I literally cried while reading a piece in Deadspin because it is correct:
Some hours have passed; my sons are now sitting next to each other on the couch, watching a movie on TV and muttering conspiratorially in their little gremlin voices about what they are seeing and drinking juice boxes I will later find on the floor next to the trash can. Before I became a parent, I sometimes felt bad about all the time I spent doing pretty much exactly this with my brother when we were kids: I wished I’d been motivated—or that someone had motivated me—to spend my time learning useful things, practicing valuable skills, acquiring discipline and applying myself toward a more successful and accomplished future. Toward competing and triumphing. That is stupid. No one has ever accomplished anything more worth having than the moments little kids steal away from the big grown-up world, together; when they wall out all of our sad hypocrisies and fucked-up values and grotesque striving, illuminate a little world for each other, and fill it with their easy goodwill and eagerness to participate.
Yes, I will read a whole thing about Jello salad, thank you:
While Jell-O products are still very popular as snacks and desserts, the Jell-O salad—particularly in its savory forms—fell from culinary favor by the early 1980s. Though you’ll still find it in church basements across America, today you’re just as likely to find Jell-O salads on blogs like the Gallery of Regrettable Food. What makes the Jell-O salad such an icon of its time? Shaped by the rise of home economics, the industrialization of the food system, World War II, and changing expectations about women’s labor, few foods can tell us more about life in 20th century America than the wobbling jewel of domestic achievement: the Jell-O salad.
your now-unemployed boyfriend is a dipshit, and Ask a Manager knows it:
My boyfriend decided to tell his job that he was having a medical procedure done and that it was medically necessary for him to have those days off. He presented a fake doctor’s note and they agreed to let him take the time off. He goes to Cuba for a week, and upon his return, they request a note stating that he’s medically ok to come back to work. From what he told me, his boss and manager were both very skeptical of his story for a few of reasons, but they couldn’t prove anything initially.
The pitfalls of throwing money badly at the wrong things with good intentions:
It’s not just the site of the Make It Right houses that some object to, but the money Pitt’s project spent to build them—an amount similar relief organizations in New Orleans can only dream of raising.
“It’s just not a great solution to affordable housing issues,” says Laura Paul of lowernine.org, which marshals volunteer labor and donations to help former residents rehabilitate their homes. “If I had $40 million, I could run my organization, at its current capacity, for 170 years. If you do the math, it’s sort of like, we’ve rebuilt 60 homes in the neighborhood. We don’t do Platinum LEED certified, Frank Gehry has not designed a single house for us and never will, but we put 60 families back in their homes.” (Paul’s non-profit it took in $1.25 million between 2007 and 2010, the latest year for which documents are available.)
This is an article about junk science putting serial rapists back on the streets, so just decide if you’re feeling that this morning:
What is the basis of Dr. Plaud’s “scientific reasoning” that he uses to determine the recidivism of sex offenders? It’s called “actuarial diagnosis” (as opposed to clinical diagnosis). It’s a scoring system based on several questions and answers that gathers past information about the offender, to establish the risk of recidivism. Many have dismissed this methodology as dubious, including the judge presiding over the case of Jeffrey Shields, who said, “I afforded [actuarial diagnosis] little weight in my final analysis,” after reviewing Plaud’s methods.
Nine truly incredible breakfast hacks to transform your morning.
Can my art historians and museum folk (I KNOW you’re reading) please tell me their take on this piece?:
True’s trial, covered with great fanfare at its start, fizzled out quietly.
“I understand why the Italians did what they did,” said True, 66, in one of a series of interviews in Newburyport, where she maintains a modest, third-floor walkup so she can visit her 91-year-old mother. “It was very clever, and it was very mean, but at least I understand why. What I never understood is why American museums did what they did. And my colleagues and my bosses never, ever stood up for me. They acted as if I had done all this stuff on my own, which would have been impossible to do. They just vanished.”
Former Getty director John Walsh, reached this summer, said that he gave a deposition explaining why True, as a curator, should not have been held responsible for Getty acquisitions. Those purchases were made by the museum’s administrators and board. But his private defense offered little solace to True. As she notes, the Getty did little to support her publicly.
My friend Carrie’s new puppy is excited:
*
Deleted comment of the day:
