Tag: Premium

by Dish Staff

Black Jesus, Aaron McGruder’s new live-action comedy show on Adult Swim set in contemporary south Los Angeles – where Jesus, played by Slink Johnson, has returned – is drawing criticism from the usual suspects. NPR’s Neda Ulaby, however, spoke with one theologian who wasn’t upset:

Yolanda Pierce of the Princeton Theological Seminary says the show raises some important theological questions. “If Jesus were to return, what would Jesus look like?” she asks. “What would Jesus do? And would we, those people who consider themselves as Christians, as I do, recognize Jesus if the historical Jesus is not the blond-haired, blue-eyed [man] of our usual stained-glass depictions?” Pierce also says that the provocative setting — a Jesus who drinks 40s, curses and smokes weed — might also reflect the reality of people who could use some ministering. “Especially people at the margins, who may be using weed or who may be drinking as a way to soften the brutality of their everyday existence,” she says. She says Jesus would preach to those whom Scripture calls “the least of these.”

Jay Parini is on the same page:

As a Christian myself, I like the idea of seeing Jesus return in various guises, skin colors, outfits and social contexts. Why not? The Jesus I know and love was something of a party animal. His first miracle was to turn water into wine at a wedding: and lots of wine was apparently drunk.

At the Last Supper, in keeping with Jewish tradition (if you regard this as a Passover feast or seder), everybody was obliged to drink four glasses of wine. In Luke 5:27-32 the Pharisees condemn Jesus and his friends for eating and drinking with “publicans and sinners.” In Matthew 11:18-19, we read that Jesus is accused of being “a drunken and a glutton, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.”

On and on, the image of Jesus and his band, which includes a fair number of women — including Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna (see Luke 8:2-3) — seems one of a merry-making group, not a pious and bedraggled or depressed conclave.

Placing Black Jesus in the context of previous religious satires, Jimmy J. Aquino compares the show to another famous depiction of Jesus:

The uproar over Black Jesus is just the latest in an endless cycle of controversies ignited by Christian groups who immediately take offense at religion being satirized in comedic works and denounce those works as blasphemous. Will the outrage over the McGruder show last as long as the controversy surrounding Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which continues to this day? Life of Brian drew protests from Christians around the world in 1979 and ended up banned in Glasgow for 30 years. As recently as 2013, the 1979 religious satire was banned from being screened in Germany on Good Friday.

The accusations that Life of Brian is blasphemous against Christ make little sense because the Python troupe actually respected and admired Christ’s teachings and backed off depicting him comedically in any way; he’s played completely straight in the film by Kenneth Colley. In fact, Life of Brian isn’t even about Jesus, who appears in the film for about only 30 seconds and is always filmed from a distance. Instead, the film targets Jesus’ followers, and in keeping with the Python troupe’s disdain for authority and institutions, it points out the absurdities and failings of organized religion.

by Dish Staff

Brittany Driver is a legal-weed-smoking mom who uses the substance to soothe an irritated stomach. She fields some common questions about her habit:

“Does your child see you when you are stoned?”

If I’m being real here, most people see me when I’m stoned — or medicated, rather. I smoke as a natural way to settle my normally irritated tummy and to give me an appetite, which I usually just don’t have. (And it’s not a thyroid thing — I’ve checked.) I don’t smoke excessively while I’m taking care of my son. Certainly don’t infer that I’m sitting on the couch barely conscious or stoned to the point of recklessness. It is the same as taking any medication, and I always put the safety of my child first. But if I don’t smoke at all then I don’t eat. And if I don’t eat, I don’t feel well or have any energy. I know that I can’t parent that way and, luckily, I don’t have to. …

“Does it help with your parenting?”

This one is a double-edged sword.

I know marijuana helps me medically. And so when I smoke it, I shouldn’t hear a tiny voice that says, “You’re doing drugs,” “This isn’t good for your kid,” and “Go get a real job, ya hippie!” But sometimes I do. Sometimes that D.A.R.E. officer’s rhetoric in elementary school comes back to haunt me.

