Lion King 2019 Teaser Trailer
The wait is over and the first teaser for the 2019 live action Lion King is here!
Kim Kardashian’s Private Firefighters Expose America’s Fault Lines
“Rich people don’t get their own ‘better’ firefighters, or at least they aren’t supposed to.”
As multiple devastating wildfires raged across California, a private firefighting crew reportedly helped save Kanye West and Kim Kardashian’s home in Calabasas, TMZ reported this week. The successful defense of the $50 million mansion is the most prominent example of a trend that’s begun to receive national attention: for-hire firefighters protecting homes, usually on the payroll of an insurance company with a lot at risk.
The insurance companies AIG and Chubb have publicly talked about their private wildfire teams. AIG has its own “Wildfire Protection Unit,” while Chubb—and up to a dozen other insurers—contract with Wildfire Defense Systems, a Montana company that claims to have made 550 “wildfire responses on behalf of insurers,” including 255 in just the past two years. Right now in California, the company has 53 engines working to protect close to 1,000 homes.
The TMZ story feels uniquely 2018—financial capitalism, inequality, KimYe, the fires of Armageddon—and it is, for Americans at least.
“If the idea of private firefighting strikes us as an oddity nowadays, it should,” Benjamin Carp, a historian at Brooklyn College CUNY, told me. “While other societies throughout history have relied on private firefighting companies to protect the property of the upper classes … for the most part, we … have accepted the idea that fighting fire ought to be a public good.”
In London, firefighters worked explicitly for insurance companies during the 18th and 19th centuries. “Each insurance company maintained its own fire brigade, which extinguished fires in those buildings insured by the company and, in return for a fee to be paid later, in buildings insured by other companies,” the economist Annelise Anderson has written.
The United States might have been expected to inherit a similar system, but instead, volunteer fire departments became the most common means of fire protection. Insurers might give bonuses or other support to these groups, but firefighting was primarily a civic rather than commercial enterprise. These fire clubs were important social institutions, often commingling middle-class and working-class men of many ethnicities in the virtuous activity of defending their city from conflagration, according to the historian Amy Greenberg’s Cause for Alarm: The Volunteer Fire Department in the Nineteenth-Century City.
David Torgerson, the president of Wildfire Defense Systems, disputed any characterization of his particular company as fighting fires only on behalf of the rich. Ninety percent of the homes they protect, he said, were “average-value homes,” contracted through normal insurers, not the specialty companies that take on high-net-worth individuals’ properties. “If the fire hits Malibu, there will be a lot of high-value houses,” Torgerson told me. “If it hits somewhere in Utah, there won’t be.” In either case, he says, Wildfire Defense Systems will respond. Many types of regular old fire insurance can come with his company’s service. “We serve nearly a dozen [insurance companies],” he said. “If anybody wants to have this supplemental response capability during a fire, they need to pick an insurance company that has it.”
“There are not that many solutions in climate change,” he argued. “If we have a growing problem with wildfire—and it is statistically getting worse—why limit the ability to bring resources that the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay for and policyholders don’t have to pay for?”
In the 19th century, there were obvious reasons for residents to fight fires all together. Great calamities of many kinds wiped out huge chunks of people and property within new industrial cities. The Stanford historian Richard White calls the rough-hewn communal politics of these urbanities “a democracy of defecation.” “Like feces and urine, neither fire nor disease respected property boundaries,” White wrote in The Republic for Which It Stands. “Water and sewer systems had to cover and protect everyone. Cities were like ships; they sailed, and sank, as a whole.”
And thus the first metropolitan fire services were born. Professionals, paid by the city, took over from the volunteers. They got a push from the new technological possibilities of steam engines, which reduced the need for human labor but required more specialized technicians to operate them. Pro firefighters were needed, and municipal governments centralized the power to wield them and the funds to pay them.
This is the system that urban Americans encountered in the 20th century: the trusty fireman, the firehouse, the dalmatians, all that. But over decades, urban firefighting benefited from stricter building codes and strong unions that kept departments staffed up. The development of wildfire management has been quite another thing, as the Arizona State fire historian Stephen Pyne has noted.
From the early years of the 20th century until the late 1960s, the U.S. Forest Service adopted a line of fire suppression. Every fire was supposed to be put out, even in wildlands that scientists later discovered needed to burn. “An estimated 54 percent of California ecosystems are fire dependent, and most of the rest are fire adapted,” Pyne wrote in California: A Fire Survey. Fuel built up and natural cycles ground to a halt. Finally, after 1968, the Forest Service reversed course and began haltingly walking back its no-fire-is-good policy.
Wildland firefighters have to manage forces that are fundamentally beyond their control. Urban firefighters, on the other hand, still want to put out every fire. Meanwhile, urban sprawl and exurbs continue to push farther and farther into rural and wild areas.
Problems arise at the wildland-urban interface, where sprawl or exurb—which has to be protected like a city—meets backcountry that evolved to burn, and should do so.
This interface is exacerbated by a troubling chasm. Since 1968, when the Forest Service started taking a more naturalistic approach to letting wildfires burn, it has also cut full-time fire staff. But the fires—driven by climate change and an expansion of that same wildland-urban interface—have grown more destructive. The Camp Fire has killed more people and destroyed more buildings than any before it. And two months before the fire started, CalFire had already exhausted $431 million of its $443 million budget fighting earlier devastating fires.
So, beginning in the mid-1980s and accelerating in recent years, Forest Service budget cuts and increasingly prevalent wildfires opened the door for private contractors to assume roles formerly held by government employees. In some cases, that looks like insurance companies sending crews out, à la 18th-century London, or KimYe ordering up some firefighters to tend to their manse.
But the change is broader and deeper than that, too. “The trend to privatize fire operations began seriously under the Reagan administration. It is now a full program, complete with lobbyists,” Pyne told me. “This goes far beyond private companies hired by insurance companies.”
The National Wildfire Suppression Association represents 250 private wildfire-fighting companies, who provide on-demand services to federal, state, and local governments. Budget cuts have forced privatization onto the Forest Service, as the NWSA itself explains. “The emergence of private contract resources—national and regional 20-person firefighting crews, engines, dozers, tenders and other specialized equipment, and support services such as caterers and shower/handwashing units—gives agencies the flexibility they need to increase or decrease support with the most cost effective solution,” the NWSA media backgrounder says.
The association claims that now “40 percent of the resources across the United States are provided by private wildland fire services.”
Not everyone would say this is a bad thing. The late libertarian economist Fred McChesney argued that “private, for-profit production of fire services yields lower average costs than the costs of government provision, for equivalent levels of output.”
Several libertarian economists have become fascinated with privatizing fire departments. It’s not hard to imagine why. If you could prove you don’t need the government to provide collective protection from conflagration, then what do you need government for at all?
Torgerson, the president of Wildfire Defense Systems, painted a more complex portrait of emergency response, generally. With all kinds of public perils, private companies are already frequently responsible for protection and cleanup. “If you look at hazmat, trains, or oil spills, that’s not a government action. Those who are responsible end up hiring private companies under the incident command,” he said. “Wildfire is just this unique kind of thing where it is a government-managed incident with government resources which hire lots of contractors.”
That firefighting remains a bastion of public-goods provision might be precisely why private companies’ increasing involvement feels so controversial. “This isn’t a story of the kooky Kardashians doing things in the most publicity-friendly manner possible. It’s a story of the ramifications of economic disparity in this country. Frankly, I’m flabbergasted,” Greenberg wrote in an email. “Firefighters are consistently ranked the most beloved public servants, not just because they look good on calendars but because they treat everyone equally. Rich people don’t get their own ‘better’ firefighters, or at least they aren’t supposed to.”
Or as one local firefighter in California summed up the case for public provisioning of fire protection to NBC earlier this year: “I could care less who owns the house. I just want to save as many as possible.”
Carp, the Brooklyn College CUNY historian, expanded on the collectivist case, drawing in other prominent examples of areas of life that have undergone or could undergo privatization. “If we allow schools, libraries, policing, and firefighting to become a two-tiered system (with one tier for the elite and another tier for everyone else),” Carp said, “then that threatens the democratic-republican ideal of everyone contributing their fair share for the greater needs of the commonwealth.”
Even in the early days of the American city, when volunteer and private fire companies were dominant, in the case of an emergency, every citizen capable of helping was expected to do so. “If we don’t fight fires together, then someday we’ll all burn together,” Carp concluded.
Victor Bailey, a historian at the University of Kansas, noted that this very ambivalence pervades American culture, arguing both sides. “In the face of devastating forest wildfires, the public services are inevitably stretched thinly. Why not add to those services by private ones?” he wrote to me. “At another level, is it not better to put any extra resources into fighting the wildfire in the best way for everyone?”
And so even an asinine celebrity story can act like a fault, slicing deep into the bedrock of what the United States is, and exposing what different groups of Americans want it to be. It’s 2018, after all.
“Are the present examples (Kanye West et al.) the thin end of a wedge that will lead to the wealthy buying better services in all these realms: education, policing, healthcare, firefighting?” Bailey wondered. “Or are we already a long way down this path?”
Read more from the Atlantic Magazine
Azealia Banks Savagely Slams Kanye West & Makes Shocking Claims About Kim Kardashian
The ‘212’ rapper claims that the Yeezy founder “spilled tea” to her about his wife Kim Kardashian, and said the reality TV star will soon leave him. She also claims that the ‘I Love It’ rapper stole her designs without permission.
Azealia Banks unleashed fury on Kanye West this weekend. On Sunday night (18th Nov), the 27-year-old rapper claimed West had previously stolen some of her design ideas, before bringing his wife Kim Kardashian into the beef.
Banks first took to Instagram to share two images of what she describes as prototypes for a ‘Yeezy Survival Kit’, in the hopes that if Kanye decided to go ahead and produce them, people would know she designed them.
“I came up with this idea as a disaster kit or for camping,” she said, before claiming that Kim Kardashian was “jealous” that West was talking to her, leading him to “ghost” Banks.
“I’m pretty sure it’s just sneaky Kanye’s way of trying to steal my idea and leave me out,” she added. In addition to the posts, Banks went on a lengthy rant on her Instagram stories, claiming Kanye “spilled hella tea” about his wife Kim.
“The tea is hella juicy, I would love to spill it because his dumb a** tried to put me on three way with one of his employees and set me up pretending like I was in the wrong for sending his dumb a** a heart emoji.
“A F**KING HEART. He tried to pretend like I was In love with him or some shit. I won’t spill the tea because I don’t want kris Jenner to have him killed.”
Banks said she is “sick” of West, and accused him of doing “dumb sh*t on purpose for attention.” She said Kim Kardashian “ruined” West and “won’t be done with him until she’s sucked the last drop of blood.”
And Azealia wasn’t done there. The rapper – who is known for her public, and often controversial, opinions – filmed herself in the back of a car and continued her verbal attack on West.
“Kim Kardashian is absolutely going to leave you. She’s already f**king gone. Say what you want to want about her, but in some sense, I’m feeling bad for her because you’re just a dummy.
“You just be acting dumb just to act dumb. Like, how is that sexy? I’m sorry. If I was Kim Kardashian, I would f**k Drake too,” she said, referring to the rumours of Kim and Drake’s alleged fling. “You’re dead to me. You’re literally dead to me.”
West is yet to respond to the rant. Last month, Banks unleashed fury on singer Lana Del Ray as the pair became embroiled in a bitter Twitter beef, sparked over West’s endorsement of Donald Trump.
Article via CapitalXtra
Aquaman Final trailer In theaters December 21st
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LET THIS BE GOOD!!
Tyler Perry announces tour dates for Madea farewell stage play
Last month, Tyler Perry announced he would be saying goodbye to his beloved Madea character, and now, he’s revealed dates for her final performances.
“Madea’s Farewell Play Tour,” which will kick off next year in January, marks the filmmaker’s 21st play and the end of the Madea franchise.
“I just don’t want to be her age [still] playing her,” he joked during an interview in October.
The character Mabel Earlene “Madea” Simmons, played by Perry himself, first appeared as a 68-year-old in the 1999 stage play “I Can Do Bad All by Myself,” followed by the play and film, “Diary of a Mad Black Woman.”
According to Vanity Fair, Madea has appeared in dozens of productions since — and her films alone have grossed upwards of $500 million globally.
Perry wrapped up on the last series film, “Madea Family Funeral,” two years ago. The movie is set to premiere in March 2019.
Tickets for the January shows of “Madea’s Farewell Play Tour” are on sale now, with additional dates slated for announcement in coming weeks. Take a look below to find out which cities are on the schedule so far.
- Jan. 18-20, 2019 – Oakland, CA at Paramount Theatre
- Jan. 22, 2019 – Phoenix, AZ at Comerica Theatre
- Jan. 23-26, 2019 – Los Angeles, CA at Dolby Theatre
- Jan. 27, 2019 – Las Vegas, NV at Planet Hollywood at Zappos Theater
Article via WBSRadio
Gabrielle Union & Dwyane Wade Reveal Their Newborn Daughter’s Name
Congrats on their bundle of joy!
A Heist, And A Whole Lot More, As Viola Davis Delivers In ‘Widows’
It is one of the oldest and most sexist tropes of all that husbands make messes and wives clean them up. Widows, directed by Steve McQueen (12 Years A Slave) and co-written by McQueen and Gillian Flynn (Gone Girl), spins that idea in a new direction.
Veronica (Viola Davis) is living a high-class, meticulously art-directed Chicago life with her husband Harry (Liam Neeson) and her fluffy little dog. But Harry’s gains are all ill-gotten, and when he pulls one big robbery too many and everything goes sideways, Veronica loses him in a massive van explosion that also takes the lives of the rest of his gang.
The problem? The gang still owes a debt to the man they robbed, and if there’s a debt harder to get rid of than your student loans, it’s the money you owe to an operator as merciless as Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry). Manning is himself a criminal, running for alderman against incumbent Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell). Politics, of course, takes money. So Jamal both wants and needs his $2 million back, and he expects Veronica — and the widows of the other three men who died in the robbery, if necessary — to make good.
So Veronica goes looking for them: Linda (Michelle Rodriguez), whose husband’s gambling debts were out of control; Alice (Elizabeth Debicki), whose husband was controlling and abusive; and Amanda (Carrie Coon), who wants nothing to do with all this gangster business and won’t talk to Veronica. So she makes do with the team she has, telling Linda and Alice that if they want to live, they only have one option: carry out the heist plans she found in Harry’s notebook. Get that money, use it to pay off Jamal — whose brother Jatemme (Daniel Kaluuya) glowers where Jamal placidly threatens — and get free.
And so Widows is a heist movie. There are plans to make, there are escapes to engineer, there are unexpected challenges to confront. At the same time, Widows is a drama about Veronica — who turns out to have a long and painful history with grief — taking her fate into her own hands. It’s a film doing two very different things, and it’s very good at both.
Part of this success comes from the performance of Viola Davis, who settles into Veronica’s crime-boss phase with ice-cold determination while carrying the character’s deliciously stylish, almost over-the-top panache. She totes around a fluffy little dog that has a story reason to exist but also brings a glamorous aesthetic, together with Davis’ gorgeous and elegant wardrobe, that gives the film a particular flair.
Davis gets strong support from the other women in the group, including Cynthia Erivo as a late addition to the heist team. Debicki, in particular, has a take on the traditional crime-film gorgeous blonde that delivers wit and vulnerability; she has the best chemistry with Davis of any of the widows. And Michelle Rodriguez, it’s fair to remember, is a veteran of the hugely successful Fast and the Furious franchise. She knows her action sequences and her steely glares. Like Neeson, she works this beat regularly — but like him, she’s doing something new within it.
