Seated Ballerina By Jeff Koons On View May 12 - June 2, 2017 at Rockefeller Center

Seated Ballerina, 2017 © Jeff Koons / Photo: Tom Powel Imaging

Kiehl's Since 1851 and Art Production Fund are pleased to present Jeff Koons's Seated Ballerina, a large-scale public art installation, hosted by Tishman Speyer at Rockefeller Center from May 12 – June 2, 2017. The inflatable nylon sculpture stands 45 feet high and depicts a seated ballerina from the artist's iconic Antiquity series.

Often referencing historical imagery and found objects, Koons based Seated Ballerina on a small porcelain figurine. The sculpture acts as a contemporary iteration of the goddess Venus, and symbolizes notions of beauty and connectivity. Its reflective surface mirrors its immediate environment and engages with each viewer.  The work aims to bring awareness to National Missing Children's Month this May, in an effort to support organizations like the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) that work tirelessly to create a safer world for children.

"It's a pleasure to work with Kiehl's and Art Production Fund on this charitable project. This partnership will increase awareness and help the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children make the world a safer place for children," said Jeff Koons. "I hope the installation of Seated Ballerina at Rockefeller Center offers a sense of affirmation and excitement to the viewer to reach their potential. The aspect of reflectivity emulates life's energy; it's about contemplation and what it means to be a human being. It's a very hopeful piece."

"We have enjoyed a great relationship with Jeff Koons, starting with Puppy and recently with Split-Rocker, which were both a tremendous success," said Tishman Speyer President and CEO Rob Speyer. "It's an honor to work with the Art Production Fund and Kiehl's and bring Jeff's art back to Rockefeller Center. Seated Ballerina promises to offer one of those unforgettable New York experiences that will be remembered for years to come."

"We are honored to work with Jeff Koons, Kiehl's and Tishman Speyer to present Seated Ballerina at Rockefeller Center," said Casey Fremont, Executive Director of Art Production Fund. "We believe in the power of collaboration, and we are thrilled to present a public art project that raises awareness of the urgent need to protect children worldwide."

In honor of National Missing Children's Month, Koons has also created a limited edition Seated Ballerina tin for the Midnight Recovery Collection. Throughout May, Kiehl's will donate 100% of its net profits from the collection, up to $100,000, to directly benefit ICMEC. A fervent advocate for protecting children, Koons worked with ICMEC to co-found The Koons Family Institute on International Law & Policy in 2007 to combat child abduction and exploitation. 

He also serves on ICMEC's Board of Directors. The installation highlights the longstanding relationship Kiehl's has forged with Jeff Koons and ICMEC since 2011. Art Production Fund has also worked on a number of projects with Koons since 2009, donating a portion of sales from its Works on Whatever Collection to ICMEC.

"We're thrilled to continue what's become a Kiehl's tradition of partnering with Jeff Koons," says Chris Salgardo, President, Kiehl's USA."With more than 465,000 reports of missing children last year in the United States alone, it's gratifying to know that via this fourth partnership with Koons and the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children, we are able to make a difference in the lives of our children."

"ICMEC is proud and honored to partner with our long-term friend and Board member – the great American artist Jeff Koons – and with the iconic Kiehl's Since 1851, in a campaign that raises awareness and supports our efforts to make the world a safer place for all children," says Maura Harty, President & CEO ICMEC.

About Jeff Koons: 
Jeff Koons was born in York, Pennsylvania and studied at the Art Institute of Chicago and the Maryland Institute College of Art; the latter from where he received his BFA. He currently lives and works in New York City. One of the foremost internationally recognized contemporary artists of our time, Jeff Koons earned renown for his iconic sculptures such as Rabbit (1986), Michael Jackson and Bubbles (1988) and his public sculptures, such as the monumental floral sculptures Puppy (1992) and Split-Rocker (2000), both of which were previously installed at Rockefeller Center.

