men.

    The problem here is how Annie Leibowitz and Vanity Fair set about showing us that Jenner is truly a woman. They did it by painting precisely the pinup we teach our daughters to reject as their central aspiration. The sexual objectification of trans women is used as proof of their womanness, but the sexual objectification of non-trans women is considered demeaning because it associates their primary worth in relation to male desire. Being oppressed by men is being oppressed by men, even if those men are wearing dresses.
    Women Are More than Dresses and Breasts

    Some argue this is just the media being the media, and of course Jenner is being objectified; that’s the price of being a woman in our misogynist society. But this take gets the facts wrong. It’s the trans movement, not the media, that insists that people with gender dysphoria must present themselves physically as their actual gender, not the one they were assigned. They argue it isn’t a choice. But this literally defines being a woman as having physical attributes attractive to men. Jenner didn’t get surgery to have the breasts of the average 65-year-old woman.
    Jenner’s choices are not a justification for the rest of us to embrace gender stereotypes that women have been fighting against for centuries.

    As an athlete, Jenner was capable of pushing his endurance to the limit, and perhaps that endurance, that willpower, is what is pushing Jenner here, through what must be remarkable psychic and physical stress. Now, as an older man in the process of becoming a menopausal woman, Jenner is free to continue testing the limits of his mind and body, and get sexy on magazine covers. But that is not a justification for the rest of us to embrace gender stereotypes that women who have believed in gender equality have been fighting against for centuries.

    These carpet-baggers to womanhood are trying to prove to all of us that what it really means to be a woman is to pose in a playboy bunny outfit and make kissy faces at men. They reinforce this idea to teenage girls: go put on the miniskirt, honey, celebrate Jenner’s beauty, and try to exemplify it in your own life. Make sure the boys think you’re pretty. And also make sure to recognize and check your privilege as a person whose womanhood, unlike Jenner’s, is never questioned. You don’t even have to fight for it.
    Bruce Jenner Is Parodying Women

    As Jenner accepts the Arthur Asche ESPY award for courage, our daughters and sons are being asked to think of Caitlyn in the way we used to think of Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. What Jenner is doing in this PR-driven, reality-show-style reveal may or may not be courageous, but it is not empowering to women. It is rather, to quote Germaine Greer, “a ghastly parody.”

    In a noble attempt to be empathetic to confused and vulnerable people, third-wave feminists have sold out their progenitors. By accepting the notion that gender is merely a social construct they have hollowed out the very ground upon which their sisters of old marched. Being a woman is what Kant called a “ding an sich,” a thing in itself. It is a biological reality, it is powerful, and important and underrepresented and often underappreciated, but it’s a real thing. It’s not someone who was once a man living out a Victoria Secret model fantasy. And anyone who calls themself a feminist should know that.

    Libby Emmons is a writer and theater maker in New York City. Follow her @li88yinc. David Marcus is a senior contributor to The Federalist, who also works in the New York City theater world.

  • Paris En Flammes

    Une extraordinaire (et mensongère) pub pour la #LDJ.

    Was Paris’s Chief Rabbi rescued from an axe-wielding Nazi mob ?

    Police and Jewish authorities in Paris say Vanity Fair’s article about alleged anti-Semitic attack “has nothing to do with reality”


  • #Torture, American-Style: The Role of Money in Interrogations | Vanity Fair

    Why, exactly, did the United States end up torturing detainees during George W. Bush’s administration’s war on terror, when there was no scientific proof that coercive interrogations would yield valuable intelligence, and ample proof that it would harm our national security interests, elicit false information and spread unnecessary ill will throughout the Muslim world, possibly for generations to come?

    It’s a head scratcher, to say the least, but a blockbuster report issued last week suggests one answer: greed. Specifically, the greed of psychologists who hoped to receive, and in some cases did receive, financial benefits in exchange for providing the Pentagon with intellectual and moral cover for its torture of detainees.