Because of the (unproven) stigmas drilled into my head over a lifetime, there is sometimes a feeling of guilt. It’s a guilt I know has no real legs to stand on, but even so, it pops up here and there. But I think that’s normal. A conscious parent knows that what they do affects and shapes their child. And a conscious parent is going to question their actions, hopefully often, to make sure they’re on the right path.

Does smoking a bowl help me relax and make dancing with my son a little more fun? Sure, it does. But that’s not why I’m doing it. I could have fun with my guy even if all the cannabis in the world was eradicated. (Truth, but please no.) I smoke because I need to, and my son is better off having a mommy who is stoned and eating and living life than a mommy who is wasting away. Just sayin’.

by Dish Staff

This embed is invalid

In May, we featured the poetry of Spencer Reece, who worked at Brooks Brothers clothing store for nearly a decade before his first collection of poems won The Bakeless Prize and subsequently was published as The Clerk’s Tale. The title poem from that volume begins this way:

I am thirty-three and working in an expensive clothier,
selling suits to men I call “Sir.”
These men are muscled, groomed and cropped–
with wives and families that grow exponentially.
Mostly I talk of rep ties and bow ties,
of full-Windsor knots and half-Windsor knots,
of tattersall, French cuff, and English spread collars,
of foulards, neats, and internationals,
of pincord, houndstooth, nailhead, and sharkskin.
I often wear a blue pin-striped suit.
My hair recedes and is going gray at the temples.

James Franco recently released a short film, seen above, that’s based on the poem. In an interview about the project, Franco reveals what he was trying to convey:

Despite this lack of explicit dramatic action, there is a deep despair and intensity underneath the surface of the poem.

But it is also difficult to trace that effect down to any single line—it’s more of a cumulative effect. That’s what I wanted to achieve in the film: a seemingly mundane atmosphere that will accumulate into a sense of weight and depth.

As far as the look of the film, I was very influenced by the cover of Spencer’s book, which is a Sergeant painting of a young man. I thought that it had the right qualities of stasis, sorrow, and depth. I looked to the Dardenne brothers for their fluid shooting and blocking style, although I eventually broke this up by using a very powerful zoom lens. In the opening scene, I played out a full scene of the Clerk fitting a customer. This scene was inspired by the section of the poem that describes the interaction with the straight and married customers. I didn’t want the dialogue to address these issues too directly—instead I wanted to feel the tension through behavior and shot composition.

All that happens in the scene is a man buys a suit, but the shifting focus and size of the frame makes it feel like something bigger is happening. The fluidness of the dolly combined with the rough feeling of the zooms and the shifting focus contrast and blend with each other in the same way that I wanted the material and staid surface to contrast with the depth of the character’s feelings.

by Phoebe Maltz Bovy

So many contenders for the Zoolander Award for fashion absurdity!

One reader nominates “The Kanye West $120 plain white t-shirt. Not absurd for the look but for the price and claiming it is somehow ‘fashion’. Not sure there is a better example of how much of a con the industry can be at times.”

This has potential. The only problem is the one the reader notes, namely that the shirt itself is inoffensive:

https://twitter.com/WayUpHere/status/361213679905157120

Another reader nominates some boat shoes that look as if oil – specifically, BP oil – had spilled on them. This does visually prefigure the mud shoe, but because the proceeds apparently went to charity, it seems somehow wrong to give it the Award. And yet, boat shoes (said as someone who does, in fact, own a pair). The preppy-filthy combination does have a whiff of Derelicte about it.

But I think we have our winner:

From a swanky lingerie shop in NY:

Because we all need $525 Mickey Mouse ears.  Because they’re sexy? Ummm…

What did it for me was the e-commerce site’s product description:

Fantasy-inspired couture headpieces made by hand in New York City by milliner Heather Huey. Custom sizing available upon request.