About the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children: 
The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children is a private 501(c)(3) non-governmental, nonprofit organization. For almost 20 years, ICMEC has been a leader in identifying gaps in the global community's ability to protect children from abduction, sexual abuse and exploitation, and expertly assembling the people, resources and tools needed to fill those gaps. ICMEC focuses on programs that have an impact on addressing the issues surrounding missing children, child abduction, child sexual abuse and exploitation. 

Through The Koons Family Institute on International Law & Policy, ICMEC conducts and commissions original research into the status of child protection legislation around the world to help make children safer.

SOURCE: Tishman Speyer; Kiehl’s

'Horseshoe Theory' Is Nonsense – The Far Right And Far Left Have Little In Common

Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen (Guillaume Horcajuelo / Frederic Scheiber / EPA)

By Simon Choat, Kingston University

After the first round of the French presidential elections, several liberal commentators condemned the defeated leftist candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon for refusing to endorse the centrist Emmanuel Macron. His decision was portrayed as a failure to oppose the far-right Front National, and it was argued that many of his supporters were likely to vote for Marine Le Pen in the second round. Comparisons were drawn with the US presidential elections and the alleged failure of Bernie Sanders supporters to back Hilary Clinton over Donald Trump.

Underlying these claims is a broader and increasingly popular notion that the far left and the far right have more in common than either would like to admit. This is known as the “horseshoe theory”, so called because rather than envisaging the political spectrum as a straight line from communism to fascism, it pictures the spectrum as a horseshoe in which the far left and far right have more in common with each other than they do with the political centre. The theory also underlies many of the attacks on the leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, who is accused of cosying up to authoritarian and theocratic regimes and fostering antisemitism within his party.

Taken one by one, these claims do not withstand scrutiny. Did Mélenchon give succour to Le Pen? No: he explicitly ruled out supporting Le Pen, and most of his supporters voted for Macron in the second round. Are there antisemites in the Labour Party? Yes: but there are antisemites in every British political party; the difference is that repeated incidents of racism in other parties go unremarked (as does Corbyn’s longstanding record of anti-racist activism).

Fans of the horseshoe theory like to lend their views weight and credibility by pointing to the alleged history of collusion between fascists and communists: the favoured example is the Nazi-Soviet Pact. But – aside from the fact that the Soviet Union played a vital role in defeating the Nazis – it is patently absurd to compare Stalin to present-day leftists like Mélenchon or Corbyn.

Can we instead find convergence between far left and far right at the level of policy? It is true that both attack neoliberal globalisation and its elites. But there is no agreement between far left and far right over who counts as the “elite”, why they are a problem, and how to respond to them. When the billionaire real-estate mogul Donald Trump decries global elites, for example, he is either simply giving his audience what he thinks they want to hear or he is indulging in antisemitic dog-whistling.

For the left, the problem with globalisation is that it has given free rein to capital and entrenched economic and political inequality. The solution is therefore to place constraints on capital and/or to allow people to have the same freedom of movement currently given to capital, goods, and services. They want an alternative globalisation. For the right, the problem with globalisation is that it has corroded supposedly traditional and homogeneous cultural and ethnic communities – their solution is therefore to reverse globalisation, protecting national capital and placing further restrictions on the movement of people.

Trump and Sanders both attacked globalisation – for different reasons. Michael Vadon, CC BY-SA

Is there a more fundamental, ideological resonance between far left and far right? Again, only in the vaguest sense that both challenge the liberal-democratic status quo. But they do so for very different reasons and with very different aims. When fascists reject liberal individualism, it is in the name of a vision of national unity and ethnic purity rooted in a romanticised past; when communists and socialists do so, it is in the name of international solidarity and the redistribution of wealth.

Given the basic implausibility of the horseshoe theory, why do so many centrist commentators insist on perpetuating it? The likely answer is that it allows those in the centre to discredit the left while disavowing their own complicity with the far right. Historically, it has been “centrist” liberals – in Spain, Chile, Brazil, and in many other countries – who have helped the far right to power, usually because they would rather have had a fascist in power than a socialist.

Today’s fascists have also been facilitated by centrists – and not just, for example, those on the centre-right who have explicitly defended Le Pen. When centrists ape the Islamophobia and immigrant-bashing of the far right, many people begin to think that fascism is legitimate; when they pursue policies which exacerbate economic inequality and hollow out democracy, many begin to think that fascism looks desirable.

If liberals genuinely want to understand and confront the rise of the far right, then rather than smearing the left they should perhaps reflect on their own faults.

About Today's Contributor:
Simon Choat, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory, Kingston University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

James Bond Needs A New Attitude, Not A New Actor

Sexist and altogether out-dated, the same old James Bond. Anthony Devlin/PA Archive/PA Images

By Nicola Bishop, Manchester Metropolitan University

As someone who has recently taken to reading Ian Fleming’s books, I am drawn into the debate surrounding Joanna Lumley’s comments about actor Idris Elba not being the James Bond that Fleming created.

Film writer Caspar Salmon’s column in the Guardian made several valid points. The most persuasive being that we should abandon the “emotionless character that belongs to a grotesque tradition”. Bond is a “hero” who is heterosexist, misogynistic, and racist – so inherent in 1954’s Live and Let Die that getting beyond the first chapter proved too much for this reader – more needs to be done than just another change of actor.

Yet the “who-will-be-the-next-Bond” discussions never stop. According to the press, Elba is equally not interested, a contender, and a sure thing. We’ve even had a “Jane Bond” social media campaign which saw Gillian Anderson throwing her metaphorical hat in the ring.
Given that the creative minds behind the BBC’s Doctor Who – a series predicated on the doctor’s ability to regenerate, which gives completely free reign over the actor who is cast – have managed to reincarnate the good Doctor a mere 13 times as a white man, do the chances of real diversity seem beyond even science fiction, let alone upper-class Cold War imperialism?

The eternal playboy
Historian Tim Stanley argues that to give Bond “breasts” would be to “lose the magic behind the character” – so we can safely assume that Bond is merely a powerful metaphorical penis. In keeping what have become the stock symbols – the fast cars, expensive suits, the Martinis and the exotic locations with their equally exotic women – the films have arguably become more one-dimensional than the novels. Books which, for all their issues, can still be located within a different social and historical context. So what is our excuse now?

In the conclusion of 2015 film Spectre, there is an inevitability to which the final shot – of Bond and Madeline Swann walking across London Bridge – seems fated to result in the kind of brutality with which Teresa di Vincenzo met her abrupt end in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1963). In the novel, if not as explicitly on screen, Bond’s joy at the planning of his future wedded bliss extends to the imagined home-making in his London flat, long and loving phone conversations between them as he works to bring down super-villain, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, and the growing awareness that his life finally holds richer meaning.

Teresa, like Madeline, was Bond’s match: flighty, adventurous, fearless, daughter of a high-ranking criminal with an understanding of the necessity for “real men” to carry concealed weapons. Both women are victims of their own violent pasts – they are strong but need rescuing from themselves. Bond, however, has to be a playboy, he can save them, avenge them even, but he cannot be “tamed” by them.

Self-destruction
Spoof spy character Austin Powers ridiculed the constant disruption of the spy’s romantic bliss in the beginning of The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999). His new wife turned out to be a fem-bot, which must self-destruct or risk bringing down the spy himself. Even Judi Dench, after 20 years as M, met her end as a foolish female victim – how could the head of the secret intelligence service inexplicably use a torch on a dark Highland escape? Forget a female Bond when so few of the women in the films last beyond the end credits.

Perhaps the bigger question is not who should play the next Bond but why haven’t we moved on? Looking back at the original stories, and even ignoring the problematic 1950s cultural landscape, they are a mixed bag. Some are gripping, well-paced and thrilling, others loose and unwieldy, slow or confusing. Casino Royale (1953) is almost entirely focused on a card game that no one understands any more (when not playing cards, Bond is busy calling Vesper Lynd a “bitch”). Moonraker (1955) takes place in Dover not California, Venice or Rio. There are episodes in which even Bond is bored; chapters where he sits at his desk and complains about paperwork, moving it from in-box to out-tray.

All of this is a far-cry from the jet-setting man of mystery in our cultural imagination – the whirlwind of cocktails and casual sex, heightened by theatrically high kicks and slow-motion punches, casual Western imperialism, and upper-class patriarchy. More important than who will play him, is the question of why we have unnaturally prolonged the life of Ian Fleming’s spy.

Guardian readers were quick to call Salmon’s assertion that Bond is effectively the same age as Prince Philip unfair, and they’ve got a point. We don’t hold Sherlock Holmes or Miss Marple to their fictional birth dates. We do, however, recognise the need to update the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie, taking the essence of their detection and applying it in modern ways. Bond, on the other hand, has all the latest gadgetry, new global enemies, and even an invisible car, but his “essence” has sadly stayed the same.

About Today's Contributor:
Nicola Bishop, Senior Lecturer in English/Film and Television, Manchester Metropolitan University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Stela Mobile Comics Honored with "Best Webcomic" Nominations for the 2017 Eisner Awards

Jaeger by Ibrahim Moustafa (co-creator of High Crimes)

Stela LLC, providers of premium graphic novels and illustrated books native to mobile, today announced that two of its series, Jaeger and Deja Brew have been nominated for the 2017 Eisner Awards in the Best Webcomic Category.

For nearly three decades, The Will Eisner Comic Industry Awards has recognized the creativity, talent, and excellence of creators in the comics and graphic novels industry. Nominees represent a diverse range of groundbreaking work that have achieved critical and popular acclaim. This year, for the first time in its history the Eisner Award is recognizing Best Web Comics as its own individual category. All works nominated in this category were originally created for digital consumption rather than print, recognizing a new tide of digital works that have brought the industry more than $100M in yearly revenue.

Stela is leading this new wave of innovation in the digital medium, with an entire library of content created specifically for mobile consumption. Its flagship app, Stela Unlimited, allows readers to engross themselves in fantastic worlds and complex characters, focusing on comics that showcase a diverse range of viewpoints and subjects.

Taking a more innovative approach than traditional comic publishers, Stela delivers comics, graphic novels, and visual books in the medium where today's consumers spend most of their time – mobile. Unlike print comics that are simply adapted for mobile viewing, Stela offers a rich storytelling experience uninterrupted by constant paneling, swiping, pinching or zooming. Readers simply need to scroll down and get lost in the worlds created by curated by editors from the heart of modern comics, and created by some of the most talented emerging and established names in the industry.

"We are honored that the Eisner Awards has recognized the work of Stela's artist, validating our belief that works created for the mobile platform can be just as engrossing, inspiring, and enjoyable as traditional print comics," said Jason Juan, CEO of Stela. "Just as Netflix disrupted the television and movie industry with high quality original content, Stela is looking to do the same for mobile. Creating content for mobile devices serves millions of readers and empowers them to discover and follow stories in the medium they most frequently engage with."

Excellence in Webcomics

Two Stela titles are represented in the Best Webcomics category.

Jaeger by Ibrahim Moustafa (High Crimes) tells the story of French-Algerian spy Idris Morel. Haunted by the torture he endured in a Nazi POW camp during World War II, Morel, hell-bent on exacting revenge against his captors, embarks on a one-man espionage mission to ensure that Nazi escapees are brought to justice. In his quest for revenge, Morel must find redemption, or risk becoming the very monster he hunts.

Deja Brew by Taneka Stotts and Sara DuVall begins innocuously at Bijou, where expelled witch academy student Tobias works. When Ki, a frightened girl filled with someone else's memories, shows up at Bijou, it will put Tobias through the toughest magical test he's ever faced.

Jaeger and Deja Brew were selected out of over 2,500 entrants sourced and solicited by the Eisner nomination committee. Winners will be chosen by a highly-lauded panel of blue-ribbon judges as well as by votes from leading industry professionals. The winners will be announced during an annual event at San Diego Comic-Con in July.

Deja Brew by Taneka Stotts and Sara DuVall

About Stela

Stela, LLC's flagship mobile visual content app, Stela Unlimited, is the first and only app to offer graphic novels and illustrated stories created specifically created for the mobile reader. With a library of unique and exclusive content by award-winning creators, Stela delivers the ultimate binge reading experience. Read to your hearts content and interact with a community of content creators and visual content enthusiasts with Stela Unlimited. 

For more information, visit stela.com.  

SOURCE: Stela LLC

New Book Helps People-Pleasers Take Back Their Power to Live More Authentically

Self-described former congeniality addict Cat Dols hopes to spark a 21st century "good girl" revolt with her new book, Get Your Goddess On: Own Your Power. Love Your Life! Published by Blue Bookshelf and launching May 11, the book features the former Ford model decked out in a sparkly ball gown on its cover. Despite that, the book's premise is down to earth. It is the Milwaukee resident's road map for helping women to take back the power they may have given away in a futile attempt to please other people.

Get Your Goddess On uses a mixture of stories, examples and self-guided exercises to teach women—and men who have the problem as well—how to stop living their lives according to other people's expectations so they can take charge of their own happiness. "I want people to know that they matter and they are good enough as is … even though they may have been taught they weren't in the past," Dols says. That was a message Dols needed to hear herself after growing up with a verbally abusive father and a subservient mother who only escaped his shadow after he died. For years, Dols' own worldview was colored by the negative messages and feelings of low self-worth he passed on that led her to failed relationships of her own; she has learned to overcome them and to empower others to recognize the signs and make new choices.

She can talk about:

• Why winning a Miss Congeniality Award is a losing proposition.
• The importance of becoming aware of people-pleasing tendencies and knowing what you have given away in exchange for trying to be liked.
• Finding the silver lining in life's hard lessons and what it takes to let go of mistakes you made and to forgive yourself.
• Her non-traditional definition of a goddess: a peaceful state of being that is the opposite of ego—where your authentic power resides.

Cat Dols

About Cat Dols

Cat Dols is an author, life coach, home stager, decorator, master gardener and art class teacher. Get Your Goddess On: Own Your Power. Love Your Life! is her first book. 

She has been a guest on a number of radio talk shows and been featured in Milwaukee-area newspapers. She has also authored articles for New Living magazine.

SOURCE: Cat Dols

From Wannabe To President: How Emmanuel Macron Beat Marine Le Pen To Win The French Election

Macron sweeps to victory. EPA/Thomas Samson

By Paul Smith, University of Nottingham

After a tense and often antagonistic election campaign, Emmanuel Macron is to become the next president of France. The result is, of course, in all sorts of ways extraordinary. In a little over a year, the 39-year-old former finance minister has gone from being a wannabe to the future tenant of the Elysée Palace. He struck out alone to form his own political movement and while much of the froth surrounding the election has focused on his opponent, the enormity of his achievement needs to be acknowledged and cannot be underestimated.

Even before the first round, all the polls had Macron pegged to win the second round 60/40. But then, between the rounds, Le Pen seemed to be nibbling away at Macron’s lead – not by much, but by enough to cause some butterflies among her opponents. Macron appeared lacklustre at a crucial time. Fears of a low turnout and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s refusal to formally endorse Macron also threw a number of unknowns into the mix.

Macron addresses supporters in Paris. EPA/Thomas Samson

A high abstention rate would play in Le Pen’s favour, went the reasoning. Her electors, as far as anyone could tell, were more committed. In the end, turnout was indeed lower than expected (and there were 4m spoilt ballots), but it did not hinder Macron. Quite the reverse. With an estimated 65.1% of the vote to Le Pen’s 34.9%, Macron has come away with the second highest second round score in the history of the Fifth Republic.

So, now France has a president whose priorities are to tackle chronic unemployment by relaxing labour legislation and introducing a raft of measures to help young people into work, to reduce primary school class sizes to 12 pupils per teacher, to relaunch the European project in collaboration with France’s partners and to simplify the mind-bogglingly complex tax and pension set-up for French citizens. 

What happened Marine?
Deep down, Le Pen knew she didn’t have the tail wind to take her to victory after a disappointing first-round result. She had hoped to go through in first place but finished second behind Macron and only 650,000 votes ahead of François Fillon.