    #Etats-Unis #psychologues #Cupidité

  • 6月2日のツイート

    Top story: Caitlyn Jenner on the Cover of Vanity Fair | Vanity Fair…, see more posted at 04:45:41

    Top story: The Counted: people killed by police in the United States in 2015 – ……, see more posted at 02:12:53

    RT @CoquiBared: posted at 01:35:37

    RT @vulture: How @LisaKudrow predicted the future of reality TV all the way back in 2005: posted at 00:15:33

    RT @MarinFavre: Tout ce que tu ne m’écris plus #Poésie posted at 00:14:37

    RT @synodos: ”皆自分の生活を守っていくのがやっとの時代です。母の葬儀は私と姉の二人で執り行いました。兄弟がいても母親の葬儀に来ることすら出来ない状態です。私の死後については誰にも迷惑をかけずに済ませたいと思っています。”大友芳恵「高齢者と献体」 (...)

  • #Snowden Speaks : A Vanity Fair Exclusive

    “Every person remembers some moment in their life where they witnessed some injustice, big or small, and looked away, because the consequences of intervening seemed too intimidating,” former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden tells Vanity Fair about his motivation for leaking tens of thousands of secret documents. “But there’s a limit to the amount of incivility and inequality and inhumanity that each individual can tolerate. I crossed that line. And I’m no longer alone.”

  • Instagramming Africa

    Everyday Africa is an #Instagram-based project aiming to document moments from daily life. It was founded in 2012 by the American photojournalist Peter DiCampo and writer Austin Merrill (I first met Austin through his soccer blogging at Vanity Fair (somebody had to do it) in the lead-up to the 2010 World Cup). Initially featuring the work of mostly American foreign […]

    #PHOTOGRAPHY #Austin_Merrill #Everyday_Africa #Peter_DiCampo

  • Mia’s Story | Vanity Fair

    Whatever you already know about this tangled and painful situation, you’ve only heard half: the case against Mia Farrow. This is the other half and it isn’t any prettier. It concerns Woody Allen’s behavior and what it has done to Mia Farrow and the 11 children involved. The author breaks new ground on one of the year’s most shocking stories.
    by Maureen Orth (1992)

    There was an unwritten rule in Mia Farrow’s house that Woody Allen was never supposed to be left alone with their seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan. Over the last two years, sources close to Farrow say, he has been discussing alleged “inappropriate” fatherly behavior toward Dylan in sessions with Dr. Susan Coates, a child psychologist. In more than two dozen interviews conducted for this article, most of them with individuals who are on intimate terms with the Mia Farrow household, Allen was described over and over as being completely obsessed with the bright little blonde girl. He could not seem to keep his hands off her. He would monopolize her totally, to the exclusion of her brothers and sisters, and spend hours whispering to her. She was fond of her daddy, but if she tried to go off and play, he would follow her from room to room, or he would sit and stare at her. During the school year, Allen would arrive early at Mia Farrow’s West Side Manhattan apartment, sit on Dylan’s bed and watch her wake up, and take her to school. At her birthday party last July, at Farrow’s country house in Bridgewater, Connecticut, he promised that he would keep away from the children’s table so that Dylan could enjoy her birthday party with her friends, but he seemed unable to do that. Allen, who was a fearful figure to many in the household, was so needy where Dylan was concerned that he hovered over her through the whole party, and when the cake arrived, he was right behind her, helping to blow out the candles.

    Calling attention to someone’s birthday-party behavior may seem trivial at best. However, Dr. Coates, who just happened to be in Mia’s apartment to work with one of her other children, had only to witness a brief greeting between Woody and Dylan before she began a discussion with Mia that resulted in Woody’s agreeing to address the issue through counseling. At that point Coates didn’t know that, according to several sources, Woody, wearing just underwear, would take Dylan to bed with him and entwine his body around hers; or that he would have her suck his thumb; or that often when Dylan went over to his apartment he would head straight for the bedroom with her so that they could get into bed and play. He called Mia a “spoilsport” when she objected to what she referred to as “wooing.” Mia has told people that he said that her concerns were her own sickness, and that he was just being warm. For a long time, Mia backed down. Her love for Woody had always been mixed with fear. He could reduce her to a pulp when he gave vent to his temper, but she was also in awe of him, because he always presented himself as “a morally superior person.”

