text:
Field Notes In Conversation
The third book in the Field Notes series published by Reaktion Books in association with the Brooklyn Rail has just been published: No Home for You Here: A Memoir of Class and Culture, by Adam Theron-Lee Rensch. John Collins sat down with Rensch at his home in Chicago to discuss the book and its preoccupations.
John Collins (Rail): Why a memoir? You talk a lot in the book about how the political is not personal, and many Marxists are drawn to more "scientific" analyses of the issues of class politics and base and superstructure you look at in the book. What went into the decision to approach the problems from a more personal point of view?
Adam Rensch: I was initially very resistant to writing a memoir, especially one that satisfies the demands of the literary market. These sorts of stories, I think, function mainly to reproduce a neoliberal framework. Instead of asking us to look at exploitation, which is public and has nothing to do with how we feel about its victims, it encourages us to sympathize with trauma or pain on an individual level. I had tried for many years to write a traditional memoir about my father, but nothing materialized because at a certain point I began to experience a deep anxiety about the ways in which I was leveraging someone's pain for a market that only cares for such stories if they can turn a profit.
So, my initial draft had considerably less of the "personal," and was primarily a historical account of the broader shifts in the economy, the rise of the New Democrats, and the ways that class has been framed as an issue of culture or identity instead of a social relation. The problem with that version, however, is that it felt too broad, as though I was trying to offer some definitive material account of the last few decades. During the revision process, it became obvious that in fact my personal story was the precise realization of the history I wanted to tell about class and culture. The memoir format then became a loose structure onto which I could hang the arguments I really wanted to make. It also helps—I hope—broaden the audience. I didn't want to write a book for other Marxists, or academics. By intentionally calling it a "memoir," I could get people who want to read a book about pain to read a book about exploitation. With any luck, maybe they might realize they agree.
Rail: Home, as in No Home For You Here and You Can't Go Home Again, is obviously an organizing conceit of the book. Can you expand a little bit on what "home" might mean to the postmodern subject under late capitalism? You establish the lack of home as a fundamental problem for such people. What kind of "home" can we imagine for ourselves under capitalism, and do you think that is an essential concept to develop to lead us out of the capitalist framework?
Rensch: As I began writing, it became clear that "home" was something that worked on a number of levels. On the one hand, there is home as a literal structure where one resides. During the postwar boom between 1945 and roughly 1965, home ownership became the standard symbol of middle-class stability and prosperity. This, of course, was only possible given the broader relationship between labor and capital, as well as the arms race, that temporarily made our economy stable. It's where the fantasy of the middle class, at least as we know it, was really born. My mother's father built his home himself, and my father's father bought their home in the early 1960s for $10,000. Given the recent housing crisis, which had an especially hard impact on rural communities, this is far from guaranteed today. Indeed, the last years of my father's life in the mid-2000s were defined by his drift and homelessness.
My father was also homeless in another sense: symbolically, or dare I say spiritually. I don't mean this in a religious sense, although I believe religion is a natural source for those in search of meaning. I mean it in the sense that there was nothing that gave his life purpose. There was nothing deeper than the realization that the world as we had organized it was brutal and unforgiving. There was no stable underpinning—friends, community, a welfare state—that would offer a solid footing. This is precisely how the postmodern subject, as you call it, is defined: empty, unstable, etc. In some ways, my father's life is a marker for the major shifts that have defined our way of life. He was born in 1960 at the peak of postwar prosperity and died in 2007 at the heels of a financial crisis created, somewhat ironically, in part by the fragmentation of mortgages.
This is not to say we can just go back to 1960. You can't go home again, as Wolfe said, and such nostalgia is always somewhat reactionary. Social-democratic reforms would of course be hopeful steps toward a better society, but we cannot erect a politics on the back of a brief period that was only possible given the larger development of global capital at the time. So, I'm a little ambivalent on the utility of a concept like "home" in leading us out of capitalism. Obviously, I believe any socialist alternative would be one in which housing is guaranteed and the economy is structured in such a way that work is no longer an impediment to finding meaning or purpose, but in fact provides the material ground for it.
Rail: You write movingly about your father's alcoholism and your friend Kevin's opioid addiction, both fatal. Today we are seeing a massive uptick in deaths of these kinds across all groups. What do you see as the relationship between late capitalism and substance abuse or addiction? And to what extent do you see this as a desired product of our system?
Rensch: I think the relationship between late capitalism and substance abuse is symbiotic. Substances like alcohol and opioids are an obvious palliative for the despair produced by capitalist alienation and material deprivation. At the same time, drugs are a market, from the massive alcohol and pharmaceutical industries to both domestic and international black markets. Added to this, of course, is our criminal justice system and a for-profit medical industry, each of which benefit from widespread addiction by transforming it into a problem that can either be punished by law or solved by the market. These industries also employ a significant number of people and generate serious profits, all while managing to treat addiction at the level of the individual. While there has been movement lately toward seeing it as systemic, the prevailing moral attitude toward addiction is one of personal failing.