• Hand-wrapped vinyl wire headband
• Vinyl covered fur felt mouse ears
• One size

“Vinyl covered fur felt mouse ears,” for $525. Yes.

by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Should the U.S. Food and Drug Administration inch closer to Europe’s drug approval model, in which certified, independent bodies can (and compete to) review new products? A Dish reader says, hey, it worked for the Federal Communications Commission:

The European system you describe has been in place for more than 15 years for much of the equipment that’s approved by the FCC.  Those of us who worked in the field at the time wondered if it really would be as reliable as the system the FCC used before, which required applications that were reviewed by the FCC and had to be approved before the equipment would be sold.  In practice, though, this system works much better than the old way – products come to market faster, the process is quicker and cheaper and, most important, there’s no evidence that there’s any more cheating than their used to be.  The FCC also has, as suggested, agreed that testing that meets European requirements also is good in the U.S., saving companies the trouble of re-testing equipment they know is compliant.  It’s a model the FDA definitely should consider.

Another Dish reader is more skeptical—but offers his own FDA improvement plan:

I’m the Director of Engineering at a small medical device company… While the European method of getting device/drug approval does seem attractive, I just wanted to clarify that the FDA does have an “independent reviewer” option that allows third party organizations that are certified by the FDA to perform the review for market clearance for many types of devices. The Catch-22 here is that the third party reviewers, while generally being more efficient than direct FDA review, are very expensive, certainly more expensive than a standard FDA 510(k) fee ($5,100 per device). So do we move to more third party review to expedite device approvals, and make medical device development more expensive, or do we bolster the FDA staff so review can be faster there?

One way the FDA could become more efficient is if they took a more libertarian approach to approval. Right now, a device/drug has to be proven “safe and effective” to get pre-market clearance. Why not have the FDA only concern itself with the “safe” part and let the market take care of the “effective” part? If a device or drug is ineffective, no one will buy it. That radically simplifies clinical trials as well, lowering the requirements for FDA approval while maintaining the safety of patients.

But another reader takes issue with the idea that Europe’s drug approval process is something to emulate:

I actually work in drug discovery and am currently working on a filing. But I don’t know where this animus is really coming from in terms of approval times. Consider this paper from the New England Journal of Medicine. In it they analyze the drug approval times for the FDA, the (European Medicines Agency) and Health Canada. There are a lot of statistics and different ways to look at the data, but these are the main conclusions:

For novel therapeutic agents approved between 2001 and 2010, the FDA reviewed applications involving novel therapeutics more quickly, on average, than did the EMA or Health Canada, and the vast majority of these new therapeutic agents were first approved for use in the United States.

In that study, a total of 289 unique novel therapeutic agents were approved, including 190 that earned approval in both the U.S. and Europe. Of this group, about 64 percent were first approved in the United States. Some 154 agents were approved in both Canada and the U.S., with us first 86 percent of the time.

The same reader points to another study, this one comparing the EMA, FDA and Japan’s Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA):

If you look at the first figure you’ll see the median values for the FDA are the best over the entire period. There is some variability, but I think that’s because of a couple outliers. Drugs are also generally submitted to the FDA first. So even thought submissions are completed by the FDA faster, the other agencies have more information from the drugs approved/being processed in the US.

I must say, all of the data I’ve seen says the FDA is doing a decent job in terms of approval times.

The researchers behind the New England Journal of Medicine paper, published in 2012, may provide some insight into mixed perceptions of the FDA’s approval process. Writing in Forbes, Joseph Ross and Nicholas Downing tease out some nuances in their findings:

… there was much more variation in time to approval among applications to the FDA. More than half of approvals were complete within one year, but there were many examples of the FDA requiring 800, 1000, even 1200 total days before approval. For instance, the well-known anti-cancer drugs Sanofi‘s Eloxatin and Novartis‘ Gleevec were both approved in less than 80 days, however it took more than 10 years from initial submission to approval for Sabril, and (sic) anti-seizure medication, and Asclera, a sclerosing agent to treat varicose veins.

A lot of the variation in FDA time to approval can be attributed to whether one or more cycles of review were required. Among the 62% of applications the FDA approved after a single review, the median time to approval was 278 days. In contrast, the median time to approval was 765 days among the 38% of applications that required multiple cycles of review.

Interestingly, applications within the hematology, oncology, and immune-modulating and anti-infective therapeutic classes were most likely to receive FDA approval after a single review. Applications within the musculoskeletal and pain and psychiatry and central nervous system therapeutic classes were most likely to require multiple cycles of review.

Okay, but can we all agree the FDA needs to hurry it up on the sunscreen already?