This goes some way to explaining her extraordinary performance in the presidential debate on May 3, where she cast aside the opportunity to present her programme in favour of a non-stop attack on Macron. He might not have looked presidential all the way through the debate, but she certainly looked like she was making a bid to be the leader of the opposition rather than the tenant of the Elysée. In any case, it looks like the debate cost her 5% of the vote. It certainly caused consternation among her supporters.

And yet her score is historic. Throughout the campaign she was the one candidate we all assumed would get through to the second round. Her total of 11m votes is twice what her father managed in 2002 – and 5m more than she herself scored in 2012.

Le Pen delivers her concession speech. EPA/Ian Langsdon

On Sunday evening, about ten minutes after the result was announced, Le Pen made a two-minute speech to a small group of party activists, accepting her defeat, but also launching herself as the head of the “première force d’opposition” and promising a transformation of the Front National for the general election in June. She neglected to explain what that means, but she will almost certainly seek to destabilise Les Républicains by appealing to the right of the party.

A discarded voting slip says it all. Paul Smith

Meanwhile, after a celebration at the Louvre on Sunday night, Macron awaits his formal investiture as the eighth president of the Fifth Republic at the beginning of next week. By tradition, the incoming president announces the name of the prime minister only on the following day. Macron may break with this and make the announcement a little earlier, but there are still calculations to be made.

The electoral process isn’t quite over for the French. Can they survive the risks of electoral burn-out? For now, at least we can all savour what has been an extraordinary campaign and reflect on where France goes now.

About Today's Contributor:

Paul Smith, Associate Professor in French and Francophone Studies, University of Nottingham

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Bonus Gifs

via franceinfo

via franceinfo

Can Environmental Documentaries Make Waves?

Tasos Katopodis / EPA

By Michela Cortese, Bangor University

Trump’s first 100 days in office were, among other things, marked by a climate march in Washington DC that attracted tens of thousands of demonstrators. No surprises there. Since the beginning of his mandate in January, Trump has signed orders to roll back the number of federally protected waterways, restart the construction of contentious oil pipeline, and cut the budget from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Among the various orders and memoranda, the one signed to overhaul Obama’s Clean Power Plan is probably the most remarkable, along with promoting coal extractions all over the US.

A good time, then, to follow up Al Gore’s iconic documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which was released 11 years ago in a similarly discouraging political climate. At that time George W Bush, who is remembered for undermining climate science and for strongly supporting oil interests, was in power. In his own first 100 days at the White House, Bush backed down from the promise of regulating carbon dioxide from coal power plants and announced that the US would not implement the Kyoto climate change treaty.

This summer sees the release of An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. More than ten years have passed and the documentary looks likely to be released in a very similar context. With republicans in power, war in the Middle East, and regulations on the environment to be reversed, this inconvenient sequel is a reminder that the climate of the conversation about global warming has not changed much in the interim.

But the strategies needed to grab the attention of the public certainly have. In the fast-paced, ever-evolving media landscape of the 21st century, knowing how to engage the public on environmental matters is no easy thing. The tendency of the environmental films that have mushroomed since 2000 has been to use a rhetoric of fear. But how effective has this been? Certainly, environmental activism has grown, particularly with the help of social media, but the role of these productions is unclear, and there is a lack of research on audience response to these films.

Personal planet
The selling point of An Inconvenient Truth was its personal approach. Although it had a lecture-style tone, this was a documentary that was all about Gore. He told his story entwined with that of the planet. It was extraordinary that people paid to go to the cinema to watch a politician giving a lecture. This was a big shift in cinema. Arguably, this format was enlivened by the way in which Gore opened up about his personal history.

The documentary opened with the politician’s notorious quote: “I am Al Gore, and I used to be the next president of the United States.” In November 2000 Gore had lost the presidential elections to George W Bush with an extraordinarily narrow defeat. The choice to run with a very personal rhetoric was certainly strategic – the right time for the former vice president to open up six years from that unfortunate election. Gore told the story of global warming through his personal life, featuring his career disappointments, family tragedies and constantly referring to the scientists he interviewed as “my friend”.

This was a very innovative way of approaching the matter of climate change. We are talking about a politician who decided to offer an insight on his private life for a greater cause: to engage the public on a vital scientific subject. The originality of the documentary led to An Inconvenient Truth scoring two Oscars at the Academy Awards 2006.

Today, An Inconvenient Truth is seen as the prototype of activist film-making. Founder of the Climate Reality Project in 2006 and co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (with the IPCC), Gore and his movement soon became the core of environmental activism, gathering several environmental groups that, despite their differences, today march together for the greatest challenge of our time.
New hope?

Eleven years on, the revolution under Gore’s lead that many expected has yet to be fulfilled. The next decade was beset with disappointments. More recently, the 2015 Paris Agreement has marked a new era for climate action, proving that both developed and developing countries are now ready to work together to reduce carbon emissions. But today there is a new protagonist – or antagonist – in the picture. The trailer for An Inconvenient Sequel shows Gore watching Trump shouting his doubts about global warming to the crowd and announcing his plans to strip back the EPA’s budget.

It will be interesting to see how the tone of the film moves off from that of the original. The “personal reveal” tactic won’t work so well the second time round. And a change in the narrative is certainly evident from the trailer. The graphs of the previous documentary are replaced with more evocative images of extreme weather and disasters. While statistics about carbon dioxide emissions and sea-level rises were predominantly used to trigger emotions in the audience, this time round Gore can show the results of his predictions. One example of this is the iconic footage of a flooded World Trade Centre Memorial, a possibility which was discussed by Gore in the 2006 documentary and criticised by many for being a “fictional” element at that time rather than an “evidence” of climate impact.

Unfortunately, I am not sure how much this shift will affect the public or whether the sequel will be the manifesto of that revolution that Gore and his followers have been waiting for. The role that the media have played in the communication of climate change issues has changed and developed alongside the evolution of the medium itself and people’s perception of the environment. The last decade has seen an explosion of sensational images and audiences are fatigued by this use of fear.

Many look for media that includes “positive” messages rather than the traditional onslaught of facts and images triggering negative emotions. It has never been more difficult for environmental communicators to please viewers and readers in the midst of a never-ending flow of information available to them.

About Today's Contributor:

Michela Cortese, Associate Lecturer, Bangor University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Famed WDC Rock Venue and Local Musicians Organize Benefit Concert for The Joe Strummer Foundation

Concert Poster

Washington DC's Black Cat has hosted no shortage of iconic bands over the years including Radiohead, Beck, the Foo Fighters, and the Kings of Leon. On May 25, 2017, the renowned music venue has partnered with DC rock band Stone Driver to organize a benefit concert to support The Joe Strummer Foundation, a charity created in honor of the Clash's co-founder and one of the biggest icons in punk and rock music history, which raises money to provide opportunities to musicians and support to projects around the world that create empowerment through music.

"As a musician and huge fan of Joe Strummer's work, I was humbled to learn about the foundation that was created to help others. When our band was brainstorming ideas of how we could contribute, we spoke with Lindsay from the Black Cat who suggested holding a benefit concert. The Black Cat team is going above and beyond to assist the Joe Strummer Foundation and the communities they assist, and are hosting an outrageously good rock concert to make it all happen," - Chad Lesch, member of "Stone Driver" musical group.

Stone Driver is a critically acclaimed DC rock band that recently completed their sophomore full length album "Rocks" with famed London producer Sefi Carmel (David Bowie, Phil Collins, Bruno Mars), and will be joined on stage with the exceptionally talented power pop quartet Classified Frequency, and high energy rocker and DC music veteran Derek Evry.

Stone Driver press photo

The Joe Strummer Foundation was established in 2002 shortly after the rock icon's passing. The non-profit organization is committed to the prevention or relief of poverty, particularly of young people, anywhere in the world by providing grants, items and services to individuals in need and/or charities, or other organizations working to prevent or relieve poverty.

The Joe Strummer Foundation Benefit Concert will take place on May 25th, 2017 at the Black Cat in DC.  Doors open at 7:30PM, and the benefit concert will begin at 8:00PM and end by 11:30PM.  Tickets are available in advance on Ticketfly for $12, and the Black Cat is located at 1811 14th St NW, Washington, DC 20009.

