The author is one of the most prominent economists in Russia. He calls for a thorough change of personnel at two of the country’s most important universities – the Higher School of Economics, and the Moscow State University School of Journalism.
The other day there was an article online about the scandal with admissions to the school of journalism at Moscow State University. Grades are lowered, it is practically impossible to get a fair resolution, but the main bombshell is – applicants are tested for political loyalty. And the examiners consider trustworthy not the supporters of the current political course, but the opposite — those who adhere to explicitly oppositional views.
Personally, having once attended a School of Young Journalist at the MGU school of journalism, it was a shock to learn that it has become a pipeline for instilling hostility towards Russia under the guise of “journalistic professionalism”. While great people are teaching there, who genuinely suffer from the destruction of education during the liberal reforms and from the need to teach students the high school curricula during the first year.
I think the root of the problem in the understanding of journalistic professionalism as the a priori hostility to the government. Many of my colleagues drew attention to the fact that the MGU school of journalism, as in many other places (especially the Higher School of Economics, where the notorious Albats used to be a professor), students have been persistently hammered into their heads: if you want to be journalists, you must be in opposition. If a student suddenly notices something good done by the current government, you hear a wild outcry: “get out of the profession.” And they talk about “government” in general, but in fact refer specifically to the Russian government.
The well-known American maxim that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion but nobody is entitled to their own facts” is completely shattered. For the sake of nurturing hatred to your own state and native country the students are taught to deny reality and to create “their own facts”.
Thus, the journalists, tomorrow’s masters of public opinion, from the start are turned into enemies of not a particular state with all of its vices, but the Russian statehood as such.
Such education once again reveals the focus of the liberal clan on a systematic destruction of Russia. Because hostility of a critically important part of the youth towards the foundation of the existence of Russian society, which is the state, simply deprives our country of the future.
The position of the liberals is based on the position of global business, which they serve. And which bet on the destruction of Russia for the sake of reducing expenses, on its demolition according to the Libya model, in order to negotiate about the access to oil not with the government and not with a state company, but with a scared mayor of an oil town, hoping for permanent residence in the United States.
I believe a drastic rehabilitation of all public universities is imperative, particularly those associated with the formation of mass consciousness. Such a rehabilitation should, in my opinion, begin with the schools of journalism of Moscow State University and the Higher School of Economics.
DELYAGIN Mikhail Gennadievich
Born in Moscow on March 18, 1968
1986 – 1988 – served in the Soviet Army .
1992 – graduated cum laude from the Economic faculty of the Moscow State University named after Lomonosov.
From July 1990 till November 1993 – analyst of B.Yeltsin Group of experts; resigned voluntary. Head of Conimvest group Analytical center.
From May 1994 – chief analytic of Analytic control center of the President of RF (Heads – Y.Yasin, M.Urnov, V.Pechenev).
From October 1996 – referent of the Economy Assistant to the President of RF (S.Ignatiev).
From March 1997 – consultant for economic safety to the vice-president, Minister of internal affairs, A.Kulikov.
From June 1997 – an adviser to the first vice-premier B.Nemtsov. For publications in mass media, regarded as antigovernment propaganda, was fired one day before the default on August 17, 1998.
From October 1998 to May 1999 – an adviser to first vice-premier Y.Maslukov.
From May to July 1999 – deputy director of Secretariat of the first vice-premier N.Aksenenko.
From August 1999 – an adviser to the Chairman of Coordination Council of election block Motherland-All Russia, Y.Primakov; from January 1999 – his assistant. From March 2002 to August 2003 – assistant to the Chairman of the Government of RF, M.Kasyanov.
In 1998 headed Institute of globalization problems (IPROG) which he created. Chairman of Presidium – scientific officer (2002-2005), since 2006 – director. Chairman of the Ideology council of “Rodina” political party (2004-2006). Member of the permanent Political conference of “Other Russia” (2006-2007) and Presidium of Kongress Russian Societies. In March, 2010 has created and has headed organizing committee on political party creation “Motheland: common sense (RZS)”.
Active II class counselor of state. Has a personal acknowledgement of RF President B.Yeltsin (Order № 70-rp dated March 11, 1997).
From 1994 participated in preparations of addresses of the President of Russia to the Federal Assembly and programs of the Government of Russia. Chief developer of the program of the Government of Russia, On measures for stabilizing social and economic situation in the country (autumn 1998), participant in negotiations with IMF and World Bank in January-April 1999.
One of the well-known Russian economists. For a long period of time was the youngest Doctor of Science, Economics (1998).Professor emeritus (2000) of Jilin university (China). Research professor, MGIMO (2003). Academician of Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (2004).
Member of Council for External and Defense Policies (1999), Executive Committee of All-Russian Union of Commodity Producers (2001), Supervisory Council of Worldwide Anti-criminal Antiterrorism Forum (2001), deputy Chairman of the Russian Union of Taxpayers (2003), member of the Presidium of National Investment Council (2005), Russian society of Oxford (2011).
Author of more than 900 articles in Russia, USA, Germany, France, Finland, China, India, etc., author of 12 monographs, the most famous among them being Economy of Non-payments (1997), Ideology of Renaissance (2000), World Crisis. General theory of Globalization (2003), Russia after Putin. Is Orange-Green Revolution Inevitable in Russia? (2005), Mankind drive (2008), Mankind Crisis. Whether Russia in a non-russian distemper will survive? (2010). Head of the writing team of the book, Practice of Globalization: Games and Rules of a New Era (2000), in the co-authorship from V.Shejanovym has written the book, World inside out. As the economic crisis for Russia will end (2009)
New book reveals the true story of how the Oscars got their name | Culture
The most coveted trophy in cinema is called the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Award, but it was dubbed the Oscar several years after it was first presented on May 16, 1929, at the Roosevelt Hotel, just a block away from the gala’s current venue, the Dolby Theater.
The Hollywood Academy has it all on record. The nickname, the official name – the whole shebang. But where does the nickname come from? Well, from a “straight and tall” Norwegian sailor, in fact. A book on the first 50 years of the Academy, to be published in the US in October, mentions the origins of the name and singles out Academy assistant, Eleanore Lilleberg, as the creator of the alias.
Until now, it was commonly believed that Margaret Herrick had given the name to the award, which is not, in fact, solid gold, but britannia – an alloy of copper, tin and antimony – bathed in gold. This story had it that, in 1931, Herrick, who was then Margaret Gledhill, joined the Academy’s library and on her first day of work came across a statuette, of which she said, “It reminds me of my uncle Oscar.” According to the 1947/1948 Hollywood Academy Almanac, a journalist got wind of the anecdote and put it in print the following day.
In 1943, Herrick became executive director of the Academy and was the first to negotiate with a television network for the live broadcast of the gala in 1953. This gave the Academy financial independence, freeing it from reliance on membership fees, and allowed it to expand its educational programs and cultural activities.
But in the forthcoming book The Academy and the Award, due out in October, author Bruce Davis tells it differently and he should know, as for 22 years, he was the Academy’s executive director until his retirement in 2011. In other words, he has had access to the archives, which is what he has devoted himself to since leaving office. Davis is not just any executive either: some time ago, he came up with the idea of investing some of the Academy’s savings in the museum that has now become one of the jewels in its crown.
According to the website Deadline, which has had access to the 521-page tome, Davis’ research has been thorough. Regarding Herrick’s story, he found a 1938 Los Angeles Examiner report in which Herrick offered a different version of the tale, namely that she and her first husband, Donald Gledhill, used to have a private joke between them that went, “How’s your Uncle Oscar?”
In a bid to get to the bottom of the matter, Davis then brings in the 1970 memoirs of columnist Sidney Skolsky, Don’t Get Me Wrong – I Love Hollywood. Skolsky also took credit for the name, recalling that, under deadline pressure in 1934, he used it in mocking tribute to Vaudeville comedians who liked to say to the conductor of the orchestra, “Will you have a cigar, Oscar?”
However, on March 16, 1934, Skolsky himself wrote in the New York Daily News: “Among the profession, statuettes are called Oscars.” So, both Skolsky’s initial claim and Herrick’s claim were unseated, leaving that of actress Bette Davis.
In January 1941, Bette Davis became the first woman to preside over the Hollywood Academy, a position she resigned from a few months later after a stand-off between her and the board of directors. However, in her memoirs The Lonely Life, published in 1962, she maintained that she was the one who thought of the epithet when holding her first Oscar for Dangerous in 1936: “His back view was the spit of my husband’s. Since the ‘O’ in Harmon O. Nelson stood for Oscar, Oscar it has been ever since,” she wrote. When it was pointed out that the term had already been in use for two years by then, the actress recanted.
So, Bruce Davis kept digging. And he found that the Oscars were actually probably named by Eleanore Lilleberg, a secretary and office assistant in the early days of the Academy who was in charge of looking after the statuettes in the run-up to the ceremonies. She had been previously mooted as responsible for the name Oscar, though not how it came about.
But in a small museum in Green Valley, California, dedicated to Lilleberg and her gemologist brother Einar, Davis found Einar’s unfinished memoirs in which he explains that it was Eleanore who named the award Oscar, after a Navy veteran from Norway, the Lilleberg family’s country of origin. Together, they had met this sailor in Chicago and noted that, like the statuette, he “stood straight and tall.” A 1944 newspaper interview with a colleague and an oral account back up this theory.
Which puts this particular mystery to rest, though there are plenty more Oscar secrets in the book…
Back in Action: The return of Cameron Diaz, the once-highest-paid actress in Hollywood | Culture
In an interview with her close friend Gwyneth Paltrow, actress Cameron Diaz explained how it felt to leap from the Olympus of Hollywood into the abyss, leaving behind a career full of blockbuster movies. “I’m at peace. I got a peace in my soul. Because I was finally taking care of myself. I feel like my feet are on the ground. I’m lighter.” The actress starred in romantic comedies from the mid-1990s through the first decade of the 2000s, including the hit There’s Something About Mary. For several years, she was the best-paid actress in Los Angeles, making up to $20 million per film. But at age 40, with no warning, she decided to “semi-retire” from the industry. Diaz was focused on enjoying her personal life: she is married to musician Benji Madden, and she gave birth to her first daughter, Raddix, at age 47. But she never closed the door on a possible return. Now, eight years after her last movie, America’s blondest sweetheart is back.
“I’m excited, but I don’t know how to do this, you know?” Cameron Diaz admits in the video in which she announced the end of her retirement and confirmed her return to the industry. Simulating a call with her fellow cast member Jamie Foxx, the 49-year-old actress revealed that she will play the lead in a new action comedy for Netflix, titled Back in Action. In the clip, Foxx – who won an Oscar for the movie Ray – seeks help from football player Tom Brady, who this year announced his retirement and changed his mind a month later, in order to prepare Diaz for her return to the big screen. On social media, other entertainers, including Jennifer Aniston and Kim Cattrall, received the news with enthusiasm. Nancy Meyers, who directed Cameron Diaz in The Holiday, wrote: “Finally! Some good news!” Still, in keeping with her decision to avoid the buzz of stardom as much as possible, the Californian actress didn’t even share the news with her nearly 10 million Instagram followers.
Cameron I hope you aren’t mad I recorded this, but no turning back now. Had to call in the GOAT to bring back another GOAT. @CameronDiaz and I are BACK IN ACTION – our new movie with @NetflixFilm. Production starting later this year!! 🦊🐐 pic.twitter.com/vyaGrUmbWb
— Jamie Foxx (@iamjamiefoxx) June 29, 2022
During her time outside the public eye, Cameron Diaz, like peers such as Jessica Alba and Kate Hudson, has attempted to follow Gwyneth Paltrow’s path, using her platform to establish herself as a wellness guru. She published two books on well-being and longevity – The Body Book and The Longevity Book. She has also invested in emerging alternative medicine companies, including Modern Acupuncture and Lyra Health, which helps companies improve the mental health of their employees. In 2020, she also became the founder of the Avaline wine brand, which sells wines made with organic, pesticide-free grapes. The line includes eight varieties, and the starting price for a bottle is €23 ($23.6). “Avaline is the only day-to-day work that I’m doing other than being a wife and a mother. It really has been the most fulfilling part of my life so far,” she said in an interview last year.
The resurgence of the romantic comedy could be behind Diaz’s return to film. The genre reached its box office peak in the mid-1990s. Earlier this year, Sandra Bullock found unexpected success with her return to the genre in The Lost City. Andy Garcia and Gloria Estefan gave the latest remake of Father of the Bride a Latin twist. And in September, Julia Roberts will return to theaters in September after four years of absence: in Journey to Paradise, she will join George Clooney to play a divorced couple who team up to torpedo their daughter’s wedding in Bali. Meanwhile, Tom Cruise is enjoying the success of Top Gun: Maverick, Laura Dern and Sam Neill are returning to the Jurassic Park franchise, and Brad Pitt is preparing for the release of his new action film Bullet Train. After being slammed by the effects of the pandemics, movie theaters are finding that old stars are the best way to get viewers back in their seats.
During her hiatus, Diaz has avoided spotlights and red carpets, appearing only on programs hosted by colleagues such as Paltrow and Drew Barrymore. The actress has spoken unequivocally about the elements that have hampered her professional career, from the abuse of power exercised by Hollywood studios over their stars to the dictatorship of beauty standards. “Every day I sat in front of the mirror for hours. It ended up being toxic […] You start criticizing yourself and you think, why am I sitting here being mean to myself?” she said in a BBC podcast, calling herself a “victim of the objectification and social exploitation that women are subjected to.” In deciding to return to the spotlight, Diaz follows the example of other contemporaries who have recently come out of similar semi-retirements, such as Renée Zellweger, who won an Oscar for her portrayal of Judy Garland, and Lindsay Lohan, who will premiere a Christmas-themed movie on Netflix at the end of this year.
Today’s leading Tik Tok influencer creates fashion parodies from one of the world’s poorest islands | Culture
Shaheel Shermont Flair is 24 years old, and he wants to be a comedic actor. On his social media, where he showcases his talent for comedy through videos/reels, he describes himself as a “public figure” and “artist.” On June 20, he shared his latest witty idea online: a fashion show parody. “Fashion shows be like this,” he declared (alongside the emoji of a face crying with laughter). Then, barefoot and dressed in a T-shirt and sport shorts, he started walking like Linda, Naomi, or Christy through what looks like the backyard of his house. Each trip displayed a style created with all sorts of knickknacks, junk, utensils and household furnishings. In an unintentionally Rickowensian moment (or not), he even used his little sister, Riharika, who was accessorized and off to the side, as a complement. On TikTok, where he has been appearing as @shermont22 for a little more than a year, the short video has racked up over five million views and counting. He continues to gain followers as well; he has nearly 350,000 right now and 13 million or so “likes.” Viewers keep asking him for more. At popular request, he uploaded his most recent video a few hours ago. It is the ninth installment of a viral saga that, in reality, is not so ironic and hilarious.
By today’s standards, Shermont is already a star in terms of fame and glory. In a recent story on his Instagram profile (@shermont_22, which has considerably fewer followers, although one assumes that his viewership there will eventually grow), he confessed to having googled his name and was in disbelief about how far-reaching his performance was. “I’m in the news!” He was amazed and posted screenshots from different digital media, especially from Southeast Asian outlets. On Twitter, he is being hailed as the week’s hero for making fun of, mocking, and deriding that silly and increasingly absurd thing: fashion (of course).
The same thing happened just two months ago, when a video on Douyin (a social network) went viral on its Western counterpart, TikTok, giving rise to the turn-your-grandmother-into-an-international-supermodel challenge. In the video, a venerable elderly Chinese woman was dressed as the personification of Balenciaga, Gucci and Prada by a little boy (presumably her grandson) with what he had on hand in his yurt, including chicken. The results of the challenge—images done in the style of luxury advertising campaigns with brand logos superimposed on them—tell us that we are all Demna Gvasalia, Alessandro Michele, or the tandem Miuccia-Raf Simons, or at least we can be.
For a long time, people have complained repeatedly about how bad fashion is, now more than ever. Not only does fashion pollute the planet and exploit its workers, but it also mocks consumers. Are these designers crazy? No, they are just pulling our leg with so much aesthetic arbitrariness/ugliness/stupidity. It’s only fair, then, to return the favor in jaw-droppingly funny ways. In fact, trolling the fashion industry—like Shermont and the Chinese grandmothers (there are quite a few of them)—may be evidence of a certain social disgust with its three-ring circus and its trainers, illusionists, and clowns, whose extravagances are understood as nonsense and, even worse, insults or near-insults. Vetements’s DHL uniform. Virgil Abloh’s Ikea bag. JW Anderson’s broken-skateboard-encrusted sweater. Balenciaga’s shredded sneakers. All of Balenciaga, the brand inevitably referred to in comments on the young comedian’s reels. There are more than a few comments that also praise Shermont’s attitude and stylish model’s trot; they ask to see his fashion show in Paris and Milan already. And then there are those who attempt to be funnier and more sarcastic and ironic than the video itself, which is typical on Twitter. But none of the commenters have taken issue—or even tried to take issue—with the video’s deeper premise.
Shaheel Shermont Flair is a Fijian of Indian descent; his ancestors were Indian girmtyas who went to British-colonized Fiji in the mid-nineteenth century as slave labor. He is also gay. “Welcome the queen to Instagram,” he urged in April 2021, when he debuted on the social media site. In November, he posted that “[m]y sexuality isn’t the problem, your bigotry is.” In April of this year, he returned to the fray: “There are those who hate me for being different and not living by society’s standards, but deep down they wish they had my courage.” Before his phenomenal fashion show, he was already doing “low cosplay” of Indian women by using waste—toilet paper for the sari, a bottle cap for a nath on the nose, and a tea bag for the maang tikka on the forehead, for example—to create an Indian bride’s trousseau in the playful post, “Getting ready for my lover.” In another, he straps on two water-filled balloons as swaying breasts under his T-shirt. “The things I do for TikTok,” he wrote. Indeed, Shermont has made comedy his path to escape bullying and discrimination (prejudice is double in his case) and turned his social media accounts into a highway to heaven. Just like Apichet Madaew Atirattana did back in his day.
Except for its glamorous intent, everything about Shermont’s catwalk recalls that of the so-called Thai Dovima. In 2016, before Tik Tok’s one-track mind took over, a teenager from the rice-growing region of Isaan—one of Thailand’s poorest areas—astonished the world by turning everyday objects, twigs, and trash into fabulous outfits. He filmed himself modeling those clothes at different locations in his village; his grandmother acted as a styling assistant. Facebook and Instagram went wild over what was termed the “break down of barriers between gender identity, fashion and recycling.” At the time, Madaew (a nom de guerre) explained it this way: “I want people to see that ugly things that don’t fit in can be transformed into something beautiful. And that dressing well is not about money.” Just a few months later, Asia’s Next Top Model, the South Asian edition of the U.S. talent show, called him to be a guest designer during the program’s fourth season. The following year, Time magazine put him on its list of new generational leaders. His example spread. Soon, new stars made their appearance: Suchanatda Kaewsanga, a fellow Thai who is openly trans, and the Chinese Lu Kaigang, whose offerings for fashion shows in his village—located in Guangxi province—unironically included dresses made of garbage can lids and old air-conditioner bags.
Here, we have a response from the poor and marginalized to fashion’s global impact as a mass phenomenon ascribed to the culture of leisure/entertainment. It is a practice that resonates with the button-down politics of Patrick Kelly, the first African American designer to join the ranks of the Parisian ready-to-wear trade association in the mid-1980s; the clothing activities of the swenkas (workers of Zulu origin) and skhothanes (post-apartheid image-obsessed youth) in Johannesburg; and the young Ghanaians who exploit the city-sized textile dumps surrounding the capital, Accra, as sources for their creativity. The narratives of the designers who establish the industry’s current direction, amplified as never before by digital media, also show that it is indeed possible to dress as stylishly as Balenciaga, Gucci or Prada without breaking the bank. That’s why TikTok’s Chinese supermodel grandmothers reflect aspiration and not scorn; they are proof that fashion has something for everyone, even the most socially disadvantaged (one can’t miss the proud hashtag that usually accompanies them, #chinastreetstyle). That’s why Apichet Madaew Atirattana, Suchanatda Kaewsanga and Li Kaigang have made careers as creators, bloggers or influencers with hundreds of thousands of followers. They’ve come so far, propelled by the dreamy fuel that the magazines in village hair salons and satellite TV offer. “It’s very easy to blame fashion for all the problems it creates, but I’d like to think it’s also capable of helping people in many ways, in positive ways,” says Minh-Ha T. Pham, a professor of media studies at Pratt Institute in New York and the author of Asians Wear Clothes on the Internet (2016), an essay about the dynamics of race, gender and class among the young Asians who have found a way to express their identity through fashion, and in the process pushed the system to finally recognize them as a socioeconomic and cultural force. Shaheel Shermont Flair laughs, but he does fashion shows because he also knows what fashion can do for his ambition to become an actor.
Apple’s new lockdown mode to protect from spyware such as Pegasus
Teenager saves baby from shipwreck during Mediterranean crossing | Global development
Bridie Connell: the 10 funniest things I have ever seen (on the internet) | Comedy
The 1915 Armenian Genocide and its Russophobic Origins
What’s artificial intelligence best at? Stealing human ideas | Technology
The Religious Roots of Russia’s Mistrust towards the West
Current1 week ago
Crossbay acquires German logistics portfolio
Technology1 week ago
I saw first-hand how the tech giants seduced the EU – and undermined democracy | Georg Riekeles
Global Affairs5 days ago
WHO concerned about first cases of monkeypox in children | Science & Tech
Technology1 week ago
ESA’s contribution to NASA’s Orion on the return to Moon • The Register
Technology1 week ago
Google reportedly hopes to keep political emails out of spam • The Register
Global Affairs1 week ago
Bolivia’s corrupt system failed to stem femicide. Now, feminists are fighting back | Women’s rights and gender equality
Current1 week ago
LaSalle and Accumulata to develop Munich’s first hybrid timber office building (GB)
Culture1 week ago
Ramón Estévez regrets his name change to Martin Sheen | Culture