    #Woody_Allen #Mia_Farrow #Dylan_Farrow

  • Was Kate Moss exploited as a young model? - The Guardian

    She is laughing, but the body language couldn’t be clearer – Kate Moss covers her bare breasts with an arm, and hunches over, trying to conceal the rest of her naked body with a sunhat. The photograph, one of a series taken by Corinne Day that also included a topless photograph, appeared in the Face magazine in 1990 and launched Moss’s career, though two decades on she does not remember the shoot as a happy one.

    “I see a 16-year-old now, and to ask her to take her clothes off would feel really weird,” she says in an interview with Vanity Fair. “But they were like: If you don’t do it, then we’re not going to book you again. So I’d lock myself in the toilet and cry and then come out and do it. I never felt very comfortable about it.”

    Moss also tells the magazine that she sought medical help for anxiety two years later. “Nobody takes care of you mentally. There’s a massive pressure to do what you have to do.”

    This happened 20 years ago – and Moss, of course, went on to have a phenomenally successful career, becoming one of the most powerful models, and remained close to Day.

    Other models, though, say the industry is not much different now. “Nothing has really changed,” says Victoria Keon-Cohen, a model and founding chair of Equity’s Models’ Committee, which now has around 800 members. “Until we started the union there wasn’t any recognition of this kind of treatment in the industry. We wanted to help young models assert themselves and understand what rights they have. Unfortunately what Kate is talking about does still happen and has happened to me.”

    “It is not uncommon for models who are children to be asked to take nude or semi-nude photos,” agrees Sara Ziff. “I started modelling at 14 and there were several occasions where I was put on the spot to take topless photos.” Ziff founded the Model Alliance union in the US to set standards, and doesn’t think “significant change is going to happen until there are laws that protect child models in the way other child performers are protected”. In a previous interview, she described how, when a 16-year-old model complained that a 45-year-old photographer had propositioned her, “her agency said she should have slept with him”.

    But as Moss’s comments show, it isn’t only predatory men who are the problem, but a blurring between sexual imagery and fashion, and the models who have to negotiate it are often young – and fear speaking out.

    For any model worried about their career, the pressure to keep quiet is strong enough, she says, “And then you’ve got girls from eastern Europe who are responsible for supporting their families.”


  • Kate Moss dans « Vanity Fair » sur quelques séances photo qui l’ont rendue célèbre #métierderêve

    Moss tells Fox she regretted doing the 1992 Calvin Klein photo shoot that helped skyrocket her to fame. “I had a nervous breakdown when I was 17 or 18, when I had to go and work with Marky Mark and Herb Ritts,” she says. “It didn’t feel like me at all. I felt really bad about straddling this buff guy. I didn’t like it. I couldn’t get out of bed for two weeks. I thought I was going to die. I went to the doctor, and he said, ‘I’ll give you some Valium,’ and Francesca Sorrenti, thank God, said, ‘You’re not taking that.’ It was just anxiety. Nobody takes care of you mentally. There’s a massive pressure to do what you have to do. I was really little, and I was going to work with Steven Meisel. It was just really weird—a stretch limo coming to pick you up from work. I didn’t like it. But it was work, and I had to do it.”

    Moss also talks about how uncomfortable she was posing nude when she was young. Remembering her now classic photo shoot with Corinne Day for The Face, Moss says, “I see a 16-year-old now, and to ask her to take her clothes off would feel really weird. But they were like, If you don’t do it, then we’re not going to book you again. So I’d lock myself in the toilet and cry and then come out and do it. I never felt very comfortable about it. There’s a lot of boobs. I hated my boobs! Because I was flat-chested. And I had a big mole on one. That picture of me running down the beach—I’ll never forget doing that, because I made the hairdresser, who was the only man on the shoot, turn his back.”

    Sur les soupçons d’anorexie :

    I was thin, but that’s because I was doing shows, working really hard. At that time, I was staying at a B and B in Milan, and you’d get home from work and there was no food. You’d get to work in the morning, there was no food. Nobody took you out for lunch when I started. Carla Bruni took me out for lunch once. She was really nice. Otherwise, you don’t get fed. But I was never anorexic. They knew it wasn’t true—otherwise I wouldn’t be able to work.”

    #mannequinat #poids #anorexie