In this sense, I think it's quite desirable for the system to have widespread addiction — not in some conscious, conspiratorial sense, but in the sense that it offers explanatory power for those at the margins. It's much easier to imagine people find themselves where they are as a result of poor decision-making than it is to accept that they were guided there, in some ways, by a complex system that necessarily pushes people to the margins to justify its origin story: just work hard, have discipline, and you will succeed. If you don't, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Rail: Your book is a moving evocation of what it's like to grow up as "white trash" and to try to leave that label behind. I was struck by the quotes you pulled from Tad Friend's essay "White Trash Nation," which evince a broadly cultural, individualist analysis of what white trash is and where it comes from. He sees white trash as being a set of choices that you make, an unrestrained "indulgence of the id." But so much of what makes white trash is what a consumer consumes, be it Jeff Foxworthy or Applebee's, or fashion from the Dollar Store. Certain brands of cigarettes, certain types of liquor, all these choices are envisioned in the system of production and consumption that we have, and indeed encouraged. Talk a little bit about the production of white trash as a sales demographic and the transference of responsibility for the act of, say, patronizing a strip mall, from the builder of the strip mall to the person who chooses to go there from amongst the limited options available to them.
Rensch: "White trash" as a label is a perfect expression of the way culture has replaced class as the lens through which we understand and engage with history. People use the term as though its meaning were self-evident, and the fact that we generally agree on what white trash means is crucial: how is it that a certain set of behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs can be subsumed under a label in such a way? For this to be possible, it requires a set of social relations that constantly reproduces those behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs in such a way that they appear to us as natural or self-evident. That set of social relations is capitalism.
Thinking relationally in this way, however, is counterintuitive to liberalism, which has a more static conception of the individual as a rational, autonomous monad responsible for his or her decisions. It sees effects of social relations as free-floating, divorced from any larger system that produces them. It sees the poor white guy eating, say, Papa John's pizza and driving a shitty truck with a confederate flag. It doesn't see or particularly concern itself with the massive operation that makes something like Papa John's a billion-dollar franchise, one that must necessarily exploit labor in the process. And while good liberals know Papa John's is "bad," that John Schnatter is a bigot, the real problem for them is aesthetic: that people would choose to eat something so disgusting, and to support someone so despicable. Their politics thus becomes about consumer choices, "voting with your wallet," as though people who eat Papa John's should care about the difference between good food and bad food, or the difference between a pizza chain owned by a right-wing racist and one owned by a socially conscious liberal. In fact, there is no difference: relationally, they serve the same function, and exploit workers the same way.
All of this is incredibly beneficial to those in power, by creating a cultural division that effectively leaves class relations untouched. Meanwhile, those in power can tap into the resentment that this division fosters by encouraging poor, rural whites to think the problem with their lives is one of discrimination and not of exploitation: the problem is that coastal elites dislike their culture and look down on them for being trashy, not that a massive system of exploitation has pushed them to the margins of society.
Rail: It seems worth interrogating how we distinguish between, on the one hand, "white trash" as a certain kind of identity and another identity that might be viewed as more hard-wired or inescapable (Black, gay, woman). These distinctions have also been used throughout history to diminish the categories they encompass, and have been through the same cycle of double recuperation, i.e. by the subject and then again by the corporate antagonist. But it seems to me in the discourse we have few people who would class them as the same type of identity. What do you think accounts for that and do you think it's a useful way to proceed?
Rensch: I think what you're getting at is the fundamental tension in something like liberal identity politics. If you believe that things like racism, sexism, and transphobia offer explanatory power for why certain groups are oppressed, or why there is a racial and gender wealth gap, you need someone who is actively doing the oppression. In this model, it isn't really possible to oppress poor white people, so they are effectively to blame for their own condition. In fact, they become the perfect villain because the educated liberals who buy into this sort of politics see working-class whites as inherently reactionary and authoritarian.
The real threat of this politics, as Walter Benn Michaels has pointed out, is that it understands inequality as a result of discrimination instead of exploitation. By this logic, if you correct racism and sexism and any other form of bigotry, what you have is in fact a perfect neoliberal market where everyone fails or succeeds solely on the basis of how well they play the game, and there is no one to blame for the outcome. And in a certain sense they aren't wrong: capitalism is a system of relations, and it is those relations that are the problem, not the people who find themselves caught up in them (even if those people are objectively despicable). Then again, to arrive at this conclusion you have to actually think about class as something other than educational pedigree or annual income, or even think about class at all.
Rail: You talk in the book quite a lot about debt as a repressive social relation, serving the manifold purpose of maintaining the working-class subject's precarity while maintaining the balance of consumption and of course yielding obscene profits to the financial class. We know that in the international arena, the Greek counterexample notwithstanding, indebtedness can be a position of great power (to wit, the US national debt) but we don't see much organization of private debtors in the US as yet. What do you think of the potential for debtor organization as a site of radical resistance to the existing financial regime?
Rensch: Someone like Donald Trump leverages the amount of debt he holds against institutions to his advantage, and it is part of the reason he has achieved so much power. In theory, debtor organization could function in a similar way, but I admit I am cynical about this in practice. Organization is extremely difficult, especially as those institutions with considerable power to lose would do everything they can to prevent it. We are already seeing the reemergence of debtor prisons in some states, as well as Betsy DeVos seeking to restructure student loan debt so that it cannot be canceled on a mass scale as Sanders has called for on the campaign trail. Now, assuming we could organize around debt, the next question is whether those in power would actually accept or even acknowledge our demands. I think the key is to consider what those demands would be, and how we could leverage debt collectively in a way that would pose a significant threat to the present balance of power. At the moment, I'm not sure what this would look like, exactly, but I think as a general rule a successful working-class movement needs to understand what tools are at its disposal, and how to use them strategically.
Rail: You discuss your own "reaction" against religion in America, which has been deeply associated with the conservative worldview. At the same time, you clearly describe the benefits your mother secured by joining an evangelical Christian church, both material and also less tangible ones. Faced with the explicit degradation and devaluation of the human, from our technotheist popular culture to our universities where "humanities" departments are being cut left and right, many feel that religion is the only place left to turn. This is hardly surprising when you look at humanity's traditional relationship to religion and spirituality prior to the past 50 years. What's your current relationship to spirituality, and how do you see it working in America now? Is there space for such ideas and traditions in the Marxist revolutionary framework?
Rensch: I am not spiritual in any meaningful sense, but it's obvious that religion has provided a crucial safety net for millions of people in a country that lacks even a paltry welfare state, and whose community relations have been fractured by neoliberal atomization. I also think that any working-class movement in this country needs to meet people where they are, and avoid taking its cues from predominantly educated activists. The reality is that many people value spirituality and religion, and telling them they are wrong, or stupid, or reactionary—even if they are—is not going to create anything like class solidarity. At the same time, it's true that our enduring and emotionally-charged culture wars are deeply influenced by religious belief, and this can and has functioned as a barrier to class consciousness. And yet, there is also a long tradition of religious radicalism that has been influenced by socialist thought and incorporated its emancipatory goals into its practice, so I am not convinced that Marxism and religion are necessarily at odds, even if I understand the limitations in place. I'm sure a significant number of leftists believe religion and its hierarchies have absolutely no place in a socialist society, and would accuse me of apologetics that sneak in reactionary tendencies, but I'm fine with that.
Rail: With the ongoing Uberization of the world, and the increasing levels of precarity even for highly paid and educated workers, do you see the contradictions within the so-called "middle class" resolving themselves in the near future? Do you think the ever-tightening ratchet of capitalism and the declining rate of profit could ever produce a "radical middle class," or produce a working-class consciousness amongst the professional class?
Rensch: I doubt anything like this could happen in the near future, and have a hard time imagining the professional class could ever become radicalized in any meaningful sense. Their class interests, and indeed their very existence, depend on their role as the gatekeepers of knowledge, which they have used to secure their place as the managers of capital. They are deeply invested in maintaining class relations as they stand now, even if they happen to pity the plight of wage-workers and get on board with social-democratic reforms that seek to decommodify large sectors of the economy. In a truly classless society, many of their jobs wouldn't exist, and those that would remain would not provide the sort of cultural and material power that they provide now. I think it's possible that individual members of the professional class could be radicalized, and in fact many radical intellectuals are members of the professional class. I don't doubt some of them would gladly give up their position to create a more just society. But I doubt the professional class as a whole will achieve class consciousness of the sort that would align them with workers. At the risk of being reductive, I think most educated professionals are too narcissistic.
Rail: We're in the midst of a very hotly contested election. What outcome do you think is likely? What do you hope for? and if Sanders were to go all the way, what would be next for the movement to revolutionize society?
Rensch: As it stands now, I think Sanders will head to the convention with a significant plurality of pledged delegates, but it's unclear if he will have enough to prevent a brokered convention. Obviously, I hope he does, and that he is ultimately the nominee to face Trump in November.
A brokered convention isn't unlikely, however, and if it happens it's going to be a mess. Right now, you have Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Biden, and Warren trying to cement themselves as the centrist candidate. Biden and Warren are tanking in the polls, and Buttigieg and Klobuchar both lack viability at the national level. The biggest threat at the moment is Bloomberg, whose astonishing power and wealth allow him to effectively purchase sweeping advertising buys and hire a massive foot operation to canvass for him. Bloomberg wants a brokered convention, if only so he can influence superdelegates to pick him or someone else over Sanders during the second round of voting. The other centrist candidates, despite their obligatory calls for unification, are undoubtedly hoping to be chosen as the compromise candidate in this situation. So, even if they drop out, you can be certain they will not endorse Sanders or encourage their delegates to throw their support behind him. If a brokered convention does happen, and the party picks someone else despite Sanders having a significant plurality of delegates, Trump will win in a landslide and the Democratic Party will be destroyed. The latter is not necessarily a bad thing, but I would prefer it to happen in the course of a Sanders win, which would hopefully expose third-way Clintonism as the fraud that it always was.
Assuming Sanders wins, and I think he has a good chance if he focuses his messaging and doesn't allow the activist wing to alienate the working class, the real danger is assuming the work is done. It won't be. Sanders is smart enough to know that organization must continue, and he also knows he will face significant opposition from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. All of this makes a Sanders victory a hopeful step toward something like a social democracy, but even in a best-case scenario where Sanders accomplishes everything he wants to accomplish, there will still be major class disparities that need to be addressed. Social democracy should not be the end goal, but I think it can provide a material basis for something more revolutionary.
John Collins is a poet living in San Jose, California and studying Zen Buddhism.


text:
MOVIE REVIEW: 'Unsane' is schlocky, bonkers, uneasy handheld fun
Don't let the iPhone photography fool you, Steven Soderbergh is still a master of his craft in any genre with any camera, and this film is no different
By Hunter Heilman -
Most filmmakers have a "brand" that they subscribe to, what they're known for. George Romero was known for zombie films, Christopher Nolan has intelligent epics, David Fincher has sleek, mind-bending thrillers, while Spielberg brings movie magic to any genre. Steven Soderbergh has never had a brand of an kind. His films are all so different and set apart from each other that, no matter how you try to piece them together, it never makes up the photography of a typical filmmaker. He's made comedies like the "Ocean's" trilogy and "Logan Lucky"; he's made thrillers like "Traffic" and "Contagion"; he's made dramas like "The Good German" and "Erin Brokovich"; hell, Soderbergh even made "Magic Mike." He's all over the place, but always consistently talented and grounded. Soderbergh is a filmmaker constantly looking to build himself as a filmmaker by doing something new, and never wanting to hit the same territory twice, and this has never been more apparent in Soderbergh than it is in "Unsane."
Sawyer Valentini (Claire Foy) is a no-nonsense businesswoman new to Philadelphia, after moving from Boston to escape the grasp of a seemingly relentless stalker, David Strine (Joshua Leonard). Sawyer finds herself paranoid and hallucinatory in the city, constantly seeing her stalker in places where she knows he could never reach her. When she reaches out for therapy, she speaks on a time where she was suicidal in passing voice, and goes to reschedule another appointment with the therapist at the session's conclusion, after filling out some paperwork. Soon, Sawyer finds herself whisked away back into the psychiatric hospital, having unknowingly committed herself to the institution. Sawyer's confusion and anger soon turns to fear as she begins to see David manifest within the hospital as an orderly, but at this point, she begins to doubt whether her visions are real, or if she actually is insane.
Let's get the big elephant about "Unsane" out of the room: the film was shot on an iPhone 7 Plus. No, this isn't some sort of clever dig about how I feel about the cinematography in the film, it literally was shot on an iPhone. Soderbergh, aching to test out as many new filmmaking techniques he can, opted to shoot the film on the Apple smartphone in 4K with a collection of clip on lenses and stabilizing grips. He has stated that he feels that this will soon be the way of the future when it comes to filmmaking and that he plans to shoot many of his films in the future in the mobile format for its mobility and ease of use. I'll be the first to say that no, an iPhone will never replace the look and feel of a typical cinema camera, but the implementation of the phone's usage into independent filmmaking? Soderbergh definitely is onto something. Of course, Soderbergh is not the first filmmaker to shoot feature length films on an iPhone, as Sean Baker of "The Florida Project" fame, shot his previous film, "Tangerine" on an iPhone 5 with anamorphic lenses, as well as other independent filmmakers have utilized the smartphone in other iterations as well. "Unsane" does mark the first time a wide-release film has ever been shot on an iPhone, but does it have to chops to pass itself off as something presentable on the big screen?
Now, of course, this film doesn't look like a normal film. It's shot in a strange, narrow 1.56:1 aspect ratio, the color grading is strangely off-putting and the lighting sometimes shows off the limitations that the iPhone has when it comes to shooting narrative storytelling, but to say that Soderbergh, like many filmmakers before him, didn't defy the odds in using an iPhone to create something truly interesting is just not true. The filmmaking style fits "Unsane" here, making the film feel a lot more volatile and out there than a film shot on a cinema camera like a RED or an ARRI might feel like. It's the lack of polish that makes "Unsane" feel so uneasy and off-putting as a film, but that's nothing without its story and performances.
Foy, hot off the heels of her stint on Netflix's "The Crown," does wonderful work here as Sawyer. She plays it completely straight-faced through the entirety of the film, even as it gets completely bonkers near the film's third act. This is a role that doesn't suit Foy on the outside, but once inhabiting the role, she has an incredibly palpable energy about her that, from the very first moment she comes on screen, feels like a truly fleshed out character with a human personality. Sawyer is a frustrating character, but you never once don't completely feel for her and her situation, as Foy's commitment to the horror of the film is present in all her violent intensity. You sometimes are frustrated with her decisions and behavior, but you're more frustrated with the way in which she's treated and discarded within the walls of the hospital.
Supporting characters, while all beneath the shadow of Foy, all do wonderful work as well. Amy Irving, finally back on the big screen, does wonderful, if sometimes wasted work as Sawyer's mother, Angela. SNL alum Jay Pharaoh does some wonderfully charming work as Nate, Sawyer's one friend on the inside, aware and compassionate of her situation. Juno Temple delivers an always interesting performance as Violet, the volatile patient in the hospital constantly trying to antagonize Sawyer. But it's Leonard as Sawyer's stalker that really takes the cake next to Foy here. This is a truly unnerving performance that hits the true nail into the disturbing nature that comes with a lot of white male entitlement to women's bodies.
In fact, "Unsane" hits on a lot of topics that often go unspoken in women's lives that need to be brought up. Sawyer is constantly ignored and belittled by the medical staff in the hospital, in much of the same way that women are incongruently ignored and belittled in their own doctor's offices. They're expected to watch their words to prevent unwanted attention from men, rather than to teach men not to expect anything from women just because they might give you attention. "Unsane" is a surprisingly feminist film that really gives Foy the power come the third act to overturn all the expectations that were placed on her simply because she was told to by some sort of professional, and how that sometimes to save not only your life, but the lives around you, one might have to make some unethical sacrifices to do so.
"Unsane" also takes a look inside the practices many for-profit medical businesses take in ensuring their success as a business first, before that of an ethical medical facility. That's not to necessarily say that all of the nurses and orderlies within the hospital are evil by any means, as they all simply have a job to do, but the look inside the higher ups at the hospital paint a different picture that's an interesting take to place on film.
But let's not get anything twisted here, "Unsane" is basically a B-movie. It's schlocky, sometimes cheesy, pretty damn implausible and absolutely bonkers, which actually makes this film super fun to watch. The performances might be stellar, but the film itself, however uneasy and frightening it may be, must be taken with a grain of salt as a truly out-there genre film that doesn't seek to be taken seriously, only its themes. Soderbergh knows this and embraces it, checking off "B horror film" from his laundry list of genres he wishes to add to his filmography. This is another point where the iPhone photography actually helps out, as the movement and freedom of the small camera gives Soderbergh the opportunity to manipulate the image in a way where the tone of the film meshes more with the video quality of the film itself.
"Unsane" is insane. It's a film that I had to think about quite a bit in deciding my place on it. It's not perfect, but it's an incredibly interesting, and I'd say successful, turn for Soderbergh as a filmmaker and another inspiration for aspiring filmmakers to get behind the camera of their own film simply by picking up their phones, albeit with sound equipment, grips and lenses. Still, the film itself doesn't rely squarely on its iPhone gimmick to get its story across. This is an unnerving, often terrifying, occasionally frustrating and entirely effective thriller, with Foy giving an absolutely fabulous performance of no compare with an actress in her generation today. I think the thing about "Unsane" that made me question it was not in its quality, but in that it affected me differently than a normal film a "safer" director would've made from the screenplay. This is a film that you've never really seen before, even if it doesn't twist and turn in impossible ways, even in its more familiar elements, "Unsane" is brand new.
Photo courtesy of Bleecker Street
Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Claire Foy, Joshua Leonard, Jay Pharaoh, Juno Temple, Aimee Mullins, and Amy Irving.
Rating: R for disturbing behavior, violence, language and sex references.
Fingerprint Releasing and Regency Enterprises present, in association with Bleecker Street, an Extension 765/New Regency production, "Unsane"
Hunter Heilman
Hunter is the current editor-in-chief for The Niner Times. He is a senior Communications major who wishes he were a dog and wants to pet your dog if you have one. Hunter has been a member of the North Carolina Film Critics Association (NCFCA) since August 2015. Hunter has been the editor-in-chief since May 2016. Please do not hesitate to shoot him an e-mail at editor@ninertimes.com for any questions or concerns and he'll be sure to get back to you ASAP.
TV REVIEW: 'Fear the Walking Dead' – 'The End of Everything'
TV REVIEW: 'Fear the Walking Dead' – 'Skidmark'
TV REVIEW: 'Fear the Walking Dead' – 'Humbug's Gulch'
Concert Preview: Vampire Weekend

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Five quick takeaways from Seahawks 33, Falcons 10
By John Boyle
Sunday, November 10, 2013 2:38pm
SportsFootballSeahawksSeattle SidelinesSports
During a conversation with K.J. Wright earlier in the week, the Seahawks linebacker talked about how every win in the NFL, no matter how ugly, was significant. Yes, the Seahawks were coming off back-to-back unimpressive victories over St. Louis and winless Tampa Bay, but at Wright noted, barely winning beats the alternative. Then Wright smiled and added, "but we want some pretty wins."
Well, K.J., what just unfolded in Atlanta, a 33-10 thrashing of the Falcons, that qualifies as a pretty win. In their most complete performance of the season, the Seahawks didn't just dominate on the road to improve to 9-1, they did so by fixing two of the deficiencies in their game that have led to closer-than-expected scores in the previous two games—a suddenly porous run defense and pass protection that has been an issue all year.
"We wanted to send the message that we're ready to step up and play at this level," Seahawks coach Pete Carroll said in his postgame press conference.
So how did the Seahawks go from winning ugly to the prettiest of road victories? Here are five reasons.
1. Even short-handed, Seattle's O-line took a big step forward
For the third time this season, the Seahawks went into a game minus three of their five starting linemen, but unlike past games when Seahawks pass protection has been something of an oxymoron, Seattle's line gave Russell Wilson plenty of time to pass, and it showed in an incredibly efficient day for Wilson that saw him complete 19 of 26 passes for 287 yards and two touchdowns. That's an average of just over 11 yards per pass attempt, an absurd number in the NFL.
The Seahawks allowed only one sack Sunday—and Wilson should have thrown that one away—and more importantly, only three quarterback hits. Wilson wasn't sacked last week, but that was a rather misleading stat, as he took more hard hits than he had all year.
The improved pass protection was a group effort, but Alvin Bailey deserves a mention for playing well in an increased role, playing both LT and also filling in at RG when J.R. Sweezy appeared to be momentarily banged up.
The run blocking, already solid, looked good again, paving the way to season-high 145 yards by Marshawn Lynch.
2. What run defense problems?
After giving up 405 rushing yards in the past two weeks, Seattle's run D was obviously a big topic of conversation this week, and the Seahawks clearly cleaned things up. Granted, it was against a rushing attack that ranked 32nd in the NFL, but holding Stephen Jackson to 11 yards on 9 carries, and the Falcons to 64 rushing yards, showed that Seattle's run defense fixed some of its issues.
The aforementioned Wright played a big role in that, especially early with four first-quarter tackles. Bobby Wagner, who hasn't quite looked himself since returning from an ankle injury, took a step forward as well, and finished with a team-high nine tackles.
3. Even without Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin, the Seahawks have playmakers at receiver
I've heard a few people say this season that the Seahawks offense isn't explosive. That's just not true; they've actually been among the league leaders all year in explosive plays. What the offense has been is inconsistent, but on a day when everything was clicking, the Seahawks were both consistent and explosive, leading to a season-high 490-yard day. The Seahawks punted only twice Sunday, and scored on seven of their first eight possessions. In addition to improved line play and another impressive day by Wilson, Seattle's receivers deserve a ton of credit too for Seattle's offensive output.
The Seahawks had seven plays of 20 or more yards, including three of 40 or more, six of which were pass plays. Oh, and that didn't included Golden Tate's absurd one-handed touchdown at the end of the first half.
Tate led the way with 106 yards on six catches—he also had 55 yards on three punt returns—Doug Baldwin had 76 on five catches, and Jermaine Kearse, the man whose role increased significantly with Rice out, took advantage of his chances, gaining 75 yards on just three catches, including a 43-yard touchdown on a trick play that saw Marshawn Lynch take a pitch, then throw a backwards pass back to Wilson, who fired a deep ball to Kearse.
4. You knew this already, but a reminder that the Seahawks are loaded at CB
For most teams, losing a Pro Bowl cornerback like Brandon Browner could be a recipe for disaster. For the Seahawks it was a minor inconvenience. Seriously, how often after Browner went out with a groin injury did you find yourself thinking, "Boy, they're really missing BB right now?" Now that's not to say Browner doesn't make the Seahawks defense better—they are better off with him—but rather to point out how strong Seattle's depth is behind Browner. As was the case when Browner was out at the beginning of the season with a hamstring injury, Walter Thurmond took on a starting role, and like Browner, played a physical brand of cornerback that saw him make several big open-field tackles. Thurmond also forced and recovered a fumble to negate one of the Falcons rare big plays in the passing game. Byron Maxwell was also solid coming on when Seattle was in its nickel defense; even Atlanta's touchdown with Maxwell in coverage saw him get a hand on the ball.
"We've got a lot of depth, we've got a lot of great corners," Richard Sherman told Q-13 Fox after the game. "Walter Thurmond is a great starting corner, so we'll be fine."
5. Seattle's road issues no longer an issue
Inevitably, you're bound to hear somebody who hasn't been paying attention say the Seahawks are a great team at home, but one that struggles on the road, especially when traveling east. And when you hear that, tell that person that he/she is very uninformed. It used to be true that the Seahawks struggled away from home, but Sunday's win was a good reminder that that simply isn't the case any more. Going back to last season, the Seahawks are 7-1 on the road in the regular season, including a 4-1 record in 10 a.m. PT games. Seattle's five road wins this season matches a franchise best, and the Seahawks have two more chances to improve on that total.
Are the Seahawks better at home? Sure, but what NFL team isn't. What the Seahawks have become, however, is a team capable of playing well in any time zone.
Seahawks march through Atlanta, beat Falcons 33-10
Taiwan's Lu wins Mizuno Classic


text:
Q: Searching multiple MXDs and identifying which have graphics elements using ArcPy How would I go about identifying all the mxd files that have graphics?
I reckon it's close to:
import arcpy
import os

srcPath = "my_path"

mxd_lst = [f for f in os.listdir(srcPath) if f.endswith('.mxd')]

for mxd in mxd_lst:
    for dfrm in arcpy.mapping.ListDataFrames(mxd):

        if "GRAPHIC_ELEMENT" in dfrm != None:  # *I'm making this line up*
            print(mxd + " has graphic elements")

        else:
            print(mxd + " does not contain graphics")

A: arcpy.mapping.ListLayoutElements is what you need. See the docs for more info on other element types (e.g. text-elements)
I modified your code slightly.
import arcpy
import os

srcPath = r"\\somePath\to\MapFiles"

mxd_lst = [os.path.join(srcPath, f) for f in os.listdir(srcPath) if f.lower().endswith('.mxd')]

mxds_with_graphicElms = []
for mxdPath in mxd_lst:
    mxd = arcpy.mapping.MapDocument(mxdPath)
    graphicElms = arcpy.mapping.ListLayoutElements(mxd, "GRAPHIC_ELEMENT", "*")
    if graphicElms:
        mxds_with_graphicElms.append(mxdPath)
        print(mxdPath + " has graphic elements")

print (str(mxds_with_graphicElms))

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


US ports are currently facing gridlock traffic as the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association which represents shipping lines has failed to reach an agreement in contract negations with an impending shut down only days away.
Some wine producers have been planning accordingly and increased shipments months ago in anticipation of the problems. According to the global wine and grape broker Ciatti's most recent monthly report, Chile, which had its own port strike at the begin of 2014 increased shipments of wine in April 2014 ahead of problems in the US.
"The port strikes during the first couple of months in 2014 slowed exports and decreased sales significantly. This situation dramatically changed in April due to the forecasted west port strike in the US, which increased shipments for a period of time," the report said.
The two parties have had contract discussions over the past nine months but have not been able to reach an agreement.
In response the ILWU implemented 'go-slow' tactics beginning in late October. At some ports such as the Long Beach and Los Angeles port, the ILWU has cut the number of dispatched daily skilled yard operators by two thirds. The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports are responsible for 40% of all US container traffic.
Federal mediators joined the negotiations in December after seven months of talks. The ILWU workers have been working without a contract since the middle of last year.
Congestion has reached a point that the PMA could impose a lockout on workers in the next five to 10 days. It is estimated by the National Retail Federation that such shut down could cost the US billions of dollars daily.
It was estimated that a 5 day lockout would reduce the gross domestic product by US$1.9 billion per day, a 10-day lockout would cost US$2.1 billion per day and a 20 day lock out could run as high as US$2.5 billion per day, according to the Financial Times.
The last lockout occurred in 2002 and lasted 10 days, however the ramifications of the port closures had implications for months afterwards.
There is so much congestion in West Coast ports, those shipping goods have resorted to air freight, which is significantly more expensive.


text:
Q: Что такое матрица в программировании и зачем она нужна? Что такое матрица в программировании и зачем она нужна? (в математике я тоже не знаю зачем она)
А наткнулся я это слово когда читал о NumPy(модуль python)


Add a few drops of your favourite gun oil and your gun's ready for storage.
Dewey offer three basic types of brushes: Bronze, Nylon and Copper Eliminator. Beware of brushes with steel core wire going through the centre of the brush, especially if the wire is snipped off at the top of the brush, leaving sharp edges. These can often harm a chamber or throat if not correctly centered. All Dewey brushes feature a no-harm core. Their benchrest brushes are made with brass or aluminum core wire that is fashioned into a loop at the top.
Dewey Bronze Brushes feature a brass wire core with bronze bristles and are used for your everyday cleaning.
These Copper Eliminator Brushes feature an aluminum wire core with nylon bristles. These are designed for the harshest bore and copper solvents. They eliminate false copper readings when used with ammonia based solvents.
These brushes are made from a bronze material with a brass core that provides you with incredible durability. The brush offers 5/16-27 threads for superior versatility and will attach to most American cleaning rods.
A brass core brush holds the bristles tighter resulting in a longer lasting, better cleaning brush. The bronze bristles add to that strength in cleaning and longer brush life.
Filled with over-sized bronze bristles that are larger than standard with more bristles per inch. This allows for a tighter fitting, longer lasting brush. The ends of these pistol, rifle, and shotgun brushes are looped unlike other brushes with exposed sharp cut edges. A looped end keeps the core intact longer and eliminates the risk of damage to the bore, action, or firing pin. The brass coupling has precision threads to keep the brush screwed in for all the passes needed to clean the firearm.


text:
The Odysseum: Larry 'Lawnchair' Walters (1949-1993)
Fresh from our third book The Odysseum – meet Larry Walters, the truck-driver who flew away on his own lawn chair.
flickr/BrandonWalts
What do you do if your life's ambition – to become a pilot with the US Air Force – gets shot down by poor eyesight? If you're Larry Walters, you take matters into your own hands. In 1982 the California truck-driver, unperturbed by the stringent recruitment standards of the USAF, decided to take to the air in his own unique way: by attaching a large cluster of weather balloons to a lawn chair.
First, Larry and his girlfriend forged a requisition slip from his employer, Filmfair Studios, enabling them to purchase the 45 8-foot (2.4 m) weather balloons by saying they were to be used in a commercial. They then set about inflating the balloons and attaching them to Larry's patio chair. He put on a parachute, strapped himself in and took off, carrying with him only the absolute essentials – a pellet gun (to shoot balloons if he went too high), a CB radio, a camera, sandwiches and, most essential
of all, a four-pack of beer.
The plan was to float 30 feet (9 m) above the Mojave Desert for a few hours, then effect a pleasant and gradual descent. To Larry's horror, however, the chair rose from his yard in San Pedro much faster than expected – he was eventually to reach a maximum altitude of 15,000 feet (4,600 m) – and was soon drifting over Los Angeles and into the primary approach corridor for Long Beach Airport, where he was spotted by several commercial airliners.
By this point, Larry had achieved his primary aim – to fly – but now faced the problem of how not to fly. Floating in LA airspace was not, he knew, going to make him very popular. Initially, though, he was too scared to shoot any of the balloons in case he unbalanced and fell from his madcap contraption. He tried getting in touch with REACT – a citizen's band radio monitoring organisation. As he put it to them:
'… the difficulty is, ah, this was an unauthorised balloon launch and, uh, I'm sure my ground crew has alerted the proper authority. But, uh, just call them and tell them I'm okay.'
After 45 minutes of literally hanging around, he eventually plucked up the courage to shoot a few balloons – just before the gun went overboard. Fortunately, the cull, as far as it went, proved sufficient to get him moving in the right direction. The slow descent concluded among power cables, blacking out an entire Long Beach neighbourhood for 20 minutes.
Upon picking him up, the Long Beach Police Department made a decisive statement: 'We know he broke some part of the Federal Aviation Act, and as soon as we decide which part it is, some type of charge will be filed.' Walters was eventually charged with 'operating a civil aircraft within an airport traffic area without establishing and maintaining 2-way communications with the control tower'. He was fined $4,000 – but his pilot's licence couldn't be suspended, since he didn't have one.
Having achieved his dream, Larry spent a short period as a motivational speaker and appeared on both The David Letterman Show and The Late Show. Eventually, however, he went back to a simple life – working for the United States Forest Service and as a security guard. He died in 1993, but will always be remembered as 'Lawnchair Larry', inspiring a song, various copycat flights and the 2003 Australian film Danny Deckchair, starring Rhys Ifans.
Larry was by no means the only weather balloon pilot – there have been many cases of people putting thin bits of rubber between themselves and an unpleasant meeting with terra firma. One such case was the Brazilian priest Father Adelir Antônia de Carli, whose 2008 foray into the atmosphere left him both wet and headless.
Seemingly well prepared – he was an experienced skydiver, and he'd trained extensively in survival skills prior to his launch – there was one huge gap in his safety plan, quickly exposed when he caught a breeze and got blown out across the Atlantic. While floating over the ocean, he rang the authorities from his mobile phone to ask someone to explain how his GPS equipment worked. Not long after that he lost contact entirely. A few months later, some of his balloons, along with the lower half
of his body, were found floating in the sea.
On a happier note, Tom Morgan – a member of the Bristol-based League of Adventurists, reached a height of 8,000 feet (2,438 m) in October 2017 by tying 100 helium balloons to a camping chair and flying over the Sahara. He returned to Earth safe, dry and with all parts of his body intact.
Words: Jen Rowe
The Odysseum is available to pre-order via Amazon.
In Curious histories
← Issue eight is hereIntroducing our Third Book: The Odysseum →