• To purchase tickets in advance on Ticketfly, please go to www.ticketfly.com/event/1434040-stone-driver-washington/
• For more information about Stone Driver, please go to facebook.com/StoneDriverBand and/or www.StoneDriver.com
• For more information about the Joe Strummer Foundation, please contact them at +44 (0) 208 133 9101 or email at info@joestrummerfoundation.org.

SOURCE: Stone Driver

Strong And stable Leadership: Inside The Conservatives' Election Slogan

Do you even lift, Jeremy? PA/ Jane Barlow

By Scott Taylor, University of Birmingham

If you’ve heard an interview with any Conservative politician during the current election campaign, you’ve probably heard the phrase “strong and stable leadership”. Theresa May used the phrase three times in seven minutes on the day she announced the vote.

It was clearly a key slogan – and therefore a key aspect of the campaign – right from the start. Since then, Buzzfeed has tracked May’s use of the phrase (giving up at 57 times in ten days). It even featured in the political cartoon for the first edition of the London Evening Standard under its new editor.

It would be easy to dismiss this as just one of those irritating political hooks that are part and parcel of any election. Political history is littered with some far worse campaign slogans (remember the Conservatives’ 2005 “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” – an obscure slogan, to which the public’s answer was a clear “no”). But everything we know about leadership tells us that language is central, so we have to take this careful repetition seriously. What does Theresa May mean by “strong and stable leadership” – and why is it important?

Constructing a reality?
Linda Smircich and Gareth Morgan, two of the world’s most prominent and insightful analysts of organisation, argued in the early 1980s that “successful” leadership (that is, persuading someone to do something they wouldn’t normally do) depended on a leader persuading people of a specific reality. This process of social construction happens mostly through language. That makes language central to politics, as a means of persuasion as much as a means of communicating ideas or policies.

“Strong and stable” tells us that the Conservative party strategists want us to think of all other options as weak and unstable. Social theorists have been telling us for a long time that the meaning we derive from language is relational. The idea of “strong” is therefore understood in relation to an implicit idea of “weak”. Conservative-sponsored adverts in this election and the last in 2015 are keen to tell us the parties and leaders who are weak and unstable.

There’s usually a hierarchy in this way of constructing meaning. The implication here is that strong is better than weak. This is especially true of the idea of leadership. We are bombarded daily with implicit and explicit messages that strong leadership is the ideal. You don’t have to be a believer in “servant leadership” to doubt the idea of strong leadership. There’s plenty of evidence of the damage that strong leaders, in politics and in workplaces, can do.

The strong man?
There’s another factor at play here, too. The repetition of “strong and stable” is becoming important because it carries a series of assumptions with it. Who do you think of when someone talks about strong leadership? Someone tall, able-bodied, probably white, speaking in a deep pitch – and probably male. This ideal is reinforced by corporate commissioned leader portraits and by the representation of leaders in popular culture.

Are you getting the message yet? PA/Chris Radburn

The promotion of this leaderly ideal by a Conservative party led by a woman at the moment isn’t especially surprising. We’re in the midst of a significant fourth wave of feminist activism and theory and political representation is one of the key areas of activity. British politics, with the honourable exception of the Labour party, is notoriously resistant to structural change through positive discrimination schemes such as quotas. In representing their woman leader in this way, the Conservatives emphasise their contribution to that wider social movement, but without really questioning it.

This election campaign will see a lot of discussion about whether we can trust political party leaders. Laying claim to being “strong and stable” shouldn’t mean unthinking followership. When any of us hear a politician, or someone with leadership responsibility in a workplace, tell us what kind of leadership they think we need – ask why they need to use language in this persuasive way, what they’re not saying, and what associations the linguistic images bring with them. Then maybe we can avoid following leaders without thinking. That can only end badly.

About Today's Contributor:
Scott Taylor, Reader in Leadership and Organisation Studies, University of Birmingham

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Bonus Pictures:

Image via Trumpton

Image via Trumpton