Any crime film is nothing without a good villain. (Anyone who’s seen Die Hard and known that Hans Gruber occasionally had a point knows it’s true.) And Widows, while it most certainly is a story of good and bad guys, has put some thought into the bad guys, too. It’s easy to note the immediacy of Jamal and Jatemme as the people who threaten Veronica; Henry and Kaluuya both know how to play heavies, even though they’ve both played some sweethearts, too. But in the wings is Farrell’s Mulligan, playing out the Chicago-politics machinations of his dying father, played by Robert Duvall. And when Jamal confronts Mulligan about the fact that he doesn’t really know the ward he represents, hasn’t really done anything for it, and barely lives in it, it highlights the difference between immediate and overarching villainy. Who picks up the gun, and who created the situation the gun was picked up to solve? None of this absolves Jamal, but it adds dimensions to his behavior. Evil comes in many forms, and consequences, like everything else, are unequally distributed.
We could certainly end here with a discussion of the dismal representation numbers in Hollywood; how unconscionably rare it is to see strongly supported studio films that offer this kind of role for an actress of Davis’ gender, age, race and shade. The same goes for major releases with a celebrated black director like McQueen, let alone one making a fabulous and fun genre film that doubles as a clever examination of what it means to be a wife and a widow. Seeing Davis, seven years after she played a maid in The Help, heading up a heist team — seeing her take charge of this group, seeing her face down her enemies in perfectly cut clothes and avenge those she loved — it’s thrilling. This is all true.
But let us not lose sight of the fact that this movie is so much fun and so satisfying, so suspenseful and exciting, that all you may want to do at the end is exhale, let your body go limp, crunch your last kernel of popcorn, and buy a ticket to see it again.
Article via NPR
Jada Pinkett Smith Admits to Struggling with Bias: ‘Blonde Hair on White Women Just Triggers Me’
Jada Pinkett Smith is revealing what “triggers” her about white women.
On Monday’s episode of Red Table Talk, the 47-year-old actress spoke about the relationship between white women and women of color, and revealed a surprising revelation of how she views the former.
“I think what crushes me, specifically in my relationship with white women, the thing that really breaks my heart is that white women understand what it feels to be oppressed,” Pinkett Smith said.
Her 17-year-old daughter, Willow, chimed in, “Because of their sex.”
“Exactly. Because of their sex,” the mother of two agreed. “What it feels like to be ostracized or not being treated as an equal.”
Pinkett Smith admitted to her own biases, saying, “I have to admit I’m guilty to that to a certain degree because I do have my own biases, specifically to blonde women.”
“Blonde hair on white women just triggers me,” the Girls Trip star said while snapping her fingers. “I’ve had to catch myself.”
“Do you have a specific incident with someone who had blonde hair?” her mother, Adrienne Banfield-Jones, asked.
“Absolutely. All throughout my childhood. I do remember experiencing being teased by white women in regards to my hair, how I looked, feeling belittled,” Pinkett Smith said.
Pinkett Smith then invited Red Table Talk producer Annie Price to the table to share her opinion on the racial divide between white women and women of color.
“Any time I want to have a conversation [about race] I’m afraid I’m going to offend somebody just by starting to talk,” Price said. “I feel like I’m going to say the wrong thing.”
She continued, “I hear a lot of times that white women have privilege and they need to recognize they have privilege. I’m sure I do. I just haven’t had the experience to recognize that I have the privilege. I don’t understand the feeling of racism. I feel a lot of times trying to be friends or trying to reach out to women of color, sometimes I feel like they don’t want to be my friend.”
Pinkett Smith said she believed “there is something unique” about “why black women and white women have such a difficult time [talking to each other].”
“We, even as black women, have to be willing to look at our biases that keep us from being able to bridge the gap,” she added.
Red Table Talk airs Mondays on Facebook Watch.
Article via People